## THE A NERAL TEXAS

January 18, 1950

Hon. Robert S. Calvert Opinion No. V-983. Comptroller ofPublic Accounts Austin, Texas Re: The source ofthefees due the Tax Assessor-Collector ofCameron County for asse,ssing State advalorem taxes, since the entire tax is now remitted toCameron County.
Dear Mr. Calvert:

You request the opinion ofthis office upon the questions presented inyour letter of December 22, 1949, which we quote in full as follows:

“Since approximately 1925 Cameron County has operated under aState Tax remission bill, and throughout each and every year ofsuch period, the State of Texas has paid to the Tax Assessor-Collector ofCameron County, one-half of the fees provided by Article 3937 for theassessment ofState taxes.

‘“Prior to the enactment of House Bill No. 779, as passed by the 51st Legislature, there had been a percentage ofthe State advalorem tax not remitted to Cameron County, and a sufficient amount ofmonies were collected ,under this percentage topay the fees due the Assessor-Collector provided by Article 3937 for the assessment ofState taxes. House Bill No. 779, as passed by the 51st Legislature, remits or grants the entire State advalorem taxes levied to Cameron County,

‘“Since there is no levy under which one-half of the fees provided byArticle 3937 for the assessment ofState taxes (all taxes levied and collected in said ,Cameron County have been donated under H. B. 779). this Department wrote the following letter to theBookkeeper oftheAd Valorem tax Division under date of Dec. 15th, 1949.Hon. Robert S. Calvert. Page 2 (V-983)

”‘The regular session of the 51st Legislature passed House Bill 779 donating to Cameron County the .lO$ general revenue State taxes tobe assessed and collected for the years 1949 and 1950, which amount, together with the general revenue taxes which previously had been donated tothe County by the Legislature will give the County all ofthe general revenue tax.

“‘Article 3937, Revised Civil Statutes provides that the commission due the County Tax Assessor-Collector for assessing the taxes each year shall be paid one half by the State and one half by the County out of the,taxes collected from the assessment roll. The general revenue part ofthe commission due C. H. Holcomb, Tax Assessor-Collector ofCameron County, for the

‘year 1949, in accordance with the general revenue tax levy of .30$ equals $2,351.07. Since the County is receiving all ofthe general revenue taxes as a donation, they should pay the $2,351.07 in accordance with Attorney General’s Opinions No. 02 and 050. written Feb. 8, 1939 to’Hon. Geo. H. Sheppard Comptroller ,ofPublic Accounts Andy

Hon. Jack~W,iech, County Attorney, Brownsville, Texas.
”“You are, therefore, directed. to charge by special entry the 1949 account ofG. H. Holcomb, Tax Assessor-Collector ofCameron County. ‘withthe sum of $2.351.07. crediting alike amount to the Tax Account. File this letter with the Cameron County 1949 account papers.’ “The County Attorney ofCameron County has questioned the correctness ofthe instructions inthe above letter, and he has requested this department to review our letter, and re-instruct our Bookkeeper to give creditto the Tax Assessor-Collector, ofCameron County, for the full one-half ofthe’fees due for assessing the State taxes under the provisions ofArticle 3937 R.C.S.

“Ishall, therefore, thank you toadvise this department whether all the fees due the Tax Assessor-Collector, ofCameron County, under Art. 3937, for assessing the State taxes are chargeable against the monies collected for School and Confederate Pension purposes? It has been our construction that each Fund should bear it’s prorata part ofthe compensation due theAssessorCollector under Art. 3937; however, Irefer you toOpinions Nos. O-2; and O-50 written by your Department under date of Feb. 8, 1939, and addressed to Hon. Gee. H.Hon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 3 (V-983)

Sheppard. State Comptroller, and Hon. Jack Wiech, County Attorney ofCameron Coupty. Iam also enclosing a copy ofa letter addressed to this department. dated Dec. 19. 1949, by the County Attorney ofCameron County.
“There is no litigation pending that would determine the questions submitted herein.” By way of historical background we will review briefly the original remission act of the Legislature passed in 1925. and subsequent amendments thereto, applicable to Cameron County. The original act is Senate Bill No. 417, Acts 39th Leg.. R.S. 1925, ch. 35, pm161. This original act remitted toCameron County for the purposes and under the conditions specified therein that part of the State ad valorem general revenue taxes in excess of IO{ onthe $100 valuation ofproperty subject totaxation, collected upon property and from persons in theCounty of Cameron, including the rolling stock belonging to railroad companies ascertained and apportioned as provided by law. The result of this original bill was to donate to’cameron County two-thirds ofthe 30$ on the $100 valuation levied for State general revenue, thus leaving one-third of the 30$ to be retained by the State. The 1947 amendment, Acts 50th Leg., R.S. 1947, ch. 457, p. 1071, did not increase or decrease this remission to Cameron County, but subdivision (r) ofSection l-a, H. B. 779, Acts Slst Leg,. R,S. 1949. ch. 309, p. 572, donated the remainder ofthe lO$ on the $100 valuation to the County.

