1.22 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

-c.yu*, 

-- 

consolidation. e8 NO8 appoint4 at 

ed it8 local tax rat4 

A taxpeylsr roi~ss a 

board of the 00n60iidat8a 

ich ia located ia that part 

own aa District So. it on the 

talidatioa was aads after Jsnuery 1, 

‘Is tha taxpayer oorreet in his contention that the 

Board wll1 have to wait another par to ta% hlo prOpart 

for sohool pnrpostwa 

In the oaao of CodeM et al 78. Ftato, I.06 5. ‘dl. 567, the 

COW held that 630 dUlJ OOX&B%itUtd board Of trWhS8 Or aa iodePanda6 rghool cliatrlot, created by rpblal act June 19, 1918, were 
iioc. T. k4. rrfmble, ?age e 

authorized to lrty a rralstsnance tax in Soptezber, 1918, upon the 

property of tha taxpayer a8 0r January 1, 1915. This holQlng ~98 

upon the theory that 811 propsrty owned on the first of January of 

any year is subjeot to my tax authorized by law, whether authorized tharetorora or during the year, and whloh my be levied by the 

bdy given the power to levy, at any tlroe during the year. 

Xn the 011ae of Blewltt T. mgargsi County Line Independent 

Lohool Dirtriot, 28& S, ;F. 291, the Comlsrion oi Appeals cited and 

6laouessd with approval the loregoing 6eclalon and held that the 

prlnolple of 1~ therein snunolatsd should apply llkewlro to a eltuation where the taxable property maa situated on January 1st of the 

tax year in territory aubseqtisntly amexed during euoh year to sn 

indoqmdent aohocl district. 'a'hlle the case of Csdsaa v. State, 

aupra, inroired property lnoludsd in en iAdPpeildent sohool distrlot 

thereafter created, in oontrti6t to this case wtioh involved territory 

annexed to an existing independent rohool'dirtriot, the court reoonOiiSd this distinotlon with the rOllOWing ~sWy.le~~l 

tiGt 

'1~ the sate effect and turning upon an ldantioal foot eltuais the later case of Yorktown ?odependent .Sohool Distriot, et al 

TO. iirrlerbaoh, et al, by the coz~isaion of Appeala of Texea, reported 

at 18 2. 1.. (26) 1030. 

‘A fair oonslderntlon of the ststutss makeg prorlslon for the oreation of lnde9endent sohool bistrlota 

leaves r10 reasonsblc ground to aonolude that the Legislature lntsnded that no liability for tax98 for aohool 

purposae in a hchool Qletrlot Ehould arire until the 

year following the creation of tha distrlot; nor did 

the tsglslsturs intcL6 that the rules of law governlog 

taxation for school purpoeea, of property 13 newly 

annexed tmrltcry, ohouid be different frm tboae w&ioh 

govern the p%xatioa of property in a newly created distriot ." 

Althoueh the facts or the instant oaae present a eirrerant 

aapeat from tbG% of tta case oitsd and dis0tiasea above, In that 

a consolidation or two existing oommcn school districts 1s here 

inrol~ed rather tOan the oreatlon or a mw lndapendsnt aahool district 

or the annexation of territory to an exlstlng Independent sohool 

district, we nevertheless submit that the prinoiplas of law announce6 

in the foregoizig 6aolslona should be ooctrollfng of tho question 

berore UB. .U in those oases, it oan be reasoned here that the 

statutes governing the OOnsOlldstiGn of two existing and contiguous 
. 

Hon. T. x. :rimble, ?aee 3 

oo~pmon :Chool di6triots afford “no reasonable ground to oonolude 

that the Ls.&elature intmdad that no liebillty for taxer for sohool 

purpoeer in a aohool dlrtrlct ehould arlre until the year following 

the areatloo of the Ulotrlot.* The conoolldetion of the two oom~on 

school district8 lnrolrsd here 18, to all intent8 and purposes, and 

,~sssured by the princlpleo of taxation announce& in the above autborititm, the erection ot e new district, known as a mooneolidated 

Wmswn rchool dletrlatrm And we find nothing in the Btatutes to 

rmove this case iron tha prlnaiples of taxation l naounoed in the, 

toregcing cases for consolidated independent school dirtriots, newly 

Oreated independent sohool dlstriats, or independent eohool dietriotr 

to which territory hsr bean annexed. On the contrary Artlole E814, 

Yernon’a Amotated Clrll Statutes, point8 to aa opposite intent in 

provldlng, in part, ea follows: 

“TEx~D~ and bondiw powara e& are provided for elreahere in the laws of this Sate sre hereby gtmranteed to 

nuoh coodoli&ate$ dOtrict.* 

'lie therel'ore amwer your queation in the negatfrr. The 

porltlon of the taxpayer oannot be austalned under the autborititir, 

and.p,roperty altuated on Yanuary 1, 1939, in Comon Sohool Distriot 

Ho. 17 ot Xuecea County will be subject to tam8 duly lsvle6 end 

amessed thereafter by the proper authorities of the Coasolldeted 

Coreaon Yobool orertad by a consolidation cf Cclrpt~ Yohool Dlstriete 

Nor. 0 end 17 OS eela County. 

Trueting that the toregoing eatief8ctorlly amwara your 

inquiry, we are 

Your0 rbry truly