November 18, 1947 

Boa. Jep 3. Fuller Opinion No. V-434 

county Attorney 

JCffCP8Or2 county RC: The manner fn which 

Beaumont, Texas Payment may be made 

ATTN: Mr. Joe S. Haida, Jr. 

to the city of Port 

Arthur of certain 

funds alleged to have 

been erroneously paid 

to the State 

Dear Sir: 

Your request POP an opinion dated September 12, 

1947, is as follows: 

‘you will recall my conversation with 

you recently regarding a Pequest of the Attorney General for a ruling on the question 

whether or not the State Treasurer, the 

St8te Comptroller and/or the Tax Collector 

o? Jefferson County has the authority to repay to the City of Port Arthur certain funds 

which have, through error9 been paid to the 

State. 

“I have particular reference to taxes 

remitted to the City of Port Arthur under 

authority of House Bill 410, Regular Session 

49th Legislature, Ch. 353, P. 615 Vernons’ 

Texas Session Laws e A recent Audit has disclosed that no taxes on intangibles have ever 

been remitted to the City, Contras to the 

Attorney GeneralIs Ruling (Opinion No. 0-7085, 

Feb. gth, 1946) on file in your office. Also 

there have been numberous instances where taxes 

on rerl estate have not been remitted by reason 

of various types of errors. In all of these 

fnstaWes”such taxes have be&m paid Into the 

State Treasury. 

“It Is the City’s contention that, since 

these taxes were granted to the City of Port 

Arthur under authority of the Above Legislatfve 
. . 

iIOn. JCp s. FUlleF - Page 2 (No, V-434) 

Act to perform a State Function, that is, 

the construction of Seawalls etc *, there’ should 

be requlred no further authority on behalf of 

any State or County offfcia1.s to pay the monies 

as directed by the Legislature, 

“We would very much appreciate your maklug 

this req,ueat on behalf of the City.’ I will furnish any additional brFeffng that you mtght cons id er proper, ” 

We find it necessary to firat examine Opinion 

0-7085, dated February 9, 1946, to determine ff it correctly states then’ law D Your opinion request states: “A 

recefit audit has disclosed that no taxes on intangibles 

have been remftted to the cfty contrary to the Attorney 

Qeneralps ~uIlng (Opinion O-7065, February gth, 1946) on 

file fn your office 0’p 

Our opinion has reference only to taxes assessed 

8nd collected under the IntarPgibls Tax Ilw, Chapter 4, 

Title 122 (Apts 0 7105-7126) VX3. 8nd not to Lntrngibfes 

that msy be texed outside the scope of Chapter 4, ‘Title 

122, such aa debts, stocks, bonds, etc., whfch wy have a 

t8X8blC sftus within Preefnot No, 2 8s distinguished from 

the County at 18Pge0 

A ehreful study of this opfnion and an examfnation of tkm authori.%fes convinces us that ft is erroneous 

and must be overruled 9,nsofar aa it applies to t8xeS assessed and collected under the Sntangfble Tax Law.* Chapter 

as Tftle 122 P9C.S0 The followfug ruthoritfes make ft 

quite ckeer that Sntangfble taxes .under the Intangible Tax 

Law are apportioned to the county at large and wy not be 

apporticned to the respective polltfcal subdivisions of 

the County, as here, to the CL,ty of fart Arthur or Commissionergs Ppecim% NC- 2 0C Gefferson County. 

En the ce8e sf S?XI% vs PecffLc Ra~lwag Company, 

62 3-w * 2d $1 {sup, C% Y j we fiAd this language : 

l’It is qwte tFue.q as contended by cormse:, that in tke fntangible tax law, it provj.fj&j ir, effec$, {Art, ,7X05) thst fntengfble 

assets may be taxed for state and coun_tgwe~,e, and it Is further true Ehat no provision 

f’n that law affotis legfslatfve authority for 

tte taxing of such assets for any other purpose 

2~ ~~I-~.-I.x~~~. f,cr tkie benefF 

jd&on OF~aJpe~ : 
ROW J.p ~..~Ull@P 6 P8#0 3 (NO. V-4349 

of the rolling rtoak vhfoh, under tbo provisions 

of Artibli var, 

8” 

fioa 8 of Cha Constitution 

8ad Of kl%%ola 71 9 Of ~ttlC 88&UtC, W8S 8ppOX’- 

tiowd bf Chb ltrte ColptPoller to Bl ?rso Couiafyp the r%twl for taxltion pUPposes bdoama ifsted 

18’tWt ~OUotj. The ~~SoU’UpOIl whfeh this conclui~ion fr brdbd'are dubatmtirll~ the 88~8 a8 

#8*8, 

90 tbo 88aC oftoet 4s tha case of Bell Osuott *i. 

