## 1.22

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS **AUSTIN**
-c.yu*,

--

consolidation. e8NO8 appoint4 at ed

### it8 local tax rat4 **A** taxpeylsr**roi~ss** a board of the **00n60iidat8a** ich ia located ia thatpart own aa District So. it on the talidatioawas aads after Jsnuery 1,

‘Is tha 

### taxpayer oorreet in his contention that the Board wll1 have towait another par to ta% hlo prOpart 

## forsohoolpnrpostwa
In the oaao of CodeM et al 78. Ftato, I.065. ‘dl. 567, the 

## COWheld that 630 dUlJ **OOX&B%itUtd board**  **Of trWhS8**  **Or aa**  **iode** 

### Panda6 rghool cliatrlot, created by rpblal act June 19, 1918, wereiioc.T. k4.rrfmble, ?age e

authorized to lrty arralstsnancetax 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, andwhloh my be levied by the **bdy** given the power to levy, 

### at any tlroeduring the year.

Xn 

### the 011aeof 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 eltua**tion** where the **taxable** property maa situated on January 1st of the tax year in territory aubseqtisntlyamexed during euoh

### year to sn indoqmdent aohocl district. 'a'hlle the case of Csdsaa v. State, aupra, 

### inroiredproperty lnoludsd in en iAdPpeildent sohool distrlot thereafter created, in oontrti6tto this casewtioh 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 ofYorktown ?odependent .SohoolDistriot, et al TO. iirrlerbaoh,et al, by the coz~isaion ofAppeala 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 r10reasonsblc ground 

### to aonolude that the Legislature lntsnded that no liability 

### fortax98 

### 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, ofproperty 13newly 

### annexed tmrltcry, ohouid be different frm tboae w&ioh govern the p%xatioa of property in

### anewly created distriot."

Althoueh the facts

### or the instant oaae present a

## eirrerant aapeat from tbG% of tta case oitsd and dis0tiaseaabove, In that a consolidation or two existing oommcn school districts 1s here inrol~ed rather tOanthe oreatlon or amw 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 foregoizig6aolslona should be ooctrollfng of tho question berore UB. .U in those oases, it oanbe reasoned here that the statutes governing theOOnsOlldstiGn 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 ina 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 andpurposes, **and** ,~sssuredby theprinclpleo of taxation announce& in the above autborititm, the erection ot enew district, known as a mooneolidated Wmswn rchool dletrlatrm And we findnothing in the Btatutes to rmove this case iron thaprlnaiples of taxation l naounoed in the, toregcing cases for consolidated independent school dirtriots, newly Oreated independent sohool dlstriats, or independent eohool dietriotr towhich territory hsr bean annexed. On the contrary Artlole E814, Yernon’a Amotated Clrll Statutes, point8 toaa opposite intent in provldlng, inpart, 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.*

'lietherel'ore amwer your queation in the negatfrr. The porltlon of the taxpayer oannot be austalned under the autborititir, and.p,ropertyaltuated on Yanuary 1, 1939, inComon Sohool Distriot Ho. 17 otXuecea County will be subject to tam8 duly lsvle6 end amessed thereafter by the proper authorities of the Coasolldeted CoreaonYobool orertad by a consolidation cf Cclrpt~Yohool Dlstriete Nor. 0 end 17OS eela County.

Trueting that the toregoing eatief8ctorlly amwara your inquiry, we are Your0 **rbry** truly