- 

# 515

**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

**em-c-**

**--**

Donorable RoyL. Hill county Attorney Rumals County BalllnGar, Texas

Dear

### sir:

.
the newdlstrlct property **or** the that was iorserly OJXLOD school dlsa lesser psrconts actual value property of the f the newdistrict chwas formerly In the dependent school district?
1940, thef ur letter of September 9, ion of this departcmt on

onSchool 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 wasfomerly the COE?.O~ School Dlstrlct, below .Stato and County valuation; and not aaseas the other part oi the dlstrlct on the aam basls?~*Honorable 

### RoyL.Hill,Page 2

Apparently the consolldatlsn you refer to took place under the authority of Article ES06of 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 boMinoanbytho urmeof the inde-pendent school district Included therein, nndthe :tinagemeut of the m-8district shall ba uader the existing board of trusteoa or’ the indepcnfient school dlrtrict, and all the richts &d prlviley.es praktad to iadacaudect iiFstrifia bythe laus of tlil:~

.I:tntos!nll b:: !riven to zi.5 consolinated lncoye:idont district CrcsiCd under the provisions cf this laW;

. . .s (Lphasis ours)Wewish 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. Thstaxing 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, andthe **dis** trict 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 andto Issue the bonds herein authorized, subject, to the rollowing provisions : ”

. and in independent districts for the mtkecance of schools therein, anad 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 RoyL. Eill, page 3

\
Tie feel sure thut the school authorities of ileridian Icde,~eudent School District aze entirely FzrAitJr with the above stntutes, and wocan orly advise, in tho abneme of aaorc) specltlc question, t:at ti:ey ma7grocegd to levy, aoaeoo axd collect tarsa o,Cth?,newly oreatod di3trlct, under the ome procedure followed by the- in lcvyin;, aazessinc end colleoting taxes for ssld district 

### prior to Its aonsclldatim -hit? EidviayDistrict Xo. 63, Basque County. Saici Comolidhtizn of date June 4, 1940, doe; not in anyasy 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 andoolleot taxes in the mount voted, tram persons andproparty of the old oomim school district for the currlnt year,” Apparently fro:i yoalr question the newindependent 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.asformerly in ttle Independent school distrlot. You are advised that this cay not be done because such aatlon would unquestiombly be lo VioZctiOa OfEection 1 or Artl0l.e 8 0r the Constitutl:n or Texas, which reads, in part, as follows:

WTaxation shall be equal anduuifom. All

.property in this State, whether omed bynatural persona or corporations, other thannuuioipal, shall be tared in proportion to its value, nhioh shall be asoertnined as Mayo bc provided by law.- ,i . el n Theaourts 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. 17113would 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, 185. W. (ad) 940~,stated as follovis oonoernine the Colfax Consolidated School DiStrlCtr.. _~. .

Eonorable RoyL. Hill, page4

\

*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 88~3public purposes.
. ,* In the cnss of zefith3rly Inde-ondent School District v. Iiu$m3, 41 5. 7:. (XC) 445, eafd school district attetipted t.ovalue put of the promrty of saic district at on3hucEr?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';33lShold 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, show3fully 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 andths land wa3taxed 100 per cent. It appears clear fro& the evidence before the txlul court that.the l..lalntiffs~ lazd ~'~13 taxed upon such 1CCpar cent valuation andthat the la&d3 or th3wltnoss whodid tsstiiy as to the ralmtion of his land were taxed at mch less than 50per cent of th3ir value-. ".

. . c

I

"The lovyinz of a tax uron the'plslntlffs* land bywhich they Bra dlscrk!iinetsd agslcst ’ : is a tahing of their Rroprtrty without due process of ltiuf. This azounta t.olegal fraud and justiflos the issuance of an injunction aginst the collection of such illegal tax. Sucha dlacrininatior violates Flaintlffs~ right to hnve the tax uniforfiy levlsd acolnst their property, andequal ‘v:::hthose of ‘otter tax payers. 0

. . . "Tax.88are *equal rindunlforrz* within the comtitutisn v:hshnop3rson or olass 0r persons in ths territory tax3d, is tured st ahi::h.sr rate than others in the mm district up03 theHonorable RoyL. Hill, rage 5

samevalues or thing a%dwhenthe objects of taxes are ths saze bywhomosver o&d or shatever they b3.

. . *.“Ttie rule laid dov;nthst 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.,. 69Tea. 183, lS7, 7S. :‘:. 200.” Thesafrisrule of lsw waslaid downby the Eastland Court of Civil Apflals in th8 case of Fluntv. Throckcarton Indepandent School District, 59!3. %‘

. (26) 470. The court stated as follows:

We have above referred to oertoin testlmonyadduced on the trial, but the testisony generally in comection with that s~eciflcally rererred to, whenproperly and reasonably con6tru3d, discloses that the detendant's property wasvalued 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 50par cent or less of their value. Theplan adortod aadabove discussed logically led to inequality acd dl6criiAnatioE.

. . .n Tothe sameerfect see the case of Santa Rosa v. Lyrord Independent. school District, 786. Vi. (26) 1061, by the =E Antonio Court of Civil Appeals.

you are therefore advised that the newoonsolidated 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