- 

515 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

em-c- 

-- 

Donorable Roy L. Hill 

county Attorney 

Rumals County 

BalllnGar, Texas 

Dear sir: 

. 

the new dlstrlct 

property or the 

that was iorserly 

OJXLOD school dlsa lesser psrconts actual value 

property of the 

f the new district 

ch was formerly In the 

dependent school district? 

1940, 

the f 

ur letter of September 9, 

ion of this departcmt on 

on School District la conndependant School District, 

Districts have a fifty (SO) 

the consolidation Is perfected, 

the tax to One ($1.00) Dollar. 

Could the-dependent Dlstrlct assess that Dart 

Or thl8 district, which was fomerly the COE?.O~ 

School Dlstrlct, below .Stato and County valuation; and not aaseas the other part oi the dlstrlct on the aam basls?~* 
Honorable Roy L. Hill, Page 2 

Apparently the consolldatlsn you refer to took 

place under the authority of Article ES06 of the Revised 

civil Statutes, which reads, in purt, as folio-m: 

Vozzon school districts my in like aanner be conzolid~tod with coztlg2ous independent 

school dlstr:cts, and the district so creuted 

shall bo Minoan by tho urme of the inde-pendent 

school district Included therein, nnd the :tinagemeut of the m-8 district shall ba uader the existing board of trusteoa or’ the indepcnfient 

school dlrtrict, and all the richts &d prlviley.es praktad to iadacaudect iiFstrifia by the 

laus of tlil:~ .I:tnto s!nll b:: !riven to zi.5 consolinated lncoye:idont district CrcsiCd under 

the provisions cf this laW; . . .s (Lphasis 

ours) 

We wish to oall your attention to that part or 

Article 2606, above quoted; which provide2 thut the fiew 

consolidated independent district has all the rlchts and 

privileges granted to indapcndant CistriCts by the laws 

or this State. Ths taxing power is granted to such. independent dlstriats by Article 2764 of the Revised Civil 

Statutes which reads, in part, as foSlows: 

‘The oom&isloners court for the comon 

school districts in its count-y, and the district school trustees for the lzdependont 

school dlstricts lncorpozated ror sctool purposes only; shall hsve rower to levy ard cause 

to be collected the anrual taxes and to Issue 

the bonds herein authorized, subject, to the 

rollowing provisions : 

” 

. and in independent districts for 

the mtkecance of schools therein, an ad 

valorerj tax, not to exceed one dollar on the 

one hundred dollars valuation of taxable property or the district.” 

Based on the above-quoted article, this departrent ruled in Cpiulon No, O-2623 as follovre: 
t - 517 ‘i 

l%moruble Roy L. Eill, page 3 

\ 

Tie feel sure thut the school authorities 

of ileridian Icde,~eudent School District aze entirely FzrAitJr with the above stntutes, and 

wo can orly advise, in tho abneme of a aorc) 

specltlc question, t: at ti:ey ma7 grocegd to 

levy, aoaeoo axd collect tarsa o,C th?, newly 

oreatod di3trlct, under the ome procedure followed by the- in lcvyin;, aazessinc end colleoting taxes for ssld district prior to Its 

aonsclldatim -hit? Eidviay District Xo. 63, 

Basque County. Saici Comolidhtizn of date June 

4, 1940, doe; not in any asy alter the proaedure 

outlined by the above statute3 for the levy, 

assessmn: and collection or taxes for lndeyendent sob001 districts, or dereat the fight of 

Eerldlan Indopeudent School District to levy, 

assess and oolleot taxes in the mount voted, 

tram persons and proparty of the old oomim school 

district for the currlnt year,” 

Apparently fro:i yoalr question the new independent 

district wlshos to value the property of the part that was 

Z’ormerly the cozen school dlstriot st s Lesser percentage 

than the paroentaga taken of the voluo of the property that 

v.as formerly in ttle Independent school distrlot. You are 

advised that this cay not be done because such aatlon would 

unquestiombly be lo VioZctiOa Of Eection 1 or Artl0l.e 8 0r 

the Constitutl:n or Texas, which reads, in part, as follows: 

WTaxation shall be equal and uuifom. All 

. property in this State, whether omed by natural 

persona or corporations, other than nuuioipal, 

shall be tared in proportion to its value, nhioh 

shall be asoertnined as Mayo bc provided by law.- 

,i 

. e l n 

The aourts of this State have on nuc?roua oooasions 

held that the above quoted provision of the Constltutloa requires that all the property wlthin a taxing district be taxed 

equal17 and unifon~ly. 17113 would reoulre the use of the same 

percentage of the actual value of all of ths F:ro;eerty as a 

basis for the tax. The Texarkano Court of Civil Appeals in 

the oase of U~lllns v, Colrax Consolidated School District, 

18 5. W. (ad) 940~, stated as follovis oonoernine the Colfax 

Consolidated School DiStrlCtr 
. . 

_~. . 

Eonorable Roy L. Hill, page 4 

\ 

*It is ia strict accordance with funCanento.1 law ttat all tsx'lb13 proprty wi;kln 

tha c~~~l~~~~ted tiiztr1ct 0 3 t.cixln* Cl_qtrict, &houli. be taxed unk&ly, ehd‘thtt 

there should ho'. be a no3uuifsrzAty of tax 

rate for the 88~3 public purposes. . ,* 

In the cnss of zefith3rly Inde-ondent School District v. Iiu$m3, 41 5. 7:. (XC) 445, eafd school district 

at tetipted t.o value put of the promrty of saic district 

at on3 hucEr?d p3r cent of its actual vslue acd vclus other 

PrO~rtJ iE tk saed district at only fifty per cent or its 

value. The k.SiliO COW Or civil AF';33lS hold that such 

procedure was in violation of S3ctlon 1 of Article 8 of the 

COUStitUtiOG of TOX~S, 3ad st3te.d as follows: 

.-The record, In our view of thd case, 

show3 fully a dlscrimihtitlon in the Indapentant school Uistrict*s valuation, in this: The 

valuation plnced on pl3intiffa' lard by the 

lnde;3unCost school district bo;lrd was $10 per 

acre and ths land wa3 taxed 100 per cent. It 

appears clear fro& the evidence before the 

txlul court that.the l..lalntiffs~ lazd ~'~13 taxed 

upon such 1CC par cent valuation and that the 

la&d3 or th3 wltnoss who did tsstiiy as to the 

ralmtion of his land were taxed at mch less 

than 50 per cent of th3ir value-. 

". . . 

c 

I 

"The lovyinz of a tax uron the'plslntlffs* 

land by which they Bra dlscrk!iinetsd agslcst ’ : 

is a tahing of their Rroprtrty without due process of ltiuf. This azounta t.o legal fraud and 

justiflos the issuance of an injunction aginst 

the collection of such illegal tax. Such a dlacrininatior violates Flaintlffs~ right to hnve 

the tax uniforfiy levlsd acolnst their property, 

and equal ‘v: :: h those of ‘otter tax payers. 

0 

. . . 

"Tax.88 are *equal rind unlforrz* within the 

comtitutisn v:hsh no p3rson or olass 0r persons 

in ths territory tax3d, is tured st a hi::h.sr 

rate than others in the mm district up03 the 
Honorable Roy L. Hill, rage 5 

same values or thing a%d when the objects of 

taxes are ths saze by whomosver o&d or shatever they b3. . . 

*.“Ttie rule laid dov;n thst taxes st;all be 

equal 8nd unirora aprlles to nuzIcljx31 as well 

as state taxes. City of Austic v. Austin Ca3- 

Li@lt. etc., co.,. 69 Tea. 183, lS7, 7 S. :‘:. 200.” 

The safris rule of lsw was laid down by the Eastland Court of Civil Apflals in th8 case of Flunt v. Throckcarton Indepandent School District, 59 !3. %‘. (26) 470. The 

court stated as follows: 

We have above referred to oertoin testlmony adduced on the trial, but the testisony 

generally in comection with that s~eciflcally 

rererred to, when properly and reasonably con6tru3d, discloses that the detendant's property 

was valued at 100 per cent. or its riarkat value 

on January 1, 183, whereas ot.her propsrty ln 

the district, namely, ram lands and city property, were taken at 50 par cent or less of their 

value. The plan adortod aad above discussed 

logically led to inequality acd dl6criiAnatioE. 

. . . 

n 

To the same erfect see the case of Santa Rosa v. 

Lyrord Independent. school District, 78 6. Vi. (26) 1061, by 

the =E Antonio Court of Civil Appeals. 

you are therefore advised that the new oonsolidated 

independent dist.rlct. you rerer to day not ror tax.purposea 

value the property of a portion of the district at a-lesser 

percentage of its actual value than the percentage used for 

the rest of the property of such district. 

Yours very truly 

BG: ew