ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT

August 23,2010

The Honorable Byron Cook Opinion No. GA-0790 Chair, Committee on Environmental Regulation Texas House ofRepresentatives Re: Combiningrealproperty andimprovements on one parcel identification number ortaxpayer account for appraisal district record purposes (RQ-0827-GA) Post Office Box 2910 Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Dear Representative Cook: You ask who determines whether land and improvements are combined on one single parcel identification number or taxpayer account for appraisal district' record purposes when the land and improvements are under common ownership.2 While we find no state law that directly addresses who determines whether land and improvements are combined in a single taxpayer account or parcel, we conclude on the basis of express provisions ofthe Tax Code that it is an administrative determination made by the chief appraiser.' Section 25.02 ofthe Tax Code provides that "[t]he appraisal records shall be in the form prescribed by the comptroller" and mustinclude, among otherthings, the appraised or market value ofland and the appraised value ofimprovements to land. TEx. TAX CODE ANN. 

### § 25.02(a)(5)-(6) (Vernon 2008). Section 25.03 provides that "[p]roperty shall be described in the appraisal records with sufficient certainty to identify it." 

### Id. 

### § 25.03. The chief appraiser, who is the chief administrator of the appraisal office, is charged with preparing the appraisal records and must exercise his administrative discretion in carrying out these and other functions set out in the Tax Code. 

### See id 

### § § 6.05(c) (providing thatthe chiefappraiser isthe chiefadministrator ofthe appraisal

IThe Tax Code establishes an appraisal district in each county and requires each district to appraise property for each taxing unit that imposes ad valorem taxes on property in the district. TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 6.01(a)-(b) (Vernon 2008). 2Request Letter at 1 (available at http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov). 3y ounotethat subsection 25 .08(a) providesthat, with certain exceptions, "an improvementmaybe listedinthe name ofthe owner ofthe land on whichthe improvement is located." TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 25 .08(a) (Vernon 2008) (emphasis added); Request Letter at 2 (asking "'who' may add the improvements to the account ofthe real property" under section 25.08(a)). Because we do not understand a reference to the listing ofseparate real property components to equate to a directive abouthowto organize the various components ofreal property into taxpayer accounts orparcels, we do not believe subsection 25.08(a) addresses your question.The Honorable Byron Cook

- Page 2 (GA-0790)

office), 25.0I ("the chiefappraiser shall prepare appraisal records listing all propertythat is taxable inthe district"); seealso id. § 25.08 (requiring chiefappraiserto examineinformation submitted and notifY owners ofproperty whether they qualifY for separate taxation ofland and improvements). Organizing land and improvements into taxpayer accounts or parcels is one mechanism the chief appraiseruses incarrying outthese functions. 

### Cf34TEX.ADMIN.CODE§ 9.3001(b)(2)(2010) (Tex. Comptrollerof Pub. Accounts, Appraisal Cards) (requiringappraisal districts to prepare an appraisal cardthat includes for eachparcel ofresidential or commercial real estate the account number ofthe property). You suggest that a real property owner may, at his discretion, render the land and improvements separately such that they "would be classified [by the appraisal district] as separate parcels ofpropertywith separate account identification numbers for the appraisal district records." Request Letter at 2. You do not provide any legal analysis to support the proposition that the chief appraiser would be bound by a taxpayer's division of land and improvements as presented in a rendition or describe the authority under which a taxpayer would be authorized to make such a division. 4 '''Rendition' is the reporting of taxable property bythe owner to the appraiser." SLW Aviation,Inc. v. Harris CountyAppraisalDist., 105 S.W.3d 99, 101 n.l (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.); see also Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289, 292 n.l (1975) ("To 'render' property for taxation means to list it with the tax assessor-collector ofthe taxing district in question."). The Tax Code provides that "[a] person may render for taxation any property that he owns" and prescribes the information that must be included in a rendition statement. TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 22.01(a), (c) (Vernon Supp. 2009); see also 34 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 9.3031(b), (d)(1) (2010) (Tex. Comptrollerof Pub. Accounts, RenditionForms) (providingthat "[a] personrenderingpropertyshall usethemodelform adoptedbythe Comptroller of PublicAccounts ora form containinginformation whichis in substantial compliance withthe model form" and adopting, among others, Form 50-141, entitled "General Real Estate Rendition ofTaxable Property"). The Texas Supreme Courthas broadly statedthat 

