OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

**AUSTIN**

Honorable B. B. Carter County Attorney Mltoh%11 county Colorado, Tsxas

Dear Sirs

**v 0**  **39sa,.**

. C..S., a6' plioable.toagenolss slltl%r .ot_th%Ted

### nt,astto~filingand' 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


### thereare many.d!xntmmte being oounty for reoord by the oounty 

### nolesof 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 inherttanoeHonorable B. IL Carter, Page 2

or for a tena of yeara; and deeds of aettlement 

### uponmarriage, whether land,

### moneyor other personal thing;'and all deeda of trust andmortgages shell be void as to all oreditors and aubaequent purohasers for a valuable oonslde:etlonwithout 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%Ofor **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 

### oourtare authorlsed 

### ti reoeive for fillag and reoordin6 suoh 

### iMtrMeQtt3.

Artlole SOS& Revfeed 

### CivilStatute%, a6 amended, and it.8

relevant

### protlslons,reads a8 tollewe:

*

. . . Ro oouutj alerti*hall be oompellqd to kilo o? r%oo+ any iQ8trtmeQtof 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 ineludepap%rs QP iQetrQmerits

### filedor recorded 

### inmtitspendingiathe 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 prdstaryqueatlon 

### 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 suohwould not b% held a tax ee%@s stroQ@ly supportedby 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%% tomeet th XD9QSO **O?** the **iQBtitUtiOQ.** But in this eza8" the ~~lslature ha% hOQ%stly diatlQgut%hedbetween the fee and the additionalrequirements that 

### it franklyreao~nlzeraa a **tax.** I? 

### it attemptedto 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 lQtsr8tateoommeroe. D. E. Foote t Co. vs. Stanley, 2SZU.S. 404, 58 L. Bd. 696, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep, S77."
That Oongreas **has** 

### thepower to **oreate,** or **oaaee** 

### to be 

### areated,oorporatlons whloh**aot a%** 

### goreramental ln8trumntalltle~to at least a limited 

### extent,and olothe such lnstru8%Qtalltieawith exemptionsfrom taxation, appears to be well established. The prlnalpl% apparently 608% further and holda that goverQmeQta1 iaetrumeintalities are not 

### aubjeotto 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 

### theState of Maryland had no power to tax her national bank&

ti the NoCullooh vs. Maryland oaae, Eupra, 

### immunitywaa 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 **aoneti** tut.tional

laws enaoted by Congress to oarr iQt0 ex8outioQ the poviers vested in the genera I gOV8rQQent.~
Vie

### reoognlzethe above principle that the a Supreme Court of the Onltsd States haa laid dom 

### that 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 suohHonorableB. R. Carter, Page 4

materially i.nterSeres with the due, expedientand orderly prOO8dUr8 OS the Federal gOVerQtS%Q$ While in th8 exeralse **Of it6**  **OOQbtitUtiOQ01 pOK8rS.** 

*Pees .requlredto be paid by individualato publfo oS.:fcer%

ordlnarlly are not aomldered to be taxes. Thue, a fee asse888d to pay the ox

### pmaes of litigation,andwhleh 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 oertlflaateaof 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 

### reaordlngIQatrumeQteunder the abate atiatatea would not materially interferewith 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%ralSuprera Court, that auoh 

### f8%% ar% taxesoanaotb% logiaallybed&ii&d, It has long 

### been an acroepted rule 

### of law that propwty armed by a public body 

### devotedto publlo ~4% e~ennot b% taxed by another govemmeatal body. Klthout att%mptlQ& to distinguish bGtw%%Q the **variow Federal**  **bStrUmSQtal** ltles, or question their lawful and aoQstltutiona1purposes, we oannot help 

### but not8 the feat that Federal expenditures IQ the form of loam aeouredby aortgages, deeda of trust, and other ahar~atsriatiadebentures, QoQaeded eovermaent owned, Serpublic 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:advantageOS the orderly **prOt*OtiOA** or our state laws and applying for that 88OuritYby 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 oontraotorholding a oon'treot with the Federals

government for oonatruotionof 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

IndianHotoayo1.oCergany vs. **590, 51**  Sup. c;t., Rep. 601: Upited $tatem, teg 8, g.

*It Is an established

### prlaolpleof our ooaetItutIonal.eyetemor duel 

### government that the instmmentalitlea, msam sad op8ratlqne**whereby** theUnited 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 theUnited **States.** This 

### priaollo le Implied from the Indepeadenoeof the net one1 P. and state goorernmente within theirreepeotfve epherea end from the prorialonsOf the OOMtI**tution** whloh look to the 

### maintenanoeof 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; 

### JOhIWOntoMaryland, 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.eoherged 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-8the 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 

### eyeteaof govsnwmnt, **afrotie** may **greeter** lmpedimont,**burden** or unlawful exeroiee 

### or aon+ trol by reputrlng euah obllgetlone to be set tJmou&l reaeoneblecharge for 6anlaee to the Federal &or#?aeicnt 

## fmaite lnetrum6ntalltlaethan euoh exetzptioae 

### would llkslydestroy 

### or oeet 

### undueburdens 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

### boieedthat 

### it I* the 

## opinion errtkiie dspartmant 

## the%euah written laetrum$af? 

### l uthorls& undermtfole 6629~~. &Mae4 Cl+11 @OlUtM, loBb, eau proeen8ed

## to the 

## ooantp &ark 

### ror Ftiflag orid reoorUfngby 8@onoLer or teetrU#nt&t%ee of $t;aI~ Feasti government, 

### era not exempt fron the. pamen* 

### orlqpi 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 .uponthe Fod~rel governmnt

. Yours very truly

:?wx:BT

### APPROVEDOCT20,1939

.-. ATTORNEY

## GJCNEFtAL

OF TEXAS i