Article 3937, V.C.S.. provides, in part:
“Each Assessor of Taxes shall receive the following compensation for his services, which shall be estimated on the total value ofthe property assessed, as follows: 0

. s
. one-half ofthe above compensation shall be paid by the State and one-half by the county 1 0D*
Since the State had at all times prior to the enactment of H. B. 779. supra, retained one-third or lO$ onthe $100 valuation of the property covered by the original remission bill and amendments thereto, the State’s part of the cost ofassessing the taxes in Cameron County was inactual practice, and as a matter ofaccounting, charged against the one-third or lO$ retained by the State.
We do not think that itwas the intention of the Legislature to make the remission inthe original act or any amendments thereto free of the cost of assessing and collecting the taxes. Heretofore it made no difference whether the State compensated the assessor for assessing the State’s part ofthe taxes by charging theHon. Robert S. Calvert,‘Page 4 (V-983)

same against the entire State levy of 3Odor the remaining lO# on the $100 valuation, since the latter was sufficient at all times to fully compensate the assessor’for the State’s one-half of thecost ofassessing. We do not now conaider whether the prior procedure in handling this matter was proper. When the original act was passed as to Cameron County in 1925, Article 3871, V.C.S., now Article 3937, was the same as now except for subsequent minor amendments changing thebasic figur’es, of computation upon a graduated scale ofvaluations. When the Legislature enacted this remission act applicable toCameron County, it knew that the general law (Art. 3937, V.C.S.) provided for the commission or compensation tothe tax assessor forassessing State and county taxes. and that it required the State and county to share the cost equally. No change in this statutor’y requirement was made or intended tobe made by the Legislature in the enactment ofthe Cameron County remission bill or the amendments thereto. The Legislature surely did not intend by these donations toCameron County to reduce the amount ofthe school, college and pension funds, by making these funds pay the full amount ofthe tax assessor’s fees.

The methods ofpaying’the State’s part ofthe assessing cost is provided for inArticle 3938,. V.C.S., as follows:

“The Comptroller, on receipt ofthe rolls, shall .pive the assessor an order onthe collector ofhis county for the amount due him by the State for assessing the State taxes, tobe paid out of the first money collected for that year.
. . 0”
This statute comprehends the assessment ofthe taxes applicable to all the State funds, including the general revenue, school, college, and pension. The tax collector, after paying the assessor the State!6 part ofthe asses&g cost in the manner provided by the foregoing ,statute, remits the balance ofall State revenue to the Comptroller. The Comptroller in turn allocates the taxes thus collected and remitted, charging each fund with its pro rata part of the cost, ofassessing before depositing the same in the State Treasury, to the credit ofthe respective funds. The Comptroller and the Treasurer are required by law to keep separate accounts offunds collected and deposited. (Art. 4363, V.C.S., andArt. 4381. V.C.S.. respectively.)

As far,as ‘weare able toascertain throughout the entire history ,ofthe administretion ofthefiscal affairs of the State, the Comptroller has charged each separate fund derived from advalorem taxation the cost of the State’s part (one-half) for assessing the State and County taxes. This charge is made upon a pro rata basis ofthe total State levy. This, we think, is consistent with the legislative intent that each separate fund bear its pro rata cost of assessing. Such has been confirmed by long administrative practice,

-..

/ Hon. Robert S. Calvert. Page 5 (V-983)

presumably known to the Legislature and never inany manner changed. Indeed, itwould be an unauthorized diversion and encroachment upon the school, college, and pension funds, to charge these funds with the assessing cost ofthe general revenue. The fact that all the general revenue is now remitted to Cameron Countydoes not make itany less general revenue, and the fund must bear its pro rata share of the cost ofassessing without reducing or encroaching upon the other funds.

From an accounting standpoint, the method suggested by you inyour letter to Cameron County is sufficient to meet this requirement, The fact that this results in Cameron County getting the tax remission charged with the proportionate part ofthe State’s one-half ofassessing the same is not contrary to, but consistent with what we conceive tobe the legislative intent. That is, the fund remitted by the 1949 act must still bear its proportionate share of the State’s part of the assessing cost.

You are therefore advised that the State’s one-half of the cost ofassessing State and County taxes inCameron County must be charged pro rata against all State funds.
SUMMARY
The State general revenue remitted to Cameron County by virtue of H. B. 779, Acts 51st Leg.. R.S. 1949, ch. 309. p. 572, and by S. B. 417, Acts 39th Leg., R.S. 1925, ch. 35, p. 161, must bear its proportionate share ofthe cost ofassessing State and County taxes in Cameron County.
APPROVED: Yours very truly,
W. V. Geppert PRICE DANIEL Taxation Division Attorney General
Charles D, Mathews Executive Assibt&nt

LPL/mwb 

# By-