THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

AUWNN. TBEXAEI 787lI 

November 29, 1974 

The Honorable Howard Freemyer 

County Attorney 

Kent County 

Jayton, Texas 79528 

Opinion No. H- 462 

Re: Whether county owes 

taxes on property located 

in another county. 

Dear Mr. Freemyer: 

You state that Kent County owns approximately three sections of 

land in Hudspeth County for which it has received no rent or lease 

money. The Kent County Commissioners Court has declared that the 

land is used for a public purpose. You wish to know “[wlhether or not 

a county owes County-State and school taxes on property in another 

county. ” 

The Constitution of Texas, in article 11, section 9 provides: 

The property of counties, cities and towns, 

owned and held only for public purposes, such 

as public buildings and the sites therefor, fire 

engines and the furniture thereof, and all property 

used, or intended for extinguishing fires, public 

grounds and all other property devoted exclusively 

to the use and benefit of the public shall be exempt 

from forced sale and from taxation, provided, 

nothing herein shall prevent the enforcement of the 

vendors lien, the mechanics or builders lien, or 

other liens now existing. 

Again, in article 8, section 2(a), it is provided, in part: 

All occupation taxes shall be equal and uniform 

upon the same class of subjects within the limits 

ps 2118 
The Honorable Howard Freemyer page 2 (H-462) 

of the authority levying the tax: but the legislature 

may, by general laws, exempt from taxation public 

property used for public purposes: . . . . 

Pursuant to this provision, the Legislature has included as one 

of the exemptions expressed in article 7150, V. T. C. S., the following: 

All property,. whether real or personal, belonging exclusively to this State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the United States, . . . . Sec. 4 

It has been suggested that the exemption declared in article 7150 

exceeds the power of the Legislature. City of Abilene v. State, 113 S. W. 2d 

631 (Tax. Civ. App. --Eastland 1937, writ dism). The most authoritative 

discussion of what property is devoted to public purposes and is therefore 

exempt may be found in A. & M. Consolidated Independent School District v. 

City of Bryan, 184 S. W. 2d 914 (Tex. Sup. 1945). 

However, you neither asked nor have you given us sufficient facts 

to determine whether the property would be exempt from taxation if 

located in Kent County. Your question assumes that it would be exempt 

and asks whether the exemption is affected by the location of the property 

in Hudspeth County. 

‘There is ample authority that an exemption of the property of a 

political subdivision is not defeated because the property is located outside the geographic limits of the subdivision. See s., A. & M. Consolidated I.&D. v. Citv of Bryan, supra (city owz electric lines located 

outside city and within school district); City of Abilene v. State, supra 

(property purchased by city for use as reservoir outside its limits);% 

of Dallas v.State, 28 S. W. 2d 937 (Tex. Civ. App. --Fort Worth, 1930, 

writ ref’d) (city owned reservoir site located outside county). 

It is our opinion, therefore, that county owned property which is 

tax exempt under article 9, section 11 of the Constitution of Texas or 

under a statute adopted pursuant to article 8, section 2 of the Constitution, does not lose its exemption because such property is located in another 

county. 

p. 2119 
The Honorable Howard Freemyer page 3 (H-462) 

SUMMARY 

The fact that county owned property may be 

located in another county does not affect its tax 

exempt status if, in fact, it would otherwise be 

tax exempt. 

Very truly yours, 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

lg 

p. 2120