Honorable J. W. Edgar 

Commissioner of Education 

Texas Education Agency 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Mr. Edgar: 

Opinion No. M-859 

Re: Whether a County Tax Assessor Collector can refuse to assess and collect 

independent school district 

taxes under Section 23.94, 

Texas Education Code, at 

a valuation different from 

or higher than the valuation assessed for state 

and county purposes and 

whether the Commissioner's 

Court should be the Board 

of Equalization under 

Section 23.94. 

Your request for opinion poses the following questions: 

"1 . When an Independent school district, pursuant 

to Section 23.94, Texas Education Code, designates 

the county tax assessor-collector to assess and 

collect its school district taxes, and to assess 

Its taxable property at a greater rate (or at 

greater valuations) of value than that same property is assessed for state and county purposes, 

legally may he refuse to perform? 

"2. When under Section 23.94, the county tax assessorcollector Is so designated to assess and collect, 

and assess on higher valuations, does the commlssloners court automatically become the board of 

equalization of property values for the Independent 

school district; or does the law contemplate the 

district shall appoint Its own board of equalization for handling protests, hearing and adjustment 

purposes, and a preparation of a tax roll approved 

by a board of equalization?" 

Section 23.94, Education Code, Vernon's Civil Statutes, 

which became effective September 1, 1969, reads as follows: 

-4165- 
, . 

Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 2 (M-859) 

"(a) The board of trustees of any independent school 

dlstrlct may designate as Its assessor and collector 

of taxes for the school district the county tax 

assessor-collector. 

"(b) The property In the school district may be 

assessed at a greater rate of value than the same 

property is assessed for state and county purposes, 

"(c) When the county tax assessor and collector Is 

required to assess and collect the taxes of an independent school district, the board of trustees of such 

school district may contract with the commissioners 

court of said county for payment for such services 

as they may see fit to allow, not to exceed the 

actual cost incurred in assessing and collecting 

said taxes. 

"(d) The county official so selected shall turn over 

all Independent school district taxes collected by 

him to the depository of the independent school 

district." 

Various statutory provisions preceded the enactment of 

Section 23.94 and related to the valuation to be used by a 

county tax assessor-collector in assessing ad valorem taxes for 

an independent school district. Under such previous statutes a 

county tax assessor-collector was limited, except for a brief 

period, In assessing ad valorem taxes on property in independent 

school districts to the value used to assess for county and 

state purposes. 

In the case of McPhall v. Tax Collector of Van Zandt -- 

County, 280 S.W. 260~(Tex.~Fi.~p., 1925, error ref.),the 

-stated: 

"The law provides with reference to the assessment of 

property for Independent school districts, when assessed by the county assessor, that the same shall 

not be assessed at a greater value than that for which 

it is assessed for county and state purposes. If, 

however, the assessment Is made by a special assessor, 

-4166- 
Honorable J. W. Edgar, Pace 3 (M-859) 

. . . property may be assessed at a greater value than 

that for whlc; It was assessed for state and county 

purposes. . . . (at p. 264). 

Accord: Underwood v. Chlldress I. S. 

773 (Tex. Civ. App.7912, error nsm7. 

&, 149 S. W. 

Section 23.94, Texas Education Code now provides that 

when a county assessor assesses Independent school district 

property that he may assess such property at a greater value 

than that used for state and county purposes. Therefore, 

the question is whether a county tax assessor-collector can 

refuse to assess and collect at a rate of value levied by a 

school board greater than the rate for which property situated 

within such school district was assessed for state and county 

purposes. 

The Texas Supreme Court In Aldlne Independent School District 

%Sta;d;le;, 154 Tex. 547, 280 Smd2a-578 (1933) mued 

2 which was the predecessor statute to Section 23.94. 

The special assessor-collector appointed to assess the school 

taxes In this Instance was not the county tax assessor-collector; 

however, Article 2792 and related statutes were Involved In the 

case. In discussing the authority of the board of trustees and 

an appointed tax assessor-collector, the court said: 

"We think It apparent from a reading of the above 

statutes, that an assessor-collector of taxes appointed by a school board Is . . . only an agent or 

employee of such school board at Its discretion. 

The board alone has the power to levy and cause to 

be collected the annual taxes . . . ." 

. . . 

. . . a reading of the statutes relative to the assessment and collection of taxes... shows that this 

power Is lodged by the Legislature and Constitution 

in the school board, and not in the office of the 

assessor-collector. He Is but an agent or employee 

of the Board to discharge the clerical duties 

necessary to carry out the school board's powers of 

taxation." 

-4167- 
Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 4 (M-859) 

This reasoning would apply also to a county assessorcollector appointed under Article 2792 because he Is likewise 

only an "agent" appointed at the discretion of the Board, which 

'alone has the power to levy and cause to be collected the 

annual taxes.,. .' 

Although the wording has been changed in the Education 

Code from the language of Article 2792 and its related Articles, 

the relationship between a school board and a tax assessorcollector designated by it as Its assessor and collector of 

taxes Is virtually the same. We see no reason to doubt that 

the county tax assessor-collector as designated by the Board 

under the Education Code Is an agent of the Board to carry out 

the Board's powers of taxation as the Board may dictate. 