219 3.13. 556 (Cowt of civil Appealr~ Writ of Brror 

&8%8d), ft’oll Vtlfob UO quote 88 follOV~x 

n 0 . D Artich 7414, Bevised St8tUtO8, pOvidea that ~6r)ah %uilvaj aoarpany 'ah811 pay io'laXUJBl t8X t0 the ‘8t8tb q D o On ,thCfP iet8lI#%b1, 

88BCt8, a a 0 ind 10081 taxes theaeon to the obuaties in whiah it8 bU8fllCaa ia Caided 00.'~ Ott& 

plro’dsioru of the strtute provide for l pportionl~- 

intan&ble rrretr to the Countfeu, and hoWtlrr’8aWe 

shll'bs 1i8ted on th& t8X Polli of the do&~'4 'IO 

this vlse~, the IWtuto wker the ‘pie r8tr 6f’iaitaziSeatio~ 1, HoUs BFPI 410, OPSSCd by the RC@l18P 

5*811Oti Of the 49th LO&8l8tUPC Ch- 3'53, 9e 615 Of VCZ'OOXt'S 

'E8X88 S888iOR tV8’ i8 ,b fO11OVlla 

%hat ooweaofng with the fiecrl Je8r beglnning beptember 1, 19?!9, 8~d 8nd9nl: Au&xat 31, 1961, f 

there be and hereby 8PQ doarted l Ud gP8sltad by the 

3tatc of Tezrs to the 6i.t~ of Port Ad2wr, Texas, 
Ron; Jep S. Fuller - page 4 (No < V-434) 

Under the express terms of this bill the donstion of eight -ninths r&&h) of the State taxes Is “on 

all property both real and personal Lrr Commisrionrrs / 

Precinct No. 2 of Jefferson County, as existed one Zanuary 

2, 1945.” 

Under the construction of the FntangFble tax law 

applied in the foregoLng authorities, intenaible assets do 

not constitute property~~~n Commissioners’ Precinct No. 2 of 

Jefferson County within the purview of sold Hi R. 410: It, 

therefore, follows thst, no part of the intangible taxes 

levied, assessed and apportioned to Jefferson County under 

the Intangible Tax Law are donated to said district as Opinion O-7085 erroneously holds ; to this extent it is expressly overruled e 

This leaves only the question embraced In the following part of your opinion request: “Also there have been 

numerous instances where taxes on real estate have not been 

remitted by reason of various types of errors, In all of 

these Instances 

Treasury”. 

such taxes have been paid into the State 

You state that aueh taxes have been paid into the 

State Treasury* The question arises, may they be withdrawn 

or paid out by the Treasury without a specific appropriation 

by the Legislature? We think Section 6 of Article VIII of 

the Constitution compels a negative answer, This article 

and section of the Const,itut.ion provides in part: 

“No money sh.aLl be drawn from the Treasury 

but 1n pursuence of spec?.fic appropriations made 

by 1swG I’ 

In the case of Manion VY- Lockhart, i 14 ? .i; 93 

216, (Sup 1 Ct *), there> as here, the money was E:Jy<)‘lC O’QX i~‘f 

paid into the general Fund : In discussing the quest.ion 

the Court said E 

“It is shown that IJesponcient, acting on 

the opinfon rendered ‘oy the Attorney Genera1 9 

deposited this money in the general revenue 

fund of the State, Respondent has fn no manner profited by such action on his part. He 

acted in good faith in depositing such money 

in the general revenue fund, wh%.ch now requires 

that It be appropriated by the Legislature in 

accordance with the provisions of Section b of 

Article VIII, of the Ccnstitutfon: Respondent 

mot now have in his poeses&?n such funds, 
rid, ti&ewere, La FB ImaMa, *fitmut an +Jt*s 

tha'.la~faktu#a, to pay aa- to thoaa ihtitlad 

Xt tr undUqwted that ralatoc 

'? 

t8 he )rld’ the bull; of uoar~ olalwl by hii& Zt: 

La lrdt bhoWt; 'however; that rilator cannot obf;rln 

t&s m006y due h$m by 8nothaP oemplata and ~ad~uatr~ , .' 

..! 

t ftau am, tharefora, ~aapaaCfully,~dvised tkak‘a? ' 

part oi thr LIta Lble tax aollactad In Je~arsoj% aountj 

WY b. BPPort&O 8% to the city ai Portr.Azmilir or GoRri#sionCPI ’ ?rectwt No. 2 oi’ arid Count). uadrr said Xousi’ Bill 

410 a? the 49th Lagllllature. Nor a8y auab~~~taxes donated ‘by, 

aaLl ~bLl1 00 @opavt having a’phfrioal sf.tus..in slid dfstri(lt, but amona- 3 y paid into tha Itate Treasury to the 

cwdtt of the i3anaral Wevenue Fund, be rei’uaded to the distriat exoept br a)ioLf’io appropriation by the Legislature. 

Ho part of tha &ntangible taxer oolleoted by Jeffercran Oaunty upon lntahgible amets, 

as.provided ib tha ~ntaaglble Tax Law, may be 

apportioned to the CLty of Port Arthur or Cornmissioners 1 PreoZact No. 2 of said County under 

House Bill 410 of’ tha 49th Leg’fslature* Taxes 

therein donated arise only fro81 propapty liavfug 

a situs in the dlatriat, Intangible taxes are 

apportioned to the ooun%~ at lerge but not to 

any di&ri.ct of said county. Bell County v. 

Pines 219 s;K. 556, state v. Paofffc .Reilwa;r 

. 

coapany, 62 s-w, Z!d 81 (sup. Ct.)* 

. 

If taxes collected upon either real or 

personal property’locatsd fn the dfatS$at have 

erroneously been paid into the State Treasury 

ind credited to the General Fund, they may be 

refunded to the distriot’only by specific appropriation made by the Legislsture. Section 

:- 

. 

: 
Han, Jep S. Fuller - Page 6 (No. V-434) 

6 of Article VIII, ConstitutLon of Texas; 

Manion vs. Lockhart, :I4 sow. 2d 216, (sup. 

ct.) 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

LPL/lh 

APPROVED: