Honorable George H. Sheppard 

Comptroller of Public Accounts 

AustLn, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-3700 

Re : Whether a speolalleed motor 

carrier license under House 

Bill 351, 47th Legislature, 

is liable for the intangible 

assets tax levied by Article 

;3&H~use Bill 8, 47th Legisor the gross receipts 

tax le&.ed in Article 14 of 

said House Bill 8. 

In your letter of June 17, 1941, you request 

our opinion as to whether a carrier holding a certificate 

Issued under authority of House Bill No. 351, Forty-seventh 

Legislature, is liable for the intangible assets tax levied 

by Article .XIXI of House Bill 8 of the Forty-seventh Legislature, or the gross receipts tax levied 'by Article XIV of 

House Bill 8. 

By the express terms of said Artiole XIV 

carriers who are required to pay an intangible assets tax 

under the laws of this state are exempted from the provisions of Artiole XIV requiring payment of a gross receipts tax. Hence we are immediately confronted with the 

question as to whether a specialized motor oarrier operating under a certificate granted by the Railroad Commission 

pursuant to House Bill 351 is required to pay the Intangible 

assets tax levied by Article XIII. In the last mentioned 

article it is provided that each common carrier motor 

carrier operating under a certificate of convenience and 

necessity issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas, doing 

business wholly or in part within this state, and every 

other individual, company, corporation or association doing 

business of the same character in this State, in addition 

to the ad valorem taxes on tangible properties which are or 

may be lmposed,upon them respectively by law shall pago= 

annual tax on their intangible assets and property. 

the specialized motor carrier oome within the definition of 
_- 

Honorable George H. Sheppard, Page 2, O-3700 

those affected by Article XIII? In our opinion, It does. 

A reading of House Bill No. 351, Forty-seventh Legislature, 

shows clearly that one operating under a certificate issued 

by authority of that Act will be engaging in the business of 

a limited common carrier, that Is he will be a common 

carrier of certain designated commodities. The Instrument 

issued to him is frequently referred to In the Act as a 

certificate of convenience and necessity. Section 5a(a), 

Section 5a(b), Section 5a(e), Section 5a(g). As a matter 

of fact in Section 1, embodying the Legislature's declaration of policy, it Is declared to be the policy of the 

Legislature "to create a class of common carrier motor 

carriers designated as specialized motor carriers to engage 

in the business of transporting" certain properties. Our 

opinion is that such carriers should be required to pay the 

intangible assets tax levied by Article XIII but that they 

should be exempted from the gross receipts tax levied in 

Article XIV. 

Presumably all such carriers will pay the 

intangible assets tax. We are not now confronted with the 

question of whether a specialized carrier which for some 

reason is actually not required to pay an intangible assets 

tax would be liable for the gross receipts tax, and we prefer 

not to attempt to answer that question until the taxing 

authorities are confronted with It. 

APPROVED JULY 11, 1941 

s/ Grover Sellers 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

GRL:LM/cg 

Approved Opinion Committee 

By BWB, Chairman 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

s/ Glenn R. Lewis 

BY Glenn R. Lewis 

Assistant