Ronorable HenryWade 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 wewill 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. TheArticle reads as follows:

“MOcity, 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 wasto 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. Noauthorlty~ 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 ArtD 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, weahall not, in thi8 opinion, attempt to exhauetively analyze theHonorable HenryWade, Page 2 Opinion No. 

### ww-887

entire field andhistory of state and local occupation taxes; however, wewill be glad to attempt to advise you concerning any specific occupation tax about which you maywish to inquire- In connection therewith, wedopoint out the following: I. Art0VIII Sec. 1, Constitution of Texas, provides as follows:

*provided further that the occupation t&‘levied by any county, city or town for anyyear on persons or corporations pursuing anyprofession or business, shall not exceed one half of the tax levied bythe State for the sameperiod on such profession or business.” Consequently, apolitical subdivision maynot tax an occupation which Is not the subject of a State lev Pierce v. City of Stephenville, 

### 206S.W.2d 

### 848 (lgti, no writ history) and authorities therein cited.

II. Article 

### 7048,R.C.S.,l permits counties to levy upto 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, 11would govern.

III * Clearly, as you point out, counties may levy an occupation tax on coin-operated machines Art. 13.14, H.B. 11) andpistol 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 bythe State upon all occupations not herein otherwise specifically exempted;. e *’ See State v. Calveston, HI.&S.A. Ry 100Tex. 97 S.W. 

### 71 (1906) revId on other grou%: 

### 28S.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 wasnot amongthe functions ,set out in the title to the act, which is nownew Title 122-A?” It is our opinion that Art. 1.0 Art. III, Sec. 

### 35,Constitution of Texas,8does 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’ D0.; revising Statutes levying.

. .mlscellaneous occupation taxes,

. . .‘I Notice is thereby given that Statutes contained in Title 122will 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., 

### 267Ffiws703 (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, 

### 54Tex, 

### 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, whentested bythese 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., 

### 56thLeg.), (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 andpl?tol dealers; (c) is constitutional. Very truly yours, WILLWILSON Attorney General

JRI:jlp APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEE: W.V. Qeppert, Chairman L. P. Lollar Leon Pesek Arthur Sandlln Iola Wilcox REVIEWED

FORTHEATTORNFX GENERAL Bg: Leonard Paasmore