ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

GREG ABBOTT 

August 23,2010 

The Honorable Byron Cook Opinion No. GA-0790 

Chair, Committee on Environmental Regulation 

Texas House of Representatives Re: Combining real property and improvements 

on one parcel identification number or taxpayer 

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 of the Tax Code that it is an administrative determination made by the chief 

appraiser.' Section 25.02 of the Tax Code provides that "[t]he appraisal records shall be in the form 

prescribed by the comptroller" and must include, among other things, the appraised or market value 

ofland and the appraised value of improvements 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 that the chief appraiser is the chief administrator of the 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 ou note that subsection 25 .08( a) provides that, with certain exceptions, "an improvement may be listed in the 

name of the owner of the land on which the 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 of the real property" 

under section 25.08(a)). Because we do not understand a reference to the listing of separate real property components 

to equate to a directive about how to organize the various components of real property into taxpayer accounts or parcels, 

we do not believe subsection 25.08(a) addresses your question. 
The Honorable Byron Cook - Page 2 (GA-0790) 

office), 25.0 I ("the chief appraiser shall prepare appraisal records listing all property that is taxable 

in the district"); see also id. § 25.08 (requiring chief appraiser to examine information submitted and 

notifY owners of property whether they qualifY for separate taxation of land and improvements). 

Organizing land and improvements into taxpayer accounts or parcels is one mechanism the chief 

appraiser uses in carrying out these functions. Cf 34 TEX.ADMIN.CODE§ 9.3001(b)(2)(2010) (Tex. 

Comptroller of Pub. Accounts, Appraisal Cards) (requiring appraisal districts to prepare an appraisal 

card that includes for each parcel of residential or commercial real estate the account number of the 

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 of property with 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 by the owner to the appraiser." SLW 

Aviation,Inc. v. Harris County Appraisal Dist., 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 of the 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. 

Comptroller of Pub. Accounts, Rendition Forms ) (providing that "[ a] personrenderingpropertyshall 

use the model form adopted by the Comptroller of Public Accounts or a form containing information 

which is in substantial compliance with the model form" and adopting, among others, Form 50-141, 

entitled "General Real Estate Rendition of Taxable Property"). 

The Texas Supreme Court has broadly stated that "[0 ]rdinarilyproperty should be 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 in the Tax Code that provides that a rendition is binding on a chief appraiser. On the contrary, 

the Tax Code provides that a chief appraiser is not bound by the taxpayer's valuation of property 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 of the appraised value of the property owner's property if . .. the 

appraised value of the property is greater than the value rendered by the property owner") (emphasis added); cf also 

Harris County Appraisal Dist. 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 property omitted 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 general rule. A taxpayer is, for example, estopped from complaining about parcels 

being valued as a single unit when he himselfhad rendered the parcels as one unit in past 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 of all the relevant parcels. Cherokee Water Co., 801 S.W.2d 

at 876-77. 

Additionally, a property will not be assessed and valued "in accordance with the description 

of the property owner's rendition [if] the property [is] being used in such a manner as to make it 

impossible to do so." /d. (citing Electra Indep. Sch. Dist., 168 S.W.2d at 650). For instance, MoodySeagraves Co. v. City of Galveston involved two contiguous tracts of land that contained a cotton 

mill building and various related improvements. Moody-Seagraves Co. v. City of Galveston, 43 

S.W.2d 967, 969-70 (Tex. Civ. App.-Galveston 1931, writ ref d). The improvements were valued 

as a whole. /d. at 969. The court explained that "[w]hile the general rule requiring the separate 

valuation and assessment of separate pieces of property is well settled, ... it is equally well settled 

that where separate pieces of property 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 or parcels are occupied and used together by the 

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 of the facts and determine how to organize the property into 

taxpayer accounts or parcels. 
The Honorable Byron Cook - Page 4 (GA-0790) 

SUMMARY 

The chief appraiser of an appraisal district determines whether 

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