Ronorable Henry Wade opinion HO. ww-887 

District Attorney 

Records Building Re: Authority of counties to 

Dallas, Texas Impose an occupation tax 

upon Insurance adjustera, 

Dear Mr. Wade: and related questlone. 

Your recent request for an opinion of this office 

sets forth three questions pertaining to Article 1.09, 

Title 122A, Taxation-Qeneral, R.C.S. (H.B. 11, 3rd C.S. 

56th Leg., hereafter referred to as H.B. 11). ?or clarity 

we will consider the question8 In order. 

” 1 * Does Art. 1.09 forbid the lmporltlon 

by counties of an occupation tax upon Insurance 

adjusters?” 

It fa our opinion that Art. 1.09 does forbtd the 

imposition by counties of an occupation tax upon insulrance 

adjusters. The Article reads as follows: 

“MO city, county or other political subdivision may levy an occupation tax levied by 

thi,e Act unleaa apeclflcally permitted to do 80 

by the Legislature of the State of Texas.” 

Clearly the intent of the Legislature was to 

prevent cities, counties and other political subdivlelons 

from taxing any of the occupatioma upon which a State tax 

Is levied by H.B. 11, unless specific authority to do so, $8 

granted. There is an occupation tax levied upon lnsurano’e 

adjusters by Art, lg.01 of H.B. 11. No authorlty~ t,o make a 

slmllar levy 1s granted to counties; therefore, they are 

prohibited from doing 80. 

“2. what ceunty occupation taxes a30 

permitted under Art D l.Og?" 

As well pointed out In the brief accompanying your 

request, the enactment of Art, L-09 did not reeolve all 

confusion which existed in this area, Therefore, we ahall 

not, in thi8 opinion, attempt to exhauetively analyze the 
Honorable Henry Wade, Page 2 Opinion No. ww-887 

entire field and history of state and local occupation taxes; 

however, we will be glad to attempt to advise you concerning 

any specific occupation tax about which you may wish to 

inquire- In connection therewith, we do point out the 

following: 

I. Art 0 VIII Sec. 1, Constitution of Texas, 

provides as follows: 

*provided further that the occupation 

t&‘levied by any county, city or town for 

any year on persons or corporations pursuing 

any profession or business, shall not exceed 

one half of the tax levied by the State for 

the same period on such profession or business.” 

Consequently, a political subdivision may not tax an 

occupation which Is not the subject of a State lev 

Pierce v. City of Stephenville, 206 S.W.2d 848 (lgti, no 

writ history) and authorities therein cited. 

II. Article 7048, R.C.S.,l permits counties to 

levy up to one-half the State tax on an occupation not 

specifically exempted. This rule would be Irreconcilable 

with Art. 1.09, H.B, 11, which prohibits a county from 

taxing an occupation taxed In II-B, 11 unless specific 

permission Is given. In one, the absence of prohibition 

implies consent; in the other, the lack of permission lmplies prohibition. 

7048. 

H.B. 11 did not directly repeal Art. 

It did contain a blanket repealer covering “all 

laws or parts of laws In conflict herewith” (Sec. 7 (b’) ). 

Therefore, if a conflict did arise between the provisions, 

Art. 1.09 of R.B, 11 would govern. 

III * Clearly, as you point out, counties may 

levy an occupation tax on coin-operated machines Art. 

13.14, H.B. 11) and pistol dealers (Art. 19.01 (7 , H;B.ll), f 

1 “Each commissioners court. s *shall have the 

right to levy one-half of the occupation tax 

levied by the State upon all occupations not 

herein otherwise specifically exempted;. e *’ 

See State v. Calveston, HI. & S.A. Ry 100 Tex. 

97 S.W. 71 (1906) revId on other grou%: 28 S.Ct. 

15 

(1906) 

63 

210 U.S. 217 
. . 

Ronorable Henry Wade, Page 3 Opinion No. ww-887 

because specific permission to do so is granted by those 

Articles, 

" 3. Is Art. 1.09 constitutional, Insofar 

as it limits local occupation taxes, since such 

limitation was not among the functions ,set out 

in the title to the act, which is now new 

Title 122-A?” 

It is our opinion that Art. 1.0 

Art. III, Sec. 35, Constitution of Texas, 8 

does not violate 

The caption of 

R-B. 11 (Title 122A) Is of considerable length; perhaps 

necessarily so, In view of the purpose and content of the 

Act. Of consequence here is the portion reading “An Act 

revising and rearranging certain Statutes of Title 122 

*Taxation’ D 0 .; revising Statutes levying. . .mlscellaneous occupation taxes, . . .‘I Notice is thereby given that 

Statutes contained in Title 122 will be revised; more particularly, that statutes levying miscellaneous occupation 

taxes will be revised. 

It is well settled that this section of the 

Constitution should be liberally construed. Consolidated 

Underwriters v. Klrby,Lumber Co., 267Ffiws 703 (T C 

App. 1924 ; 2d 

810 (1958 . 

Shannon 

It Is only necessaFjXEat 

;:k pi 

riade notice’ 

of the subject-matter of an act be stated In the caption. 

Stone v. Brown, 54 Tex, 330 (1881); Continental Bus System v. 

Crney, 310 S.W.2d 676 (Tex.Clv.App. 195UJi error ref.). 

T e caption of H.B. 11, when tested by these rules, is 

sufficient to embrace the matter treated in Art. 1.09 thereof. 

SUMMARY . 

Art. 1.09, Title 122 A, R.C.S. (H-B. 

11, 3rd C.S., 56th Leg. ), (a) forbids the 

2 “No bill. 0 .shall contain more than one subject, 

which,,shall be expressed in Its title. 

. * D 
. - 

Honorable Henry Wade, Page 4 Opinion No. WW-887 

lmposltlon by counties of an occupation 

tax upon Insurance adjusters; (b) permits 

counties to levy occupation taxes upon 

coin-operated machines and pl?tol dealers; (c) is constitutional. 

Very truly yours, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General 

JRI: jlp 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE: 

W. V. Qeppert, Chairman 

L. P. Lollar 

Leon Pesek 

Arthur Sandlln 

Iola Wilcox 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNFX GENERAL 

Bg: Leonard Paasmore