OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable B. B. Carter 

County Attorney 

Mltoh%11 county 

Colorado, Tsxas 

Dear Sirs 

0 39sa,. v . C..S., a6' 

plioable.to agenolss 

slltl%r .ot_th% Tednt,astto ~filing and' 

8~ authorlxed to b% 

the provLsion8 oi, 

l l?. c. s., 1925. 

etter, dfited April 1, 1.999, 

rtment, wheteia ycm mm 

01% 3932, as amended, and 

tatmtes, 1925, raising 

in part a% follorsr 

there are many.d!xntmmte being 

oounty for reoord by the oounty 

noles of the4 Government, it irr 

at I&- Hsrriagton, otm cooaty 

T% a rulm #ma the Attorney Qelreral, 

ereby request aam% at the earliest 

moment, a8 Mr. E%rrln@oa Is hoMing 

up the reeardine of acme b%oau%% they hare not 

bean filed aaoording to and ia .k%eplng with Artfole 3988, VbrQOQ’S A. 0. 5. oited abme.*. 

Article 6629, supra, provide6 aa hollows: 

"All bargains, aalsa a& other %mv%~- 

ames whatever, of w land, teneaegts and 

hereditemeata. vðer th%j =ay be made fOr 

passing any eats+& OS i'rmhold of inherttanoe 
Honorable B. IL Carter, Page 2 

or for a tena of yeara; and deeds of aettlement upon marriage, whether land, money or 

other personal thing;'and all deeda of trust 

and mortgages shell be void as to all oreditors 

and aubaequent purohasers for a valuable oonslde:etlon without notice, unless they shall 

be aoknowledged or proved and filed with the 

olsrk, to be reoorded as required by law; bat' 

the eame as b%tweeQ the parties aQd their 

heir%, and aa to all %ubs%qu%Qt~purohaaore, 

with QOtiO% th%r%Of or WithOUt valuable OOQaideration, ahall be valid aQd blndl.ng.f 

Artlele 39SC, Revised Civil Statutes, providee 

and fix%% the various fees and ohare%% that the clerk8 of 

the aounty oourt are authorlsed ti reoeive for fillag 

and reoordin6 suoh iMtrMeQtt3. 

Artlole SOS& Revfeed Civil Statute%, a6 amended, 

and it.8 relevant protlslons, reads a8 tollewe: 

* . . . Ro oouutj alerti *hall be oompellqd to 

kilo o? r%oo+ any iQ8trtmeQt of writin& perrftted 

m required by law to be r%eerded ltatll the payment or tender 0r paym%Qt Ott all legal fee8 for. 

eaoh filiug or reaording ha@ been~made. Roth& 

herein ,ehall be held to inelude pap%rs QP iQetrQmerits filed or recorded in mtits pending ia the 

oounty court." 

Be note that you state in your 

chell County with a population of lC,lBS 

ander the salary law but that the eoQQty 

penaated on 831 aQQQa1 fee basle. 

letter that Mltdoes QOt some 

clerk 1s oomTour request ralaea the prdstary queatlon a6 to 

whether or not euoh statutory filing and reoordlng tees 

would be considered a tax. % have reviewed nwnereas 

Federal and Stat8 deoisions and de QOt Simd any oaee 

directly in point wher8iQ suoh fee%, a% authorized in otz 

statutea, for flllng and recrordfag in%t rllmmlts of record, 

are held to be a tax and as %uoh, %XelQptiOQ weuld apply 

to instrummtalltl%a of the Federal gOvernm%zktLtr The vi%w, 

however, that suoh would not b% held a tax ee%@s stroQ@ly 

supported by the language of Xx. Juatioe Role% ia Federal 

Land Bank V. Croesland, 26lR. S. 394, 69 L. Ed. 103, 43 

sup. Gt. Rep. ?S!i: 
Eonorable B. lf. Carter, Page 3 

"Of ooume. the State is not bound to 

furnish ita re&3try for nothitg. It ma2 

ohamze a zeaaonable i%% to meet th XD9QSO 

O? the iQBtitUtiOQ. But in this eza8" the 

~~lslature ha% hOQ%stly diatlQgut%hed between the fee and the additional requirements 

that it frankly reao~nlzer aa a tax. I? it 

attempted to disguise the tax by aoniouQdiQg 

the tw%, the oourts would be oalled upon to 

oonsider how far the oharge exceeded the requirement of.support, a% when an excessive oharge 

la pad% ?or lnspeoting srtialea in lQtsr8tate oommeroe. D. E. Foote t Co. vs. Stanley, 2SZ U.S. 

404, 58 L. Bd. 696, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep, S77." 

That Oongreas has the power to oreate, or oaaee 

to be areated, oorporatlons whloh aot a% goreramental 

ln8trumntalltle~ to at least a limited extent, and olothe 

such lnstru8%Qtalltiea with exemptions from taxation, 

appears to be well established. The prlnalpl% apparently 

608% further and holda that goverQmeQta1 iaetrumeintalities are not aubjeot to etate taxation aul%%s expressly 

so npeolfled by an aat OS Congress. The dootrlne of 

imuuQity was first P?enumiatsd IQ the o&se o? Nsbdlloah 

vm. Xarylnnd, 4 Wheat 516, 4 L. Fd. 599, where it wa% 

held that the State of Maryland had no power to tax her 

national bank& 

ti the NoCullooh vs. Maryland oaae, Eupra, 

immunity waa derided: 

thlrr 

"The stataa have no power, by ttixatloa or 

otherwise, to retard, imp%de, burden or ia @uy 

maQQer oontrol the operations of the aonetitut.tional laws enaoted by Congress to oarr iQt0 

ex8outioQ the poviers vested in the genera I 

gOV8rQQent.~ 

Vie reoognlze the above principle that the 

Supreme Court of the Onltsd States haa laid dom that a 

state may not tax the Federal goverw8nt or its lnetrumentalities or do aught whloh would dlreotly interfere 

with lta lawrul operations. The 0~l.y basis, ther%fore, for 

whioh the iPtpoaltlou of such service charge8 aa protlded 

by our etatutes oould be oonstrued a tax is that suoh 
Honorable B. R. Carter, Page 4 

materially i.nterSeres with the due, expedient and orderly 

prOO8dUr8 OS the Federal gOVerQtS%Q$ While in th8 exeralse 

Of it6 OOQbtitUtiOQ01 pOK8rS. 

*Pees .requlred to be paid by individuala to 

publfo oS.:fcer% ordlnarlly are not aomldered to 

be taxes. Thue, a fee asse888d to pay the oxpmaes of litigation, and whleh oompemate8 oae of 

the OfSloera of the eoIvt for hi8 servlaea, 18 

not a tax. So a fee bpelred for the reaordl~g 

and flll~g of oertlflaatea of lneorporatlon, 

baseC OQ the amuQt of oapital stook, in not a 

tax it would aem, if wrely to dompsnsate the 

oSS~aer for asrvloea perfamed* . . 

ation Srd Rd. Vol. 1 

Barrdon vs. Willis, 

Q~:;Y; Tax- 

~%%pi5~% Aa. Rep. 604; 

State I'x. Rel. D. Atklason, sto. Railway Co. T. 

Board of County Coml86loaera. 4 lisbraaka 537, 

19 Am. Rep. 641. 

It 1% submitted that saoh ohargea for flll~g and 

reaordlng IQatrumeQte under the abate atiatatea would not 

materially interfere with the due, %XpOdi%nt aad orderly 

prooeOure OS the Federal gov%rma%Qt and that tlsasr th% 

oases anb rules laid down by tit% ?%d%ral Suprera Court, 

that auoh f8%% ar% taxes oanaot b% logiaally bed&ii&d, 

It has long been an acroepted rule of law that propwty 

armed by a public body devoted to publlo ~4% e~ennot b% 

taxed by another govemmeatal body. Klthout att%mptlQ& 

to distinguish bGtw%%Q the variow Federal bStrUmSQtalltles, or question their lawful and aoQstltutiona1 purposes, we oannot help but not8 the feat that Federal 

expenditures IQ the form of loam aeoured by aortgages, 

deeda of trust, and other ahar~atsriatia debentures, QoQaeded eovermaent owned, Ser public parposea and exe 

=! 

ted 

Srom taxation by state goter%%mnt%. do not partake % anf 

ohawe OS status, raterlally lnareasing or deomasing 

Federal reV8QUOS or advan$a&%8 Q8oaaaarlly derived th*r%- 

from si~&ply by taking: advantage OS the orderly prOt*OtiOA 

or our state laws and applying for that 88OuritY by the 

payment of reasonable and uQfim% Siitig and r*oOrdlQf$ 

feee authorgzed aad fixed by state laws for euoh servlO%a. 
Honorable 8. W. Carter, Page 5 

I 

r 

In the decent oaae of Jame8 VS. Dravo Contractins co., 502 0. S. 134, 58 Sup. Ct. Rep. 208, the Suprae 

Court of the United Statea held that a noa-dIeor~j.natoly 

West Virginia gross sales and Inoonie tax wae oolleotable 

from an independent oontraotor holding a oon'treot with 

the Federals government for oonatruotion of look@ and dam 

in navigable atreams In the state, even it the tar fnoreaeed the ooet to the Federal government, e:inoe the tax 

ma not laid upon the Federal government, it8 oifloem or 

property, was not laid upon the oontraot of the lederal 

Indian Hotoayo1.o Cergany vs. 

590, 51 Sup. c;t., Rep. 601: 

Upited $tatem, teg 8, g. 

*It Is an established prlaolple of our ooaetItutIonal.eyetem or duel government that the 

instmmentalitlea, msam sad op8ratlqne whereby 

the United State8 exerolrrecr it8 gotemuital 

powera are exempt tror tamstUn by tha atotem, 

andthatthe lnatrmwntalltles,naor an&bporatlons whereby the 6tatea exert the~gomrlmeNn1 

powem belongin& to them are equally axem&* trsr 

taxation by the United States. This priaol lo 

le Implied from the Indepeadenoe of the net P. one1 

and state goorernmente within their reepeotfve 

epherea end from the prorialons Of the OOMtItution whloh look to the maintenanoe of the 

dual uptern. Celleotor v. Day, 11 lfall.llS 

$25 129 .2O L. Ed. 122; Wlll~nta i. Bina, kee 

v. ii, 2$, 224, 225, 61.8. da. 190; 95 L, Ed. 

9M. Where the prinaiple applies It is not 

affeoted br the amount of the pertlo~lar tax 

oi the extant of the resulting Interierenoe; 

but is abdlati. l&Oullooh T. Maryland, 4 

+&eat, 514, 450, 4 L. Ed. 599; United States 

t. BeltImore t Ohio B. Co., 19 Wall. 322, 

S29, 21 L. W, 599; JOhIWOn to Maryland, 264 

U. 8. 51, S5, 56, 41 S. Ct. 16, 65 L. Ed. 126; 

#illeepie 9. Oklahoma, 259 U. 9. 501, 505, 42 8. Ct. 1919 

;; 2 z. E; Qaandall t. Beyada, 6 Wall. SS, 44-44, 

R . l . 
RonorebZe 8. M. Certer, PaEa 6 

Tbet eiioh f!llng +d reaordiug fear euthorlaed 

tu t.e oherged by our laws atfcrd :nUlreotly revenuc to, 

the stat@ would not alone juetlfp auah fsea ocarlaered 

6 tax. &ml ttiet suck teen are recsccabl? and noo-dieorirpIr;atory oan herdiy be gusetlonsd. i-8 the ll?c of our 

-late govarnziant dapnnde upou the Loe?ul exerolen, ot 

Zkte gowernacatal powers, it oaunot be aeld thet euoh 

has, unbar our dui eyetea of govsnwmnt, afrotie may 

greeter lmpedimont, burden or unlawful exeroiee or aon+ 

trol by reputrlng euah obllgetlone to be set tJmo u& l 

reaeoneble charge for 6anlaee to the Federal &or#?aeicnt fma ite lnetrum6ntalltlae than euoh exetzptioae 

would llksly destroy or oeet undue burdens upon the 

local state government itaol?. We find the follow&n6 

lenyr%e In Baldwin ve. Ooldfrenk. 88 Tee. 249, 51 8.W. 

1064 : 

Ror l Te Fsee paiU to pub110 oFFiawe ~&~e’ln the. gdaeral rtenoo notrithetCDCuql 

tbet the m&o OF, proridiug ao&eetlon t6 the 

ublis 

fl 

servants r~liorea the tro8euror from pep 

nga eeiory. . ..I) 40 PC. 3urle. 8 2 p. U. 

YOU are respeotiull~ l boieed that it I* the 

opinion err tkiie dspartmant the% euah written laetrum$af? 

l uthorls& under mtfole 6629~~. &Mae4 Cl+11 @OlUtM, 

loBb, eau proeen8ed to the ooantp &ark ror Ftiflag orid 

reoorUfng by 8@onoLer or teetrU#nt&t%ee of $t;a I~ 

Feasti government, era not exempt fron the. pamen* 

or lqpi Feae authorhad to be oharfmd by the clerk 

ader t&s rowlelone of hrtfole SftJO, R#*Sead ClYil f?tetotes, lPBg, euoh firm not being l tex .upon the Fod~rel 

governmnt . 

Yours very truly 

:?wx:BT 

APPROVEDOCT 20, 1939 

.-. 

ATTORNEY GJCNEFtAL OF TEXAS 

i