HonorableRobert S. Calvert Opinion No. ~-376

Comptrollerof PublicAccounts State Capitol Building Re: Effect of the order of Austin, Texas the Commissioners' Court of Rardin County,

entered on March 24, 1969, on valuationson the county ad valorem tax rolls which had been finally approvedby the Board of Equalizationon Dear Mr. Calvert: January 22, 1969.
You ask our opinion on the following inquiry: "Pleaseadvise me whether the hereinafter mentioned order of the Commissioners Court of Hardin County entered on March 24, 1969, changes 1 the valuationsshown on the tax rolls of that county. "The facts are 'as.follows:On January-22,.1969, the Commissioners

Court finally approvedall the ads valorem tax rolls for the county for the year 1968 and delivered them to the county tax collectorfor him to use in collectingthe taxes shown thereon. The tax collectorhas been receivingand receipting for the taxes shown on these rolls and has remitted to me the State'sportion of his collections as shown by the rolls. "On March 24, 1969, the Commissioners Court of Rardin County entered the followingorder:

"Upon the motion of Commissioner Caraway and a second by Commissioner Burch and by a three to two vote of the' Court, do hereby settle the dispute

-1858-HonorableRobert S. Calvert,Page 2 (M-376)

with the taxpayersat 27% and penalty & Interest, to correct the tax rolls to reflect the settlementfigure. Any taxpayerwho dates his check by the 31st of March, 1969, will get reoeipt for same at this rate. The Court voting as follows: County Judge Lack voting nay Commissioner

Caraway voting aye Commissioner Barringtonvoting nay Commissioner

Means voting aye Commissioner Burch voting aye." 'My question to you Is, what effect, if any, does this order have upon valuations shown on the tax rolls?" Our opinion is that the order of the Commlssloners' Court entered on March 24, 1969, has no effect upon the valuationsshown on the tax rolls of the county,and that as to those valuations,such order is void and of no effect whatever.
Cur State Supreme Court has, repeatedlyand consistently, held that the decisionsof Boards of Equalizationin the matter of valuationsare quasi-judicial In nature, and, In the absence of fraud or illegality,that their decisionsare not subject to

aside. State v. Houser, 138 TezC 1928, 156 S.W.2d Victory v. St

ate, 138 Tex. 285, 158 S.W:2d 760, Their orders are res adjudicate. State v.~ Gouts' S.W. 281 (Tex.Civ.App. 1912, no writ).
In the case of State v. Mallet Land & Cattle Co., 126 Tex. 392, 88 S.W.2d 471, 472 (19351,the Court safd,

11

. . . The rule has been repeatedly announced that, in the absence of fraud or Illegality,the action of a board of equalization

upon a particularassessment is final; and, furthermore,that such valuationwill not be set aside merely upon a showing that the same is in fact excessive. If the Board fairly and honestly endeavors to fix a fair and just valuationfor taxing purposes,

-1859-. .

HonorableRobert S. Calvert, Page 3 (M- 376)

a mistake on its part, under such circumstances,

is not subject to review by the Court.
. . .‘I See also State v. Chicago,R. I. 8 0. Ry. Co., 251 (Tex.Comm.App. 1924). 263 S.W..249,

In Rowan Drilling Co, v. Sheppard, 126 Tex. 276, 87 S.W.2d 706 (19351,the Court said,

“When we read the various tax provlsionsof our Constitutionsingly, and in the light of each other, we are convinced that by necessary implication, ‘: if not by direct language, it prohibits more than one valuationof property for ad valorem&x purposes for the same tax year. In this connectionwe oall attention to the fact that the various tax provisionsof our Constitution use the word “valuation”in the singular. Also a holding that more than one valuationcan be providedby law for the same tax year would bring about Impossiblesituationsin regard to many tax matters. In this oonnectionwe call attention to the fact that section 52 of article 3, of our Constitution permits bdnds to be issubd by.any cbunty, any political subdivisionof a county, any number of adjoining counties,or any political subdivisionof the state, or any defined districtnow or hereafter to be describedand defined within the state of Texas, etc., for certainpurposes in any amount not to exceed one-fourthof the assessedvaluattonof the real property in such districtor territory. It is clear to us that this provision of the Constitution demonstrates

a direct constitutional intent not to allow more than one valuation. It undoubtedlydemonstrates a constf;tutional implication

not to do so. . . . (at P. 708).,

- 1860 -., .

HonorableRobert S. Calvert, Page 4 (M-376) '., '. ,'

Article 7253, Vernon's Civil Statutes,reads as follows, "When any tax collectorshall have received the assessmentrolls or books of the county,he shall receipt to the commissioners

court for the same; and said rolls or books shall be full and sufficientauthorityfor said ~collector to receive and oollect the taxes therein. levied." Further,Article 7254 of these statutes,in Its relevant portion, reads as follows,

"The tax collectorshall be the receiverand collectorof all taxes assessedupon the tax list In his county, whether assessed for the state or county, school,poor house or other purposes; and he shall proceed toncollectthe same according to law,

. . . The Tax Collectorhas been regularlyreceivingand reoeiptlngfor the taxes shown on the tax rolls, as you have stated, since about January 29, 1969. Dcth he and all persons who have paid their taxes have relied upon these rolls and acted pursuant to them. In this respect the case of South Taylor County IndependentSchool Dist. v. Winters Ind-ent Rchool Dist 151 T 330 49 S W d 1010 1012 (1952) i relevant. %e opin"i% of ;hz Att&r$y GeneGal Number O-93: (1939) is also relevantand in accord with our views. This opinion does not purport to deny the general authority of Commissioners I Courts to declare certain assessments invalidpursuant to Articles 7346 and 7347, Vernon's Civil Statutes. This opinion is founded strictlyupon the partioularfacts stated in your opinion request and upon the particularorder of the Commissioners I Court here in question.
SUMMARY The order of the Commissioners' Court of Hardin County,Texas, entered on March 24, 1969, wherein it attempts to change the valuationsshown on the

-1861-. -

Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 5 (M-376 )

tax rolls of the county whloh had been finally approved on January 22, by the Court, has no effect upon the valuationsshown on those tax rolls. 

### 1969

VezQtruly yoyrs, 

# $$2Lgkcg&G

tto ey G&era1 of Texas Preparedby W. E. Allen AssistantAttorneyGeneral
APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE
Kerns B. Taylor, Chairman George Kelton,Vice-Chairman Jack Goodman JoIopj$EGsSharpley Fisher Tyler
W. V. Geppert Staff Legal Assistant Hawthorne Phillips ExecutiveAssistant

-1862-