# , J

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS **AUSTIN**
January 28, 1939
Mr. Joseph A. Beyer CountyAttorney Crane County Crane, Texas Dear Sir:

1939, to Xon, Gorald of aanuery 10, Dcpsrtnontfor an opinion in rqgard to tax tax claims.

The County or DistrictAttorney 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

attorneysmay bo c.r,ployad by tho Comisslonerst Courts Under certain cirounstnncesto onforce ths collcotiorl of tamsMr ,.SoScphA. fieyer ',January 28, 1939, Pago 2 according to Articles 7335 and 733%.

...I

. These Statutesdo not &ive tho attorneybringing‘tax Suits po?er or authority to aompromisoor settle Suoh suits for any Sum less than the assesS.znt is made for and no other stetutothat we can find gives him Such authority. Taxing authoritieshave only those po%ers that are cxprosslygiven them, ana WC think the Same rule vrould apply to a tax attdrneythnt 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 roaaonWhy 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 govornmantupon its citizens, or Subjecta, for the supportof the State. It is not founded on oontraot or agrcciaant
.‘I A tax not being foundedupon aontract or tho result of a oon-

_ traot it cannot be oompromlsod,because as Said in 12 Corpus Jurin, 316,

nPartieshaving tho oapacity to contract with relation to the subjootmatter 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 stateswhere 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 asseosedby public officers in accordnncowith rules and principles established by law, nna, if e?:~:ossivc, provision 13 usually.

Mr. JosephA. Dsycr, January 29, 1939, Faga j T-- .- .- made for their abatcnontby a court or so.718 other nppropriatetribunal. Ganerally,tax officcrc or - boards of county comnissioners,or the like, have no power to coqroa3isca tax, or to relcese it wholly or in part, unless speciallyauthorizedto 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...beforcsuit is actually tried." Ke cssu~e that the suit was only for the ar~ount of the assessncntplus penalties and court costs,

Our answer to your inquiry is that an attorneywho handles the collectionof delinc,usnt taxes does,

not have the power to settle or conproaiss'taxSuits fork 0 sun less than the amount of the assosszent~1.~3 pek@.tiosand oourt costs. Yours very truly ATTORNtT GFXERAL OF TEXAS

Assistant