The power to determine the rate to be used Is vested In 

the Board and not in the assessor-collector. Once the Board 

designates the tax assessor-collector Its agent for assessing 

and collecting and Instructs him on the rate of value that the 

Board has levied on property within the school district to be 

used, the tax assessor-collector Is obligated to assess and 

collect at the rate instructed. The language In Section 23.94 

(b) that the property "may be assessed at a greater rate of 

value' does not grant any discretion to the tax assessor-collector to determine the rate to be used or to refuse to assess 

at a certain rate of value. It merely removes the prior 

llmltatlon on the rate of value which the Board could levy. 

Therefore, It Is the opinion of this office that when an lndependent school district, pursuant to Section 23.94, designates 

the county tax assessor-collector to assess and collect Its 

school district taxes, and to assess Its taxable property at a 

greater rate of value then that same property is assessed for 

state and county purposes, the county tax assessor-collector 

Is bound to the rate of value as levied by the Board and, as 

the Boards' agent, he has no discretion to assess such taxes 

at any other rate. 

The second question posed relates to whether the County 

Commissioner's Court or a board appointed by the Board of Trustees 

is to serve as a Board of Equalization under Section 23.94, 

Education Code. 

Article 8, Section 18, Texas Constitution, provides: 

"The Legislature shall provide for equalizing, as 

-4168- 
. 

Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 5 (M-859) 

near as may be, the valuation of all property subject to or rendered for taxation, (the County Commissioner’s Court to constitute a board of equalization) ; and may also provide for the classification of all lands with reference to their 

value In the several counties.” 

However, in discussing Section 18, the Court in Board of 

Equalization of Clt of Port Worth v- McDonald, 133 Ta52r 

29 s . w . 26 Ir35-&5g)mtF 

. . . It has been held that the reference to the 

Commissioners’ Court pertains to state and county 

taxes, and not to city taxes, but the requirement 

for creation of an agency for equalizing values 

does apply to cities and towns, The necessity 

for some agency . . . for assessing values and 

equalizing same, , . . is obvious. . ..I’ (at p. 1139). 

It is apparent that the Constitutional requirement for 

the use of the Commissioner’s Court Is limited to state and 

county taxes. However, the Texas Supreme Court In Miller 

v. Vance, 107 Tex. 485, 180 S. W. 739 (1915) determmat 

meCommIssIoner’s Court could properly he designated as a Board 

of Equalization In a situation where the county--tax assessorcollector was selected by an Independent school district to 

assess and collect Its taxes, and where he was limited by statute 

in assessing to the rate of value used for state and county 

purposes. The reasoning was that It would be senseless to 

establish a board which would be powerless to equalize values, 

inasmuch as it could not raise the rate of valuation. 

As hereinbefore stated, Section 23.94(b) granted to the 

school board the authorlty to levy a greater rate of value on 

property In the school district than the same property Is 

assessed for state and county purposes. In Section 23.94 

there Is no express requirement that a board of equalization 

be appointed; however Section 23.93 providing for the appolntment of an assessor-collector for the district by the board of 

trustees requires the assessment be equalized by a board of 

equalization appointed by the board of trustees. Inasmuch as 

the county tax assessor-collector as deslgnated under Section 

23.74 serves the same function as a tax assessor-collector 

apnolnted under the authority of Section 23.33. the llke authority for equalization of the asoessmenl under Section 23.94, 

-4169- 
. . 

Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 6 (M-859) 

by a board of equalization can be reasonably presumed when 

considered together with the other two methods provided in such 

Education Code for selecting an assessor and collector (Sections 

23.95 and 23.96). In both cases, a board of equalization is 

provided. The overall scheme of equalization for such school 

districts appears to be by a board of equalization appointed 

by the school districts and not a board of equalization composed 

of the Commissioner's Court. Based upon the above reasoning, 

it Is the opinion of this office that under Section 23.94 the 

independent school district should appoint its own board of 

equalization. 

SUMMARY 

When an independent school district, pursuant 

to Section 23.94, Texas Education Code, designates 

the County tax assessor-collector to assess and 

collect Its taxes and designates him to assess Its 

taxable property at a greater rate of value than 

that same property is assessed for state and county 

purposes, he, as an agent only, has no discretion 

to do otherwise in the matter. When the county 

tax assessor-collector Is so designated under 

Section 23.94, the statutory Intent is that the 

Board of Trustees of the Independent School 

District should appoint its own Board of Equalization. 

? 

You&very truly, 

Prepared by Harriet D. Burke 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman 

-4170- 
Honorable J. W. Edgar, Paqz '7 

Sob Lattlmorc? 

James McCoy 

Fisher Tyler 

James #.uuick 

MEADE F. GRIFFIN 

Staff Legal Assistant 

ALFRED WALKER 

Executl.ve Assistant 

NOLA I;'HITFi 

First Assistant 

(M-859) 

-4171-