TEEATI~TOR~-EY GENERAL 

QFTEXAS 

Honorable Robert S. Calvert Ooinion No. c-8 

Comptroller of Public Accounts * 

Capitol Station Re: 

Austin, Texas 

Whether intangible ;>r,operty belonging to a 

nonresident alien but 

located in Texas is 

subject to inheritance 

taxes upon the nonresiDear Mr. Calvert: dent:s death. 

You have submitted the following 

of this office. 

request, for an oi;ini.on 

."Eloy S. Vallina was a non-resident alien who 

died testate a resident of the Ciudad of Chihuahua, 

Chihilahu~, Mexico. The decedent during his lifetime 

had rented a safety deposit box from the El Paso 

National Bank of El Paso, Texas, anti besi~des a 

checking account In said bank, the following described property was found in said box: 

Checking Account - El Paso 

National Bank, El Paso, Texas $ 13,867.81. 

3608 Shares EI Paso National Bank, 

Elm Paso, Texas 96,480. OG 

Ecj;? Shares E! Paso National Bank, 

I<~!, Paso, Texas 53 ) 520, no 

600 Shares Northgate Nat?onal Bsnk, 

El Paso, Texas 28,7’~iG . a3 

Receint iLllO /I - 3% 31 Paso National B:nk 

S&ings Certificate 50, ooc . 00 

Certificete #31’, -- $ Savir*gs Cert:ficaLr: 

c-f Ei Paso NationaLBank ~Looo, oc 

"Plesse advise whether or not the above described 

proper,ty 1-s subject to the inheritance tax as provi.tied 

in Chapters 14 and 1~5 of Titie lZ?A, T:seti:,n Gener,jl. . "

It is we'll settIed that the money on deposit, the shi!res 

of stock, :nd the savings certificates constitute intar@bl~e 

-28- 
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 2 Opinion No. c-8 

personal pr0perty.l We will first consider whether there has 

been a taxable transfer under the provisions of Chapter 14. 

The pertinent provisions of Article 14.01 of Chapter 14, 

Title 122A, 20A, Taxation-General, Vernon's Annotated Texas 

Statutes, are the following: 

"All property within the jurisdiction 

of this State, real or personal, corporate or incorporate, and any interest therein, . . . whether belonging to inhabitants 

of this State or to persons who are not 

inhabitants, . . . which shall pass absolutely 

or in trust by will . . . shall, upon passing . . . be subject to a tax . . . in accordance with the following classifications; 

provided, however, that the tax imposed by 

this Chapter in respect to personal property 

of non-residents (other than tangible pro 

erty having an actual situs in this State P 

- 

shall not be payable; (1) if the grantor/or 

donor at the time of his death was a resident of a state or territory of the United 

States which, at the time of his death, 

did not impose a transfer or inheritance 

tax of any character in respect of personal 

property of residents of this State (other 

than tangible personal pro erty having an 

actual situs in said State P ; or, (2) if 

the laws of the State or territory of the 

residence of the grantor or donor at the 

time of his death, contained a reciprocal 

provision under which nonresidents were 

exempted from transfer or inheritance 

taxes of every character in respect to 

personal property (other than tangible 

personal property having an actual situs 

therein) provided the State or territory of 

residence of such non-residents allowed 

1 33 Tex.Jur. 936, Property, Sec. 3 and authorities cited therein. 

1, . . . Intangibles, consisting of rights not 

related to physical things, are merely relations 

between persons, natural or corporate, which the 

law recognizes by attaching to them certain sanctions enforceable in the courts. . . ." 42 Am.Jur. 

194, Property, Sec. 11. 

-2%. 
. . 

Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 3 Opinion No. C-8 

a similar exemption to residents of the 

State or territory of residence of such 

a grantor or donor. For the purpose of 

this Chapter the Distr-Lct of Columbia 

and possessions of the United States 

shall be consLdered territories of the 

United States. Provided further that 

the provl.si.onl; of this Chapter shall 

not a:pi ;y :;J .residents of those states 

which V!ave no inheritance tax law. . . .I' 

Siriitr Kay 23, li:j:f>, w:wn the United States Slupreme Court 

abandoned its sfr!,:I:. d.!~i,thax t:!heory, whih had limited the 

right to tax i,ntangiti.l,e:‘; t:: the decedent's domLcj.iiary state 

(except wheze such I.ntang~bl.es had acquired a permanent situs 

elsewhere), the law has been settled that more than one state 

may impose a'death tax measured by some or all of the taxpayer's intangibles if said intangibles were to some extent 

protected and benefited by the laws of the state imposing the 

tax . ;j In effect, the ta/; is regarded as the quid pro quo for 

such protection. 

