Zl‘HE ii2TORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN a. TEXAS

October 9, 1959

Mr. Jesse L. Nickerson OpinionNo. W-712 County Attorney Camp County Re: Amount of additional Pittsburg, Texas vehicle registration fee due upon corrected weight when affidavit is submitted that vehicle has not been used upon highwaysprior to Dear Mr. Nickerson: paying additional fee.

On July 20, 1959, you requested an opinion of this Office based upon the following situation:

"On or about March 20, 1959, a taxpayer registered, for the year 1959, a certain truck designated as a two ton ChevroletDump Truck. Registrationwas issued and the Tax Collector, in copyingpertinent data from the preceding year's registration slip, showed the 1959 registration as empty weight as 6,500 lbs and the pay-load weight as 2,000 lbs.
"At a later date, the Motor Vehicle Department advised the Tax Collector that a correctionmust be made showing the empty weight as 7,000 lbs. and pay-load weight as 4,000 lbs., so that the figureswould coincidewith the manufacturer's specifications. However, the letter indicated in lieu thereof a slip showing the actual weight couldbe presented by the truck owner, provided the weights be made by a bonded weigher.
"On or about July 6, 1959, the truck owner approached the Tax Collector and attempted to follow the instructionsof the letter issuedby Motor Vehicle Department and, at the same time, giving a properly executed affidavit stating the the truck involvedhad not been used during the current registrationperiod--from the beginning of the currentyear to the date of July b 1.. The Tax Assessor in turn advised the taxpayer that it would be necessary for him to pay the full year's differencebetween the original inthe
tt -Mr. Jesse L. Nickerson, Page 2 (OpinionNo. WW-712)

correct registrationand to correctregistration increasing the emptyweight from 

### 6,500lbs. to 7,000 lbs., and thepayloadweight from 2,000 lbs. to 4,000 lbs., rather than paying 9/12ths of the currentyear's registration fee in the correct amount. 'i
"In view of R.C.S. 

### 6675A-4,should a taxpayerbe required to pay a full year's registration fee on an increase of weight to correctan incorrect registration issued at the beginning of the currentyear, when an Affidavit,properly executed, has been submittedby the taxpayer to the Tax Collector, stating that the vehicle has not been used on the roads and highways of the State, during the currentyear?"
As far as we can determine, there is no case law on this point, nor have there been any previous opinions of this Office construingArt. 

### 6675~~-4, V.C.S., which reads as follows: "Eachapplication filed hereunder for registration or for chauffeur's licenseduring April shall be accompaniedby the full amount of the annual fee if the vehicle was operated on the public highways or streets during any part of April of that year, each application for re-registration filed duringMay or any subsequentmonth of thatmotor vehicle reregistrationyear, shallbe accompaniedby affidavit that such vehicle has not been previously operated upon the highways of this State during any portion of the currentyear and shall be accompaniedby eleven-twelfths, ten .Gwelfths,nine-twelfths,eight-twelfths, seven-twelfths,six-twelfths, five-twelfths, four-twelfths, three twelfths, two-twelfths, or one-twelfthrespectively of the annual fee. This section shallbe in force beginningwith the Motor Registration year 1934 and all succeedingyears. Acts 1929, 41st Leg., 2nd C.S., p. 172, ch. 

### 88, B 4; Acts 1934, 43rd Leg.,,2nd C.S., p. 

### 5, ch. 

### 3, 3 2." (The "currentyear" for registrationpurposes Is April 1st to March xlst, both inclusive. Art. 6675a-3,V.C.S.)

Prom the emphasizedportion of Art. 6675a-4, it Is apparent that the "fullamount of the annual fee" is due only_- .-

Mr. Jesse L. Nickerson, Page 

### 3 (OpinionNo. WW-712)

"if the vehiclewas operzted on the public highways or streets during any part of April of that year." Although the registration fee in this case was paid for the full year (underan erroneousweight classification)the taxpayer swears that the vehicle was not operated on the public highwaysprior to July 

### 6. Therefore,he would have been perfectlywithin his rights to have waited until that date to register it. Since the original registrationwas defective,we should considerJuly 

### 6 as the effective date of registration. On that date, g/12 of the annual fee would have been due; therefore, only g/12 of the difference between the original incorrect fee and the correctamount should be collected.
SUMMARY

Where taxpayer registered a motor vehicle on March 20, 1959, and it was thereafterdetermined that the registeredweight of the vehiclewas incorrectly stated, causing an additional registration fee to be due thereon; and where the taxpayer submittedan affidavit, as provided under Art. 

### 6675a-4,that the vehicle had not been used on the public highwaysprior to July 

### 6, 1959, the additional fee due on that date would be g/l2 of the differencebetween the original incorrectregistration fee and the corrected fee.
Yours very truly,
WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas

JRI:cm
APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE: Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman Gordon C. Cass Wallace Finfrock Riley Eugene Fletcher
REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: W. V. QEPPERT