Honorable James E. Barlow 

Criminal District Attorney 

County of Bexar 

County Courthouse 

San Antonio, Texas 78204 

Opinion No. M-328 

Re : Who has the administratlve responsibility of 

deciding the status of 

property for ad valorem 

tax exemption under the 

Constitution and 

Dear Hr. Barlow: Statutes of Texas? 

Your request for an opinion from this office inquires 

as to what official or of'flclals on the county level has the 

responsibility of deciding which property shall be exempt from 

taxation beoauae of the various provisions of the Constitution 

and Statutes, when the tax exempt status ia disputed. 

In connection with this request, It should be noted that 

the final authority to decide If property is exempt from taxation rests with a court of competent jurisdiction. Your question, therefore, has been interpreted to ask what admlnlstrative authority is vested with the authority to initially determine if property is exempt from ad valorem taxation by virtue of 

the Constitution and Statutes, and does any other administrative 

body have the authority to review such a determination. 

The Constitution and Statutes of Texas delegate the duties 

of administering the ad valorem tax laws of the state to three 

authorities, namely, the county tax assessor and collector, the 

county commissioners court, sitting as a board of equalization, 

and the county commissioners, functioning as a commissioners court. 

An examination of these same laws, however, reveals that none of 

these bodies is expressly granted the authority to Initially determine whether property falls within a class that is tax exempt. 

-1605- 
, . 

Hon. James E. Barlow, Page 2 (M-328 ) 

Sections 14 of Article VIII of the Texas Constitution 

establishes the office of assessor and collector of taxes and 

provides therein that he 

. . . shall perform all the duties with 

respect to assessing orooertv for the nurpose of taxation and boliecting taxes as 

may be prescribed by the Legislature.” 

(Emphasis Added.) 

Among the numerous duties of the tax aaaeasor as prascribed by the Legislature is that of obtaining a full, 

complete, and correct asaeaament of all taxable property sltuated in his respective county. See Art. 7189, et seq. Vernon’s 

Civil Statutes. 

An assessment of property for taxation has been defined 

as the’listlng of property to be taxed~ ln aome form, and an 

estimation of the sums which are to be a guide in the apportlonment of the tax. See Sullivan v, Bitter, 51 Tex. 604, II3 S.1 W. 

193, (!fex.Clv.App. 1901 B, no writ history). 

-. 

Article 7145, . 

Vernon’s Civil Statutes, provides 

“All property, real, personal or mixed, 

except such a% may be hereinafter expressly exempted, la subdect to taxation. and 

the same shall be rendered and llstedx 

herein prescribed. ” (Emphasis Add e d . ) 

A summation of the above definition and provlalona 

Indicates that only property subject to taxation Is to be listed, 

and the duty of listing such property is vested with the assessor 

and collector of taxes, It follows, therefore, that before the 

assesaor can perform his duties he must make an initial decision 

of whether or not property is exempt from taxation. If it Is exempt, the assessor has no authority to assess the property. If it 

1s not exempt, then it is made his duty under the statutes to 

assess the same. It is the opinion of this office, therefore, 

that the tax assessor and collector is granted the authority to 

lnltlally decide if property is tax exempt under the Constitution 

and Statutes of, Texas s 

The next question to answer is whether the county 

commissioners court, sitting as a board of equallzatlon, has the 

-1606 
. 

Hon. James E. Barlow, Page 3 (M-328) 

authority to uasa on auestions relating to the tax exempt status 

of property. - 

Section 18 of Article VIII of the Constitution 

provides that: 

of !Psxaa 

?l?ha Legislature shall provide for equalizing, as near as may be, the valuation of 

all property subject to or rendered for 

The duties of the commissioners court, sitting as a 

board of equalization, and Its authority as such board is defined 

by Article 7206, Vernon's Civil Statutes. The other statutes that 

have been enacted regarding the board simply clarify those duties 

listed In Article 7206, supra. 

7356, et seq., 

See Articles 7198, 7211, 7212, 

Vernon's Civil Statutes. 

Article 7206 provides that the commissioners court shall 

sit as a board of equalization and Is to receive all the asseaament lists or books of the assessors of their counties for 

Inspection, correction or equalization and approval, Thereafter, 

said Article, supra, provides in part as follows: 

"1 . They shall cause the assessor to 

bring before them . . . all assessment 

lists, books, etc., for inspection, and 

see that every person has rendered his 

property at a fair market value, and 

shall have the power to send for persons, 

books, and papera, swear and qualify 

persons, to ascertain the value of such 

property, and to lower or raise the value 

on same. 

"2 . They shall have power to correct 

errors In assessments. 

“3 . +** 

"4. After they have Inspected and 

equalized as nearly as possible, they 

shaI.1 approve said lists on books and 

return same to the assessors for making 

-1607s 
Hon. James E. Barlow, Page 4 (M-328) 

up the general rolls, when said 

board shall meet again and approve 

thea same if found correct. 

::g- 

*** 

!l!he assessors of taxes shall furnish 

said board . . . a certified list of names 

of all persons who either refuse to swear 

or to qualify or to have signed the oath 

required by law, together with the assessment of said person's property made by him 

through other information; and said board 

shall examine. eclualize and correct assessments so made by the assessor, and when so 

revised, equalized,,and corrected, the same 

shall be approved. 

In the case of Harris County v. Bassett, 139 S.W.2d 180, 

(Tex.Clv.App., 1940, writ of error refused) the Court, dlscusaing Art. 7206, suprag as well as other statutes, said: 

II 

hildiig 

the authorities are uniform In 

that the Board of Equalization is 

concerned only with the properties on the 

rolls and with the correction of valuations 

placed thereon by the Tax Assessor, and 

that the board may not add to the rolls 

property not entered, nor eliminate therefrom entries appearing thereon. 

consent, e (citing authorities).-. 

(Emphasis Added,) 

D 

-1608- 
Ron. James E. Barlow, Page 5 (M-328 ) 

Furthermore, In the case of Roach v. First Savings & 

Loan 203 S.Y.2d 1006, 1012 (Tex.Civ.App. 19471, the Court 

esslng the powers of the county commissioners acting ai the 

board of equalization, observed that the latter is given the power 

of reconsideration and revision of the tax assessor-collector's 

real property valuations. The Court further said: 

"The jurladlotlon of the Commlasioners Court 

sitting as a board of equalization la fixed 

bs Art. VIII. Sec. I8 of the Constitution. 

Vknon*a AxmISt. It Is conceded by all 

authorities that ihe Board of Equalization 

Is without power to add to or take from the 

assessment rolls property plaoed thereon or 

round thereon, but its power 1s limited to 

matters affecting valuationa.” (Emphasis Add ,ed.) 

In the oaae of Bavls v. Burnett, 77 Wx.3, 13 S.W. 613 

(1890). the Supreme Court naa conoerned with the queetlon of 

rihethir the apiellee would be entitled to a writ cif Injunction 

to prohibit the oolltctlon of an Illegal tax. The taxing 

authorities had assessed property that uas tax exempt. The 

appellant (tax authority) had urged the appellee had a remedy 

by applloatlon to the board of equallution, and that therefore 

he was ZI& entitled to a writ of In¬ion. That Court declared: 

The above articles and the court Interpretations placed 

thereon clearly define the scope of authority of the county 

commissioners court sitting as a board of equalization with respect 

to what matters may be brought before them for their oonslderatlon. 

It la the opinion of this office that such scope of authority does 

not include the power to decide whether property is exempt from 

taxation by the Constitution and Statutes. 

-1609- 
. I 

Hon. James E. Barlow, Page 6 (M- 328) 

If the county commissioners court, sitting as a board of 

does not have this authority, do the county commlsslon- 

_ _ 

equalization, 

ers functioning as a commlssloners court have any control over 

assessments or exemptions therefrom made by the tax a~ssessor and 

collector? 

Art. V, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution provides that 

the County Commissioners Court shall exercise such powers and 

jurisdiction over all county business, as Is conferred by the 

Constitution and laws of the State. Pursuant thereto, the 

legislature enacted in the year 1905 Articles 7346 and 73479 Vernon’s 

Civil Statutes, giving the county commissioners court certain authority to reconsider and revise the tax rolls, Article 7346 prescribes, in part, as follows: 

“Whenever any commissioners court shall 

discover through notice from the tax 

collector or otherwise that any real 

property has been omitted from the tax 

rolls for any years since 1884, OP 

enforce collection of taxes on said 

properties, they may-, at a meeting of 

the Court, order a list of SW+ 

properties to be made i ;, II ) 

(Emphasis Added s ) 

Art. 7347, provides, in part, that when the list referred 

to in Art. 7346 has been compiled, 

II 

. * 0 the commissioners court m2J at 

n of such 

:e known 

any meeting, order a caneellatio 

properties in said list that al 

to have been previously assessed, but which 

assessments are found to be fnvalia 

have not been canoelled by any for ?i&r order 

of the commissioners court, or by decree of 

any district court; and shall then refer such 

list of properties to be assessed OP re-assessed 

-1610- 
. . 