In view of the United States Supreme Court cases which 

have re-established the right of states to impose death taxes 

on the transfer of intangibles of nonresidents, there would 

seem to be no doubt about the right of this State to impose 

an inheritance tax upon the receipt of intangibles l~ocated 

within this State but owned by a nonresident of the United 

States provided such Intangibles were afforded protection by 

2 Farmers t Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota, 50 S.Ct. 98, 230 U.S. 

204 (1430); Baldwin v. Missouri, 50 S.Ct. 436, 281 U.S. 586 

(1930); Beidler v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 51 S.Ct. 54, 

282 U.S. 1 (1930 First National Bank of Boston v. Mann, 

52 S.Ct. 174, 28 ‘u~12. 

3 Curry v. McCanless, 307 U.S. 357, 59 s.ct. 900 

Graves v. El.liott, 307 U.S. 383, 59 S.Ct. 913 (1939 * Graves v. 

Schmidlapp, 315 U.S. 657, 62 S.Ct. 870 (1942); State'Tax 

Commission of JJtah v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174, 62 S.Ct. 1008 

(1942). 

-3o- 
. 1 

Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 4 Opinion No. c-8 

the laws of this State.4 It is evident that this proviso is 

satisfied in the instant case. 

Having determined that'an inheritance tax might constitutionally be imposed under Article 14.01, we pass to a consideration of whether the, reciprocal exemption provisions for 

intangibles belonging to nonresidents covers not only nonresidents of the States and territories of the United States but 

also nonresidents of,the United States. The statute.itself 

specificaliy limits the reciprocal exemption provisions to 

residents . . . of a state or territory of the United States" 

under specifically stated conditions, and furthers specifically 

provides that ". . . the provisions of this Chapter shall not 

apply to residents of those states which have no inheritance 

tax law. .I. ; I' cshmsmd). We think that the ulainl 

language of the statute precludes its applicability to nonresidents of the"United States or of a territory of the United 

States. Ordinarily; the word "stat ' is not construed as inc1uding.a foreign,state or country. 3 

In the instant case, we are not presented with any 

problem of discrimination in taxation against residents of 

foreign countries which might be prohibited by a treaty between 

the United States and Mexico providing that no such discrimination should be made. We have, therefore,'not found it necessar,y to ascertain whether this goverlvnent and the Government of 

Mexico have entered into any treaty agreement with regard to 

4 Even prior to 1939, the United States Supreme Court had held 

that the Federal Government had the power to tax securities 

belonging to a nonresident alien when such securities were 

physically present in the United States at the time of the 

death of the decedent. 

U.S. 378 (1933). 

Burnet v. Brooks, 53 S.Ct. 457, 288 

Applying the reasoning of the Burnet decision the following cases upheld the rights of thmes involved to collect an inheritance tax on the transfer of intanaibles belonging to nonresidents of the United States. Estate Gf 

McCreery, 220 Cal. 26, 29 P.2d 186 In re 

185 Wash. 61, 1269 (1936). 

(1934'); Lloyd's Estate, 

52 P.2d 

5 Eidman v. Martinez, 22 S.Ct. 5i5, 184 U.S. 578 (1902). In re 

Miller's Estate, 239 Wis. 551, 2 N.W.2d,256 (19&2), holds that 

the Wisconsin statutory provision exempting the transfer of nonresident decedent's intangible personal property:from inheritance 

taxes, if like exemption is given Wisconsin residents by the laws 

of the state, territory or district of such nonresidents, did not 

apply to property of nonresident aliens since the purpose of the 

statute was to meet the domestic problem of multiple taxation by 

the various states. ^ 'I ._ 

-31- 
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 5 Opinion No. c-8 

death taxes. 6 You are therefore advised that the intangible 

property described in your request is subject to the inheritance 

tax levied by Article 14.01. 

We will next consider whether any tax will ,accrue under 

the provisions of Chapter 15. Although this Chapter is entit ed 

"AlditLonal Inheritance Tax"; it is in essence an estate tax. 3 

Article 15.01 levies a tax upon the entire net value of 

the taxable estate of a decedent situated and taxable within 

tk-,e sta-se ) the ta;E to be equal to the difference between the _:uil 

,f t,he inheritance taxes due the State and "eighty per cent (80$) 

of the total sum of the estate and transfer taxes imposed 

on such estate by the United States Government under the Revenue 

Act of 1926, by reason of the property of such estate which is 

situated in this State and taxable under the laws of this State.'! 

Article 15.04 levies a tax in the full amount of the 

allowable 80% credit whefje no State Inheritance taxes were due 

by reason of exemptions. 

Thus the amount of the tax is a fixed oercentaae of an 

amount which must necessarily first be determined under the ' 

provisions of the Federal estate tax statutes. In State v. 

Yliess, 141 Tex. 303, 171,S.W.2d 848 (1943), the court held 

that the terms "net estate" and "gross estate" as used in 

Article 7144aY must be given the &me meaning as they are given 

in the Federal Act in order to take full advantage of the 

Federal credit provision. 

6 In Nielson, Admr. v. Johnson, Treasurer, 49 S.Ct. 223, 279 U.S. 

47 (1929), the court held that a,treaty between the United States 

and a foreign government prevented discrimination in taxation 

against the resident of the foreign government. 

7 Strauss v. Calvert, 246 S.W.2d 287 (Tex.Civ.App. 1952, error 

ref., 

(1959) 

n.r.e.). Sinnott v. Gidney 

(Hold&g on this point li 

159 Tex. 366, 322 S.W.2d 507 

&ted to Section 4 of Article 

7144a, presently carried as Article 15.04). 

8 The 1954 Code reaches this result by providing that the basic 

estate tax and the estate tax imposed by the~Revenue~Act of 1926 

shall be 125% of the maximum credit allowed against the Federal 

estate tax for state death taxes paid. 

26 U.S.C., 8 2011(d). 

I.R.C., 1954, 8 2011(d), 

g Controlling sections of Article 7144a now carried in Articles 

15.01 and 15.05. 

-32: 
. - 

Honorable Robert S. Calvert,, Page 6 i Opinion No. c-8 

In view of the holding in the Wiess case, the determination by the Federal Government of whether the intangibles under 

consideration are included in the decedent's grqss estate will 

necessarily determine whether any tax can arise under the provisions of Chapte,r 15. 

SUMMARY 

Intangible personal property located in 

Texas and owned by,.a nonresident alien is, upon 

the nonresidentalien'sdeath, subject to an 

inheritance tax under the provisions of Chapter 

14,,Title 122A,.20A,,Taxation-General, V.A.T.S. 

The determination by the Federal Government of 

whether:the intangible personal property under 

consideration is included in the decedent's 

'~ gross estate will necessarily determine whether 

any tax can arise under the provisions of Chapter 

l.5, Title 122A, 20A, Tax.-Gen., V.A.T.S. 

MN?/jp 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMFITTEE: 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Frank Booth 

Arthur Sandlin 

F. C. Jack Goodman 

Yours very truly, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: Stanton Stone 

-33- 

.' .I. 
I 

INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION 

Attorney General's Office 

DATE: March 13, 1963. 

TO: Stanton Stone. 

FROM: W. V. Geppert. 

SURJECT: Opinion No. c-8. 

The Inheritance Tax Act, as enacted in 1923, read as 

follows: 

"All property within the jurisdiction of 

this State, real or personal, corporate or incorporate, and any interest therein, whether 

belonging to inhabitants of this State or to 

persons who are not inhabitants, regardless of 

whether property is located within or without 

the State, which shall passabsolutely or In 

trust by will or by the laws of descent or 

distribution of this or any other State, or by 

deed, grant, sale or gift made or intended to 

take effect in possession or enjoyment after 

the death of the grantor or donor, shall upon 

passing to or for the use of any person, corporation or association be subject to a tax for 

the benefit of the State's general revenue fund 

in accordance with the following classifications." 

(Emphasis supplied throughout.) 