### "[0]rdinarilypropertyshouldbe appraised as rendered." Cherokee Water Co. v. Gregg County Appraisal Dist., 801 S.W.2d 872, 876 (Tex. 1990) (citing Electra Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Waggoner Estate, 168 S.W.2d 645, 650 (Tex. 1943)). However, you do not identifY and we did not find any instance in which this rule has been applied to a taxpayer's rendering separately land, and improvements on that

.land, that are under common ownership.

4We fmd nothing inthe TaxCodethatprovides that a renditionis binding ona chiefappraiser. Onthe contrary, the Tax Code provides that a chiefappraiser is not bound by the taxpayer's valuation ofproperty in the rendition. See TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 25.19(a)(2) (Vernon 2008) (providing that "the chief appraiser shall deliver a clear and understandable written notice to a property owner ofthe appraised value ofthe property owner's property if

. .. the appraised value of theproperty is greater than the value rendered by theproperty owner") (emphasis added); cfalso Harris CountyAppraisalDist. v. Reynolds, 884 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1994, no writ) ("[T]he statute now in force does not include any prohibition against correcting the appraisal rolls to include propertyomitted although previously rendered by the taxpayer.").The Honorable Byron Cook

- Page 3 (GA-0790)

Even if the general rule does apply to a taxpayer who renders land and improvements separately, the Texas Supreme Court has made it clear that the right to have property appraised as rendered is not an immutable right. Cherokee Water Co., 801 S.W.2d at 876. We find several exceptions to the generalrule. A taxpayer is, for example, estoppedfrom complaining about parcels being valued as a single unit whenhe himselfhad rendered the parcels as oneunit inpast years. See French Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Howth, 134 S.W.2d 1036,1037-38 (Tex. 1940). Similarly, a taxpayer who renders parcels as a single unit will not be heard to complain that parcels are valued separately when he fails to appeal the valuation ofall the relevant parcels. Cherokee Water Co., 801 S.W.2d at 876-77. Additionally, a propertywill not be assessed and valued "in accordance with the description ofthe property owner's rendition [if] the property [is] being used in such a manner as to make it impossibleto do so." 

### /d. (citingElectraIndep. Sch. Dist., 168 S.W.2d at 650). Forinstance,MoodySeagraves Co. v. City of Galveston involved two contiguous tracts ofland that contained a cotton mill building and various related improvements. Moody-Seagraves Co. v. City ofGalveston, 43 S.W.2d 967, 969-70 (Tex. Civ. App.-Galveston 1931,writrefd). Theimprovements were valued as a whole. 

### /d. at 969. The court explained that "[w]hile the general rule requiring the separate valuation and assessment ofseparate pieces ofproperty is well settled,

... it is equally well settled that where separate pieces ofproperty are occupied and used by the owner for one and the same purpose, and their separate identities and values become merged and consolidated by such use, no separate valuation and assessment is required." Id. at 970. Likewise, in City of Edinburg v. Magee the court explained that "where two or more tracts orparcels are occupied and used togetherbythe property owner for a single purpose, such as a homestead, their separate identities become merged into one by such use, and they may be valued and assessed in solido." City of Edinburg v. Magee, 97 S.W.2d 983, 984 (Tex. Civ.**App.~San** Antonio 1936, no writ). A rendering taxpayer is not entitled, as a matter of law, to have property appraised in accordance with a rendition. We conclude that it is the chief appraiser who must, in the first instance, analyze the rendition in light ofthe facts and determine how to organize the property into taxpayer accounts or parcels.The Honorable Byron Cook

- Page 4 (GA-0790)



### SUMMARY Thechiefappraiserofan appraisal district determineswhether land and improvements are combined into a single taxpayer account or parcel. A taxpayer's separate rendition ofland and improvements does not change this conclusion.

DANIEL T. HODGE First Assistant Attorney General NANCY S. FULLER Chair, Opinion Committee Christy Drake-Adams Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee