OFFICE OF **THE** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

gooorable Ld.0. ?lowora Becretary of State Austin, Texas Dear Sir;

Weare in receipt which you submit the followi @Qinlon 1 

## t1oninthe f October 16, 1989, In thle DoperWent for an 

## tar0ra

## oorporaerfaiament 

## or 1389, IJubairislosl
aontlnus to 

### accrue arter nt for the benbflt of active except for xlnd1n.g
ubdlvlsion 7, Rerfsed Civil Strtutoe, 19E8,
ie 

## afosolvea

:

-9. Whenever a ocrporatlon ugoa proper ltulloial aeoertalxmnnt ia found ta be inaolrent.a
inrtltudsd 13iay3ie ve. ieybe, (T.C.k. 1920) 820 9. W. 897, p%alatlff

suit on a note erimited **by** Leyhc %uao C6mparyand to foreolose n lfen. After the exeoutian ot the note the layaCr Piano

## 54

Eon. k. G. Flowers, Page 2
Companywas adjudged a b&crupt and followlq such odjudloetion -de a CornposItIon with its uneeeurea oreditors.

It washeld by the court:

“The next propoeltlon advanced by appellants la to the effeot that ncijudgment oould be taken after diemiaeal of two of the dlreotore or the oorporation. We are lnallned to think that this proposition is also well

5. it. 823. by virtue of the statute the alreotora OSthe oorporatlon at the tIete OSIts dieeolutlon beoametrustee% to wind upits &faire, R.S. hrt. leoa. They act In said capacity colleatIvaly and suit oould not bamaIntaIned to estublieh a oorporate 1iab:lIty against anyof them elngly.” %ahave been unable to find any other oaee In this jurlealotlon passing uponthis question andmust therefore re?oipllta the above cited oaee es oontrolling your first question.

Anassignment for the benefit of aredItore~lr en absolute unuondl~Ional andIrrevocable voluntary oonveyance OSpropertf by the debtor to the assignee in trust fortho purpose ot paying debts out of the proceeds thereof. TheaeeIgnea takes absolute title to the property for the trusts expressed In the Instrument. 5Tax. Jur. p. 59. A corporation r&aymake ana8eigmant Por the beneiit or orsaltors. Uller vs. Goodman, (T.C.A. 1897) 40S. iY.7425. The legal enity continues to exIet notwXth6tending there nayhave been anaeelgnaent for the benefit o? oredltore sInoa Artiole 1%7, Revised Civil %atutee, 192s. which provides for the dleeolutIon ot corporatI&a does not provide that suah action shall dI8solYe the corporation.

Artiole 7084, Revleed Civil Statutes, 1926, provlaee that

“except as hereIn provided every aomeetlo and roreI$n OCrpOratiCn hertatofore or hereafter ohartered ;or ?iuthorleed to dobusiness In Texas

. . . a?iall pay In a&vanes to the Secretary of State a franoblae tax ror the year ~ollowlag,~ as theraln provided. Wefind noexception exempting oorioratione that have madeassignment8 iOr banelit of creditors. Article 9099, Revlead Clvll Statutes, 1925, rate out a alffarant formula for oomputfng the tax of a oorpow*Ion

‘aotually in prooeee of llquiaatlon.~ Nodoubt meinyaorporatlons whlohhave madeasslguments for the benerlt of ore&tore are In aotuel proooea ot’llquldatlon Jocklng. to a oomplete disfolution Otthe corporation, andwould be governed by the terms of this etatute in oomputlng thair iranohlee tax.

## 54!

yion. M. 0. Flowers, ?a4308

Ii Ic oertaln Instancea It tight eeemInequitable that euoh oorporatlona are required tc pay a franohlse tax, It mat be noted that they ere not wlthout remedy alma they my affect a diesolution under Artlola l?JSl, Gevlsad Civil Statutes, 1985, or make a reduotlon In their capital etock.

It Is our opinion that an ordinary adjudloatlon In bankruptoy OSa Texas corporation Is ajudiolal aeoartalnmant of inaolvanay within the n;tenlnf: of Artlola X%9, SubdlvIaIon 7, RevIsad Olvll Statutes, 1925.

fn answer to your eecond queatlon, It Is cur oplnlon that the exaoutlon of a generel arslgumant for the benefit of oradltcre by a oorporatlon does not within 

### lf88ltexempt euoh OOrpoIUtlOn rrcmthe papent oi a iranohIS8 tax. Yours very truly ATTORNRYGR%?.CRAL

OFl'RXM3

OCCIR Assistant

.: ATTOFMEYGEEUW, OP !Cn