The Inheritance Tax Act was next 

as follows: 

amended in 1929 to read 

"All property within the jurisdiction of 

this State, real or personal, corporate or lncorporate, and any interest therein, whether 

belonging to inhabitants of this State 

persons who are not inhabitants, regardless of 

whether property is located within or without 

this State, which shall pass absolutely or in 

trust by will or by the laws of descent or 

distribution of this or any other State, or by 

deed, grant, sale or gift made or intended to 

take effect in possession or enjoyment after 

the death of the grantor or donor, shall upon 
passing to or for the use of any person, corporation or association, be subject to a tax for 

the benefit of the State’s general revenue fund 

In accordance with the following classifications: 

The Statute was next amended in 1939 to read as follows: 

‘All property~ within the jurisdiction of this 

State, real or personal, corporate or incorporate, 

and any interest therein, including property passing under a general power of appointment exercised 

by the decedent by will, including the proceeds of 

life insurance to the extent of the amount receivable by the executor or administrator as insurance 

under policies taken out by the decedent upon his 

own life, and to the extent of the excess over 

Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) of the amount 

receivable by all other beneficiaries as insurance 

;$e;ip~li,cies taken out by the decedent upon his 

, whether belonging to Inhabitants of this 
. . 

State regardless of whether such property is located wlthin or without this State; which-shall pass absolutelv or in trust bs will or bv the laws of 

descent or distribution of this"or any~ other state, 

or by deed, grant, sale, or gift made or intended 

to take effect in possession or enjoyment after 

the death of the grantor or donor, or association, 

be subject to a tax for the benefit of the State's 

General Revenue Fund, In accordance with the following classification. . . .' 

The Statute was next amended in 1945 to read as follows: 

"All property within the jurisdiction of this 

State, real or personal, corporate or incorporate, 

and any interest therein, Including property passing under a general power of appointment exercised 

by the decedent by will, including the proceeds of 

life insurance to the extent of the amount receivable by the executor or administrator as insurance 

under policies taken out by the decedent upon his 

own life, and to the extent of the excess over 

Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) of the amount 

receivable by all other beneficiaries as Insurance 

under policies taken out by the decedent upon his 

own life, whether belonging to inhabitants of this 

State or to persons who are not inhabitants, regardless of whether such property is located within or without this State, which shall pass absolutely or in trust bv will or bv the laws of descent br distributlon"of this or"any other State, 

or by deed, grant, sale, or gift made' or intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment after 

the death of the grantor or donor, shall, upon 

passing to or for the use of any person, corporation, or association, be subject to a tax for 

the benefit of the State's General Revenue Fund, 

in accordance with the following classification: 

provided. however, that the tax imp{ 

-3- 
. 

The Statute was again amended in 1959 when adopted as 

Article 14.01, Chapter 14, in a New Title of the Revised Civil 

Statutes to be known as "Title 122A, Taxation - General". Sec. 

1. Title 122A. The 1945 Act was brought forward in the new 

title, without any changes, except the word "Article" and the 

word "Act" were both changed to "Chapter" so that it would conform to the New Title,. 

Section 3 of the New Title 122A reads as follows: 

"With respect to the provisions of this Act 

which tax transactions subject to taxation by 

the State.prior to the effective date of this 

Act, this Act shall be considered to be the 

equivalent of a revision by amendment even 

though it is in the form of an enactment of 

new law and repeal of the old law. This Act 

shall be construed to make a substantive change 

in the prior law only, where the language of 

this Act manifests a clear intent to make such 

a change." 

I have set out the pertinent provisions of our inheritance 

tax statutes as enacted in 1923 and as amended in 1929, 1939, 1945 

and 1959 for the purpose of showing the history of our inheritance 

tax statutes and the uniform and consistent departmental construction placed on the 1923 Act and its amendments by the Comptroller of Public Accounts, who is acharged with the enforcement 

and collection of inheritances taxes, and for the purpose of 

showing the construction placed upon the original act by the 

Lesiglature itself in the 1929 amendment and the 1945 Amendment. 

I call your attention to the,fact that the 1923 Act and 

all of the amendments contain the following language: 

"All property within the jurisdiction of 

this State, real or personal, corporate or incorporate, and any interest therein, whether 

-4- 
belonging to inhabitants of this State or to 

persons who are not inhabitants, regardless 

of whether property is located,within or without this state, which shall pass absolutely or 

in trust by will or by the laws of descent or 

distribution of this or any other State." 

Upon the passage of the Inheritance Tax Act in 1923, the 

Comptroller of Public Accounts construed the above quoted language 

and the phrase "of this or any other state" to mean and include 

inhabitants of foreign counties. This construction was not 

questioned by anyone, Andy from 1923 until the time of the 1929 

amendment, all property, both real and personal, tangible and intangible, belonging to inhabitants of foreign countries but within the jurisdiction of this State, was, upon the death of the nonresident aliens, subject to inheritance taxes. 

