OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

dlVided by *It, 

the avera@ dafiy 

xawt pees, WhPQh 

rd et the l!%lt6 or 

ur plan la used in 

l*eaer and roraltf 1nWNet 

itQnBtltutlottttl?= 
761 

Hon. E. 8. Gritfit& Page 3 

Artiols6 7177 to 7M4, 2. C. S. of Tamea, as amended 

and shown In Vorn~n~a ¬ated Civil Statutes undrr 

the mm artiole numberr, which we, vrlll not diaowe 

in detail, afnoe the tex aese88or and Pmrd of Equalization should be thmou#ly faniliar with theta 

statutsr uadar whloh they are bottad 80 act. The paramount thing in aw3owlttg prep8rty r0r faration 1s the 

tletarm%statlon of the faii pparket value of the property, 

end ii it la huwl not to bar8 % market, than ltr true 

ralue a8 provided in the above statotaa. I?# 1E tea-y 

obviow that the above mrthd whloh ycm stats a6 being 

wed in Young C&u&y hae Very fitt& to do wlth thr 

market rdlue a? tb cbil laasee or oil royalty, 818 thla 

plan dealm with the mt OS oil prothtoed in a pretlow 

pear when the oriterlon ia the ra3m of thm proprty 

on January 1 of tha par for whloh It 18 a%%aamd. 

Them am, no doubt, B%O$ lbassa wbioh~haro 

not been dewlo 

ar% very raluab P 

e4 at all or not develepo& fuUy, whloh 

l & Tha abwe tmthod 8eema to bs baaed, 

te s large extent on haw well th% tsaot in qonst$on 

has been d~elepeb %nd not at all upaa th% amount of 

mooverable oil in plaoo, whloh would k a detarmlttlttg 

faotor In arriving at tbr, Sair metit value. It 8em8 

thet the ralr rparket raluo of the mlneralr under e'gfrsn 

tract OS land ahou.Id not be dlifloult to a8aertein. 

partlonl6rl.y in a prarcm field. 

' In the oa%o of Rleheld~on V* State, 53 8, Vi. 

(3) 5Of.l, (Oourt of Olv. App., IIEastland), 84 8. We (2) 

1077 Cam. App., tha, l xm amthod of a8aearrwnt aII related 

in your opinion nquast wa% us%d eraept t& value oried 

itt that aem was abettt thrro tlmw em high a8 bhat 

used ItI YOUR@ courlty, and the jet in th6t can toutxd 

that ths method w%% not teir, \utilerr, and equal maathod 

oi &Wtrtilna, euoh relwe, muI that suoh nmthod raaul.tod 

In arbltrarp diaorisinatfon agalnat tha taxpagc In*otved 

ln favor of other properties ia thm QoQnt, 

I 

Thl6 rinun(( 

was upheld br the dourt on apps& The R ohardsan Qam 

and RoDt Y. Throokmxton Indopondeat Sohool Dlstrlot, 39 

9. w. (3) 470, olted by yo\l in roux! lOWm! 88 Well a# 

mttny other o%%e%, hold that an arbitr 

z 

mebhod at flxh$ 

veluatlona, relsulting is \rajaft ,dlsar 

the talpaywr results 5.n tk8 assmmm8nt bw netloa Yoi ariwt . 
., 

7m 

Eon. E. R. ciriftith, Plqp 3 

An emwer to your question an118 fox the dctermlnation of ci g~eetlon of fsot, as well as one 0S lcr, 

but we tee1 that the mthod edopted is 80 fozelep to tha 

method provided by the Constitution eti S;“lrrtutes of thin 

state, and ao VU&nereble to an atteok by the taxpeyerr fn 

general of the County; thst your question should be answerod In the negative, end WB eo enmm It. 

In ansrerln~ your request, vm have loeked at 

It Srom a broad vlev:pblnt aa you-have luestlonec:. UE-&th 

respoot to the nathod in gensral, and oS aourse we realize 

that should tha mthod bs attaoked ln oourt by e partloular taxpayer, euoh tnxpaper would not only have to 

prove that the method WQB arbltra 

an unjust dirroriminetlon against h %

but t&t& it worked 

in order to sueoesefully attaok smm. 

Trusting: that thla suffiolently ensvmrll your 

request, wa are 

~ATTOAWEY GZT2WUL 021 TEXAS 

DDMtBT 

D. 1). Mahon 

Asri:4mit