, 

J 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

January 28, 1939 

Mr. Joseph A. Beyer 

County Attorney 

Crane County 

Crane, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

1939, to Xon, Gorald 

of aanuery 10, 

Dcpsrtnont for an 

opinion in rqgard to tax tax claims. 

The County or District Attorney shall reprosent the Stete and County ii1 all suits against do-. 

liqucnt tax-Dayors, alla Sn ~~33 OOncOtOd .3hd1 

be paid over imodiatoly to the County Collcotor." 

9utaj.dc attorneys may bo c.r,ployad by tho Comisslonerst Courts 

Under certain cirounstnnces to onforce ths collcotiorl of tams 
Mr ,.SoScph A. fieyer ', January 28, 1939, Pago 2 

according to Articles 7335 and 733%. 

. ..I 

. 

These Statutes do not &ive tho attorney bringing‘tax Suits po?er or authority to aompromiso or settle 

Suoh suits for any Sum less than the assesS.znt is made 

for and no other stetuto that we can find gives him Such 

authority. Taxing authorities have only those po%ers that 

are cxprossly given them, ana WC think the Same rule vrould 

apply to a tax attdrney thnt was expressed in regard to a 

tax assessor in the case of Stato vs. Cage, 176 S. 7;. 928, 

as3 foll0vrS: 

"St Seems to be well Settled that an ASSOSSor of taxes has only such po?:iaro as are expressly 

given by statute." 

Another roaaon Why a tax cannot be compromised is 

because it is not an "obligation" that is subject to comproraise. As said by the Supreme Court of the United States in 

;II; ease of Lane Oounty vs. Oregon,, 7 Wall. 71, 19 Law za. 

, .' 

"A taz is an &post levied by authority of 

govornmant upon its citizens, or Subjecta, for 

the support of the State. It is not founded on 

oontraot or agrcciaant .‘I 

A tax not being founded upon aontract or tho result of a oon- 

_ traot it cannot be oompromlsod, because as Said in 12 Corpus 

Jurin, 316, 

nParties having tho oapacity to contract 

with relation to the subjoot matter are cssential to the validity of a oompromise.*< 

phore are no Texas appellate court cases directly 

on the question, but the rule in the other states where it 

has come up seems to be that n tax officer has no authority 

to tsompromiss or release any claim for taxes. 3 Cooloy on 

Taxation, 4th Ed. 2493; People VS. Kimiiel, 323 Ill. 261, 154 

N. E. 97; Pctor vs. Parkinson, 83 Ohio St. 36, 93 N.IE,.ti97, 

and Lo&an City vs. Allen (Utah), 44 ~Pac. 2nd 1035. 

CBS? of People vs. KLxw~, 92, the Supreme Court of Iliinois Said: 

Vnxas are asseosed by public officers in 

accordnnco with rules and principles established 

by law, nna, if e?:~:ossivc, provision 13 usually 
. 

Mr. Joseph A. Dsycr, January 29, 1939, Faga j T-- 

.- .- 

made for their abatcnont by a court or so.718 other 

nppropriate tribunal. Ganerally, tax officcrc or 

- boards of county comnissioners, or the like, have 

no power to coqroa3isc a tax, or to relcese it 

wholly or in part, unless specially authorized to 

do, so by statute." 

You ask in your questIon if the attorney con settle 

the suit for a SWII "less than the mount of taxes originally 

sued for . ..beforc suit is actually tried." Ke cssu~e that 

the suit was only for the ar~ount of the assessncnt plus penalties and court costs, 

Our answer to your inquiry is that an attorney who 

handles the collection of delinc,usnt taxes does, not have the 

power to settle or conproaiss 'tax Suits fork 0 sun less 

than the amount of the assosszent ~1.~3 pek@.tios and oourt 

costs. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNtT GFXERAL OF TEXAS 

Assistant