The Supreme Court of Texas in speaking of departmental 

construction has stated: 

"This long-continued administrative construction is entitled to great weight, especially 

in view of the fact that the statute was amended 

as late as 1943 and the Legislature, which is presumed to have been aware of the interpretation, 

made no changes in the language that would indicate a contrary intent." 

S.W.2d 570 (1944). 

Burroughs v. Lyles, 181 

The court in Crane v. Mann, 162 S.W.2d 117 (Tex.Civ.App. 1942 

error ref.) with reference to departmental construction of this 

same inheritance tax statute stated: 

"Moreover, the State Comptroller has acted 

in accord with it for a number of years in 

collecting inheritance taxes. The parties have 

incorporated in the record by agreement several 

opinions of the Attorney General which show since 

the year 1929 that department has construed the 

Inheritance Tax Statute to place the tax on the 

entire estate passing by virtue of the will regardless of any compromise agreement which permits a portion of the estate to go to a contestant. 

That departmental construction having been acquiesced in by the Legislature of Texas for more than 

12 years is of itself persuasive and should not be 

overturned in the absence of strong reason therefor." 

When the Legislature in 1929 amended the Inheritance Tax 

Statute it is presumed to have been aware of the interpretation 

placed thereon by the Comptroller and In the 1929 Amendment made 

no changes in the language that would indicate contrary intent. 

-5- 
. 

In fact, it added the following proviso which clearly reflects 

that it was either aware of the departmental construction or 

placed the same construction upon the Act itself by adding the 

following: 

"Provided, however, that the tax imposed by 

this Article in respect to personal property of 

non-residents (other than tan ible property having 

an actual situs in this State 'f shall not be payable: (1) if the grantor or donor at the time of 

his death was a resident of a State or territory 

of the United States or of a foreign country which 

at the time of his death did not impose a transfer or inheritance tax of any character in respect 

of personal property of residents of this State 

(other than tangible personal property having an 

actual situs in said State); or, (2) if the laws 

of the State or territory or foreign country of 

the residence of the grantor or donor at the time 

of his death, contai,ned a reciprocal provision 

under which non-residents were exempted from transfer or inheritance taxes of every character in 

:respect to personal property (other than tangible 

personal property having an actual situs therein) 

provided the State or territory or foreign country 

of residence of such non-residents allowed a similar 

exemption to residents of the State or territory m 

foreign country of residence of such a grantor or 

Zionor." 

If the Legislature itself had not interpreted the phrase 

"of this or any other state" as including foreign countries it 

would not have added the above proviso exempting residents of a 

foreign country from pay~ing the inheritance tax on intangible 

property in the event the foreign country did not impose a 

transfer or inheritance tax in respect to personal property~ of 

residents of this State (other than tangible personal property 

having an actual sltus in said state) and would not have provided that if the foreign oountry~ contained a reciprocal provision as to Intangible property that they~ would not have to pays 

the inheritance tax on Intangibles within the jurisdiction of 

this state. It would have been a vain, useless and nonsensical 

proviso. For example, if the Legislature would pass an act providing that the provisions thereof would only apply~ to counties 

containing a population of 200,000 or more according to the last 

preceding Federal Census it would certainly not then add a proviso 

to the effect that the provisions of the Act would n,ot apply to 

counties containing a population of ,20,000 or under. During the 

period of time from the 1929 Amendment to the 1939 Amendment, 

the Comptroller, In enforcing and collecting inheritance taxes, 

ruled that all property, both real and personal, tangible and 

intangible, belonging to inhabitants of foreign countries, but 

-6- 
within the jurisdiction of this State, was, upon the death of the 

aliens, subject to inheritance taxes, except in those instances 

in which the aliens resided in 'a foreign country~, which, at the 

time of death, did not impose a transfer or inheritance tax of 

any character in respect of personal property of residents of 

this State (other than tangible personal property having an 

actual situs in said State); or if the laws of the foreign 

country of the residence of the grantor or donor at the time of 

his death, contained a reciprocal provision under which nonresidents were exempted from transfer or inheritance taxes of 

every character in respect to personal property (other than 

tangible personal property having an actual situs therein) provided the ..*. foreign country of residence of such non-residents 

allowed a similar exemption to residents of the State or territory~ 

of residence of such a grantor or donor." This construction was 

consistent and uniform up until the time of the 1939 Amendment 

and was not questioned by any taxpayer. 

The Legislature in its amendment in 1939 omitted the 

provisions as to the exemptions of intangible personal property 

as well as the reciprocal provisions. From the time of this 1939 

Amendment until it was next amended in 1945 the inhabitants of 

foreign countries as well as the inhabitants of any state or 

territory of the United States paid the inheritance tax upon all 

their property within the jurisdiction of this State both real 

and personal, whether tangible or intangible. 

In 1945 the Legislature amended this statute and made it 

identical with the provisions of the 1929 Amendment except in 

the following respects: (1) The Act of 1929 exempted intangible 

personal property of a non-resident who was a resident of a state 

or territory of the United States "or of a foreign country" which 

did not Impose an Inheritance tax in respect to intangible personal property. The 1945 Act omitted the phrase "or of a foreign 

country." !2) The Act of 1929 also provided that the provinces 

of the Dominion of Canada were to be considered foreign countries. 

The 1945 Ac't omitted thi& provision. (3) The Amendatory Act of 

1939 added the provision for inclusion of life insurance proceeds. 

(4) The Amendatory Act of 1945 restored the provisos containing 

the reciprocity provisions as enacted in 1929 but omitted therefrom reference to foreign countries. 

The amendment in 1959 is in the identical language as 

used in the 1945 Act except the 1959 Amendment in one place 

changed the word "Article" to "Chapter" and in another place 

in the Act changed the word "Act" to the word "Chapter" to conform with the New Title 122A, Taxation - General. From the time 

this Act was amended in 1945, which restored the provisions containing the reciprocity provisions but omitted therefrom the 

reference to foreign countries as contained in the 1929 Act, it 

has been the uniform and consistent departmental construction 

by the Comptroller that all property whether real or personal, 

tangible or intangible, within the jurisdiction of this State 

-7- 
., . 

- . 

belonging to inhabitants of foreign countries was subject upon 

the passing upon the non-residents' death to the inheritance 

tax. This construction has not been questioned by any taxpayer 

and the taxes on intangibles have been paid by inhabitants of 

such foreign countries until it was questioned by the executor 

of the Estate of Elloy S. Vallina which was the occasion of our 

Opinion No. c-8. Upon the release of this opinion the executor 

of the Vallina Estate paid the inheritance tax upon the intangibles 

and same has been paid into the State Treasury. 

The Legislature in 1929 first added the following proviso: 

"provided further that the provisions of this Act shall not apply 

to residents of those states which have no inheritance tax laws." 

This proviso followed the provisos containing the reciprocity 

provisions as to residents "of a state or territory of the United 

States or of a foreign country." It was the uniform departmental 

construction of the Comptroller that the proviso quoted above 

which stated that the act shall not apply to residents of those 

states which have no inheritance tax laws had reference only to 

a state or territory of the United States and served to accord 

complete exemption as to all property owned by non-resident 

decedents the state of whose residence did not levy any inheritance tax. It did not apply to or cover "foreign countries". 

This proviso, as well as the reoiproclty provisions, was omitted 

from the 1939 Act, but was again inserted in the 1945 Act and 

the 1959 Amendment, and was given the same construction by the 

Comptroller as was given the provision as contained in the 1929 

Act. We have previously quoted in full the provision of Sec. 3 

of the 1959 Act, which expressly provided that the Act shall be 

considered to be the equivalent of a revision by amendment, even 

though it is in the form of an enactment of a new law and repeal 

of the old law. We requote this express statement: 

1, . . ..This Act shall be construed to make a 

substantive change in the prior law on1 

the language of this Act manifests a -F c ear when intent to make such a~change." 

The Legislature is presumed to have known of the construction given by the Comptroller to the 1929 and the 1945 Acts, 

and has acquiesced in such construction for a period of fourteen 

years. The 1959 Amendment made no change in the provisions of 

the 1945 Act. 

The holding in our Opinion c-8 is in harmony~ with this 

departmental construction and is in harmony with the holding in 

Attorney General's Opinion No. o-6122 (1944), a copy of which is 

attached to this memorandum. As stated by our courts, this 

departmental construction is entitled to great weight. It has 

been consistent and uniform and has been acquiesced in by the 

Legislature for a long period of time and as stated in the 

Crane case, supra, such departmental construction "should not 

be overturned in the absence of strong reason therefor". 

I am convinced that our opinion c-8 is legally~ sound. 

-8-