136 

/ . 0wlcE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 0F TEXAS 

. ., 

;. _~ 

‘I 

AUSTIN , u 

: Hr. c. J. iYllde 

Couuty Auditor 

Corpus Christi, TeAa& 

~‘ . . 

Dear Mr. Kilde: 

; $ ./‘,. 

..~ . You requeet’ the 0 

$: .letter of .September 22, 194 

:_~ quote your letter as follow 

to the status 

ing companlee 

Nueaeea Couqt 

ou ~advise us a8 

taxes for truckoperating in 

uation wherein. .’ 

ny; which is 

d Company, op- 

-Nueces County exoluslvely, 

ed .by the railroad comlso pioking up deliveries 

nea of %Nueces County. 

red .for personal proper-ty ‘. 

alorem tax in Nueaes 

tuation is the. various automobilas 

beings operated by the Central Power 

. ,’ In thie case, there are a number 

or vehicles’ throughout ‘several COWLAre.we to coneider only the 

ng in Nueoes County,,or, shall we 

consider all vehicles as being. aseeasab&e in Nueoee 

Comty? Another iriatanoe, ia the Transport Company 

of Texa8 whioh owns and operates a number of gasoline 

trucks oarryiny, gasoline to ,mny of.the Army and.Navy 

Camps throughout the oouhty, said oompauy being do-- 

mioiled in Hueoes County.~" 

.* 
: Replying to our request for additional information, 

you stated in your letter of October 14, 1943: 

. _-. 

“Referring to your letter of September 30th, 

Re: Opinion Request No. O-5632, please be advised 

that the Transport Company of Texas is domioiled in 

Muecea Ccuuty; the Southern Pacifio Transport Compsuy, X aaaune+,i’a donioiled in Houston as it ia a 

subsidiary of the Southern Pacifio Railroad Couhty,~ 1 

~however, thetrucks used by this conoern are houaed 

and used entirely, to the beat of ‘my knowledge, in 

Nuecea Couuty naking dellverlea of freight shipped 

.over the Southern Paoifio Lines. I, also, ,believe 

that all thr6e oompeniea are oorporetIona.* 

We deem it desirable to treat these:corporatlons 

!C:, separately. ?la, therefore, take ‘up the Southeyii Pacific TtianaF<, port Cotipany f irat t 

SOUT%RN PACIFIC TRAKSPORT COXPAhY 

. . c$T,n 

;;r;: 

p: ~. 

F#.i ‘. The records in the office of the Secretary of State 

${. reveal that the Southern Paolfio Transport Oompahy is a Texas 

?p odr 

%.;. ih r 

ration, donioiled in Harris Couuty, for the purpose stated 

ta: Charter: “to tranaport goods‘ wares and nerohandiae, 

5% or any.~vsluable thing.” It is apparent that the Southern Pa- 

~‘clfio Transport Compaxiy la riot a railroad conpanyi even though- 

$ it my be affiliated with the southern Paoifio Railroad Company, 

;;; henoe it la of .no aIdi but would only serve to oonfuae if we, 

F.,, ahould att,empt to apply the Conat1tutional and Statutory pro- 

&-.viaiona ap lloable to the organization, operation,~ and taxa- 

;, tion,of ra P lroad oornpanlea in an itfrort to arrive at a oorreot 

:.- answer to your queatiofii We shall revert to this later merely 

:t- for the purpose of distinguishing the railroad oases from the 

I:::~, truok and bus oases, ;‘I 

It is observed that your opinion request aasmos as 

a fact, add we must as of neoesalty asauae the aamc state of 

Saota that the Southern Paoifio Transport Company *operates 

: ~.~ a truok or truoka, in Mecca Couuty excluaivele receiving 

the material shipped by the railroad company, &king deliveries 

and also picking up deliveries for a transfer within the oonfines of 14uec;ls County.” This addtted state of fects fixes 

,, a business situs as to the truoks inquired obout in Kueoea 
. , 

County, as distinguished from the home office or domicile 

of the corporation in Harris County. 

As an abstract proposition of law, personal 

property is taxable at the domicile of the owner, but where 

the owner by h,ia own voluntary tact fixes a definite and 

permanent aitus of personal property owned by him for 

business purposes in another oounty other than his residence 

or domicile, and we think that the 3outhern Pacifio Transport 

‘Company has done that in this instance, thus aubjeotlng said 

trucks to ad valorem taxes by Nueoea County. This rule is 

vory well stated in tha case of John Rancook ~~utual Life 

Inauranoe Co. v. Davis, (writ? of error denied) 162 S. W. (2d) 

433, in the following language: 

‘We overrule appellants osaignmenta of error 

numbered 1, 8, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38 and 39, bottomed on 

the propoa,ition that notes and other personal property 

are legally taxable only at the domicile of the owner. 