Hon. James E. Barlow, Page 7 (M-328 ) 

to the tax assessor who shall proceed at once to 

make an assessment of all said properties, from 

the data given by said list . . . and when completed shall submit the same to the commlssioners court, who shall pass upon the valuations 

fixed by him; and, when approved as to the 

values, shall cause the taxes to be compc!ted 

and extended at the tax rate in effect for 

each separate year mentioned in said list;. . . 

(Emphasis Added. ) 

These statutes speak of those situations where the 

commissioners court "shall discover" or "shall find" that real 

property has been omitted from the tax rolls or a previous 

assessment thereon is Invalid. In such Instances, it becomes the 

duty of the commissioners court to make a list of said properties 

and refer said list to the tax assessor to be properly assessed or 

reassessed. 

In Couch v Earnest, 62 S.W.2d 988, 992 (Tex.Civ.App. 1933, 

error dism.) the San Antonio Court 01' civil Appeals declalseu bnat I, 

. . . The t:x roll of a county is not like the law of the Medes 

and Persians, irrevocable and unchangeable. When property is 

found to have been omitted from the rolls, it is the right and the 

bounden duty of the commissioners court to have a corrected roll 

prepared. . . ." (Emphasis Add e d . ) 

It is our view that Articles 7346 and 7347 expressly 

authorize the commissioners court, in its discretion, to inquire 

Into real property assessments and any and all exemptions therefrom made by the tax assessor and to declare the same to be invalid 

for any reason (including the matter of exemptions); and should the 

commissioners court decide an assessment is invalid, they have the 

authority to strike said assessment from the tax rolls. This 

position is supported by prior opinions from this office. See 

Attly. Cen. Opinion Nos. O-7251 (lg46), V-973 (19&q), and M-321 

(1968). If the real property Is not assessed because found to be 

exempt by the assessor, who omits the property from the tax rolls, 

the commissioners court may, at any meeting of the court, determine 

that the property is not exempt and order that such property be 

listed on the tax rolls and asaeased. If that real property is 

assessed because found not to be exempt by the assessor, who lists 

the property on the tax rolls, the commissioners court may, at any 

-1611- 
Ron. James’ E. Barlow, Page 8 (M- 328) 

meeting of the court, declare the assessment invalid and 

order the same to be cancelled from the tax rolls. ThUS, 

the county commissioners court functions here as the 

general governing body of the county, and exercising 

administrative and quasi-judicial functions, as contemplated and authorized by Article V, Section 18, 

Constitution of Texas, and the cited statutes enacted 

pursuant thereto. 

This opinion should not be interpreted as saying 

or implying that the county commissioners court is necessarily required to review all tax assessments or exemptions therefrom, or that action by that authority is a 

condition precedent to the maintenance of an action in 

Court concerning invalid assessments or tax exempt 

properties. The commissioners 1 court Is jurisdiction 

and- duty Is Invoked only when it shall discover through 

notice that real vrooertv has been omitted from the tax 

rolls, or shall find-any-previous assessments to be 

invalid, or to have been declared invalid for any reason 

by any district court, 

7346. 

as expressly set out in Article 

SUMMARY 

It Is the opinion of this office that 

the administrative responsibility of 

deciding whether property Is exempt 

from taxation by the Constitution 

and Statutes of Texas is vested with 

the county tax assessor and collector, 

and the county commissioners, functloning as a county commissioners court, has 

the authority to reconsider and revise 

his decisions with reference to all real 

property; the county commissioners court, 

sitting as a board of equalization, has 

no authority, expressly or impliedly, to 

consider questions relating to tax 

exemptions, but its authority is limited 

to matters affecting valuations. 

s very truly, 

‘2. MARTIN 

orney Qeneral of Texas 
. . 

Hon. James E. Barlow, Page 9 (M-328 ) 

Prepared by Edward H. Esqulvel 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTgE 

Kerns !lkylor, Chairman 

Bill Allen 

John Reeves 

James McCoy 

Alfred Walker 

Gabriel QutSmrez 

HAWTRORNE PHILLIPS 

EICECUTIVE ASSISTANT 

.,.,, ., . ~(. ..a.. ,.. I 

-,1613- 

. .