This is a correot statement of an abstract proposition 

of law; but we fail to see how the same 1s here involved, 

The notes have never been taxed in the State of Texas, 

and no attempt is shown to have been made to tax the 

3-9 The owner of the notes, at its ontioh oould 

establish a situs for taxation of the notes n Waoo. 

MoLennen County, in whioh event the makers of the notes, 

by reason of the above quoted provisions of said deeds 

of trust, would be obligeteU to pay the’taxea assessed 

against the same.” 

The Constitution of Texas, Article 8, Seotlon 11 

provides as follows: 

“All property, whether oyned by pereona or oorporations, shall be assessed for taxation, and the taxes paid 

in the oountica where situated. . ,” 

.Artiole 7153 of Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes 

of 1925 provides as follows: 

“All property, real and personal, except auoh es 

is required to be listed and assessed otherwise, shall 

be listed and assessed in the oounty where it is situated; 
and all persons1 property, subject to taxation and 

temporarily removed from tho State or oounty, shall 

be listed and assessed in the oounty of the residenoe 

of the owner theroof, or in the county whero the 

principal office of suoh owner is <uated.” 

The truoks referred to in your letter are obviously 

tangible personal property. 

We think the rule has been well settled in this 

State ns to the oounty In which tangible personal propertjr 

is subject to tsxntion. It is stated as olearly in our 

opinion No. G-3702, from whfoh we quotd,as follows, as we 

shall be able to restate it: 

“The rule or law appllaable in Texas is, therefore, 

thab tangible personal property is taxable in the oounty 

of Bhe domialle of the owder Unless the property has 

acquired a permanent fixed situs of Its own separate 

and apart from that of the,aounty of the owner’s domialle. Mere temporary absenoe from the aounty of the 

owner’s aomlolle does not give tangible personal property 

a taxable situs In another oounty end remove it from 

taxation in suah county of the owner’p domicile. : . . 

*However, in e aase where taxglble personal property 

does aoquire a permanent sltus in a aountg other than 

the oounty of the owner’s dcimloile in relation to the 

tar year in question such property ‘is taxable la the 

oounty where %he sane is actually looated. . . .” 

The dlatino.tlon we have made is reoognlzed in the 

6aae of Great Southern Life Insuranoe Co. v. City of Austin, 

43 S. W. 778, (Supreme Court of Texa6, opinion by Chleif 

ustloe Cureton) from which we quote as followsr 

“It Is true that the aotual situs of oertaln classes 

of visible and twible personal property, as well as 

intangible property having similar oharacteristlas, as, 

for example, money, State aa mun~oip+ bonds, airaulating 

bank notes, and shares of stock in private corporations, 

may have a situs for taxation where they are permanently 

. m separate and apart from the domloile of the owner. * 
’ . 

.&ir. C. J. I'Xlae, page 5 

Vie do not deeri it neaessary to lengthen thla 

opinion by tho citation of auuulatlve authorities, and we 

may well let It rest upon the ease of Great Southern Ll.fe 

Insurance Company v. City of Austin, supra, by that enlnent 

jurist, the late Chief Juatlae Cureton, but we note briefly 

~a few other deoisions. In the case of City of Galveston 

v. J. hi. Guffey Petroleum Company, (writ of errors refused) 

113 8. W. 585, from whioh we quote as follows: 

"The Legislature may, in oertaln lnstanoes, give 

to property an artlflolal situs for the purposes of 

taxation; but when the property is physloal in oharaater, 

or of a nature that oan aaqulre an aotual situs, it must 

under hour Constitution be taxed in the oounty where, 

aotually situated or located. The finding of the court 

Is to the effect that these vessels so taxed have an 

actual sltus at Port Arthur, in the oounty ofmson, 

and nre not and have never been wlth.ln waters looated 

wlthlu the territorial jurlsdlation of the oity,of 

Galveston. 

."That vessels may aoqulre an aotual sltus is a 

proposition too well settled to be questioned, .and 

that the place of enrollment and registration Is not 

oontrolllng, if the aotual situs 1s elsewhere. . . ~.W 

(3mphasl.s added) 

Uooley on Taxation, Vol. ~2, 4th edition, page 975, 

Fli'~~.. appears the following: ; 

"The situa of tangfble personal&W perty, 

purposes of taxation may be where the i 

for 

o ner is Uomlolled 

but is not neoessarily a. Unlike IntangIble personal 

property, it may aoqulra:a taxablesltua In the state 

other than the one where the owner is &omIailed, merely 

beoause It Is located there. Its taxable lsitus is 

where It Is more or less permanently looated. regamess 

of the domiolle of the owner.? (Emphasis added- 

- 

!7e must not be misled by the aonfusloqwhloh may 

arise by the loose language used in some of the dealsions 

with respect to the rule that prevails as to the taxation of 

rolling stook of railroads in an effort to apply an analogy 

in aonslderlng the taxability of truoks and buses ovned and 
Mr. C. J. zilae, page 6 

operated by corporations or individuals, This distinction 

is apparent, and made so by Judge Leddy in the oase of Gulf’ 

c0+aa0 k s, F. RY. CO; v! Clty~ of Dallas, 3.6 s.‘;!. (al) 

292, (Coraalsslon of. Appeals 1 in the following language, from 

which we quote: 

“The Legislature or1 inally (Aot Aug. 21 1876 

(Laws 1879, o. 157,, 0 l.9)? subjected rolling &oak of 

railway aompanias to taxation by aities and towns by 

the apportionment method, and subsequently repealed 

the same in the adoption of the Revised Statutes of 

1879, and later, by the passage of the Aot of Alaroh 28, 

1885 (Laws 1885, a. 631, expressly exempted railway 

companies from the necessity of making rendition of its 

rolling stock to Incorporated oitles and towns, We 

think suah aatlon negatives the grant of authority to 

the alty. of Dallas whloh is alaimed to exist In this 

case to tax the rolling stock of a.rallway aompanp, 

even thou& the same was situatad within the aity on 

Sanuary 1st. and so remained for a definite tine. 

“The Legislature no doubt concluded that it would 

not be tho exercise of a sound poliay to subjeat rolling 

stook of a railway company to taxation by oltles and, 

towns. along their lines because of the oonfusion whioh 

would result from efforts of different mun1alpalltles 

to determine the sibus ,of suoh property due to its 

transitory nature. While switch engines may have more 

permanenoy in thelr~ looatlon than other rolling stock, 

yet all locomotives belonging to a railway aompany 

are of neoessitg a part of its rolling stook, the 

looation of whloh Is subjeot to ,be changed from time 

to time. The aitus of so muak of rolling aboak belonging 

to railway companies was lndefl~nlte ,and unoertain that 

the Legislature was justified in olaselng It all as a 

unit for purposes of taxation, It unquestionably had 

the authority to determine the situ5 of rolling stook 

for purposes of municipal taxation. The faot that 

isolated rolling stook might in some instonoee appear 

to have a fixed location Is not sufflalent to Invalidate 

the alasslfioatlon thus made. 

*In the absenoe of .a statute defining the taxable 

situs of this property otherwisegY it was only taxable 

at the domlolle of the railway oompahy.” (Emphasis added) 
Mr. C. J. Wilde, page 7 .%, : 

. 

_i ii !.:$T,’ 

1;:: Briefly, Judge Leddy haa said: 

,: 2~ ~. “The Legislature unqueetionably had the authority \.~. Ltr to determine the altus of rolling atook Por purposes ‘1, of muniolpal taxation, but having by legislative aotion 

L!. exoepted railroad oompaniee frcm rendering any part of i: *:I” 

&- their rolling atook to lnoorporated cities or towns 

.through whloh their lines may extend, thus preoludlng 

;&c the olty of Dallas or any other munioipallty from taxing 

>Y,,’ the rolling stook of railroads. This acxoeptlon is L,~ ‘) ,.~_ ; I:: manliest by Artlole 7168, Revised Civil Statutes, whloh 

-.-,. 

::.- 

provides: 

‘I z.7 i: ~7 WIAIL personal property of whatsoover kind or ‘+: .I:‘& oharaotsr, exoept the rollinS atook belonging to the 

$,., company or in their possession in eaoh respaotlve oounty, 

listing and desorlblng the said personal property in the &i;~ 

same manner as is no# required of oltlzens of this State.‘* 

‘g&:, 

@ Aocordingly, we hold under the Taots submitted by 

?.~~ you that the truoks of the Southern Paolflo Transport Company J*,~ have aoqulrad a business situe in Nueoes County, thus subjeoting them to ad viLl.orem taxes by said oounty. 

Transport Company of Texas 

According to the reoords of the Railroad Commission, 

the above named oompany 1s lndlvldually owned and 1s domlolled 

in Nueoes County. The general oommon law rulsethat the sltus 

for taxation of personal property Is the domiolle or the owner 

,‘:... ,applles to individuals as well as oorporatlons, unless a buslness ,situs has been aoqulred elsewhere, and slnoe under the 

facts submitted the truoks of the Transport Company of’ Texas 

have not aoqulred a business situs outside of Nueoes County, 

the domiolle of the owner we aooordingly hold that, iis::totthe 

truoks of the Transport C&npany ot Texas, they are taxable in 

Nueoes County, 

,&’ 

y@; ,yT 
Mr. C. J. Wilde, page 8 

Central Power and Llp,ht Conpane 

Records of the Secretary of State reveal that the 

above named ooapany is a Massaohusetts oorporation, with its 

prlnolpal office in Boston, Masaaohusetts, operntlng in 

Texas under a permit. Its applloatlon Sor permission to 

do business in this State, filed in 1936, states: “Buslne ss 

~ln the State of Texas is to be transacted at Corpus Christi,, 

Nueoes County, Texas, and all other oountlea in Texas. The 

name of the manager or person in oharge of said Texas business 

or agenoy will be %r. James 0. Kennedy, Corpus Christl, Texas, 

714 Nixon Building. 1V 

Article 8, Seotlon 11 of the Texas Constitution 

provides as quoted above. Artiole 7153,, R. C. S. prbvldes: 

“All proporty; real and personal, exoept suoh as is 

required to b.e listed and assessed otherwise, shell be 

listed and assessed in the oounty where it la situated; 

and all personal propeirty, subjeot to taxation end ten- 

.’ porarlly removed rrom the State or oounty, ehall be 

listed and assessed in the county of the residence of 

the owner thereof, or in the oounty where the prinoipal 

offloe of such owner is e&tuated.* 

In Guaranty Life Insuranoe Company v. City of Austin, 

190 S. w. 189,Chlef Justloe Phillips; speaking for the Supreme 

Court, said: 

“This artiole olearly oontemplates that any property 

classified as personal property by artlole 7505,and having 

a oonorete form may aoquire a sltus distinct from the 

plaoe of the owner’s residenoen provides that personal 

property *temporarily removed from the state or oounty’ 

shall be taxed in the oounty of the owner’s residenoe. 

This is a provision with reapeot only to personalI{r;c+rty 

Ftemporarily removed from the county or state.’ 

no applleation to personal property whose removal is not 

temporary, but whioh has aoquired a sltus in a different 

oounty. If the removal from the oom-f the owner*s 

reaidenoe be only temporary, it could not under the artlole 

acquire a situs elsewhere; it Is to be regarded as still 

*situatedV-%i?&e county of the owner’s residenoe and is 

therefore taxable there. The artiole makes it plain, 
. 

a-* c. IT. ‘Zilde, page 9 

’ havcve,r, that if the removal be not of a temporary 

oharacter snd the property has aoqulred a situs in 

a different county, it is taxable in suoh ay, 

unless within the exoeption of the article and 

therefore expressly made taxable elsewhere.” 

The faot that person~al property of a foreign 

corporotlon physicaLly located in this State is aubjeot 

to taxation in this State appears to be well settled. 

Texas Land and Cattle Co. v. City of Fort-Worth, 73 5. Yi. 

(Zd) 860, error refused; Jesse French Piano and Organ Co. 

~‘v.~Ci;; or Dallas, 61 S. ‘f!. 942, error refused; 40 Tex. 

. . 

From the foregoing it is apparent that under the 

weight of authority, personal tangible property of a foreign 

oorporaflon doing business in this State Is taxable’where 

the property is aotually physically looated ~a& used in- the 

business of the oor$osation, and where it has ItsTexas 

olfloe and plaoe of business if its removal therefrombe 

only of a temporary nature. Therefore, if the trucks of 

the Central Power and Light Company operate from the garage 

or storage base in aorpus Chrlsti, Nueoes County, Texas, 

upon a temporary basis, fromwhloh the operations initiate 

and to whioh they return, in suoh way as not to acquire a 

business situs elsewhere, said trucks are. aooordlngly taxable 

in Nueoes County. ,~ However, if any of the’ truoka and automobilea of this oonoern are kept outside of Nueoes County upon 

a permanent basis, as distinguished from a temporary,basls, 

they would not be taxable in NueCes Cotity. 

Yours very truly