B-355 

Hon. E. F. Campbell 

County Attorney 

Fisher County 

Robg, Texas 

c 

Opinion No, V-194 

Re: The authority of the Commissioners' Court, sitting as a 

Board of Equalization, to conslder an assessment on Its own 

motion and without the Assessor’s 

request or suggestion, in regard to raising valuations. 

Dear Mr n Campbell: 

In your letter of April 9, 1947 you request the 

opinion of this department upon the following question, concretely stated in your letter as follows: 

"When the Tax Assessor for the County, 

assesses real estate in the regular way and the 

land owner signs it and swears to it as provided 

in Article 7211 Vernon Civil Statutes and the 

assessor accepts lt as mad,e by the land owner, 

does the Commissioners Court sftting as a board of 

equalization have a right to take this up on their 

own motion without any suggestion, notation, request or complaint of any kind from the Assessor 

and after due notlce to the land holder raise or 

lower the rendition as to value especially to raise 

the value?" 

As a preface to our opinion we point out briefly the 

constitutional and statutory provisfons pertaining to the Tax 

Assessor and the Commlssloners’ Court, (Board of Equalization) 0 

Suffice it to say that the Office of Tax Assessor Fs a constitutional office and Ls provided for by Article VIII, Section 18 of 

the Constitution, end now combined with the office of Tax Collector by the Constitution as amended November 8, 1932. Therefore, 

by the terms of Article 718la V,C,S. the terms are used lnterchangeably, and refer to the one office of Assessor and Collector of taxes. Notwithstanding the consolfdation of the two 

offices there still remains certain statutory duties and functions, separate and apart and attached to each respective office, 

as existed at the tfme of the consolidation, 

Ther,efore, TOP the purpose of this opinion we shall 
Hon. E. F. Campbell, page 2, v-194 

first confine ours,elves to the duties imposed by statute upon the 

Tax Assessor O 

Article 7211 V.C.S * provides: 

“Hereafter when any person, firm or corporation renders his, their or its property in thfs 

L?.ta$e for taxation to any tax assessor, and makes 

oath as to the’kind, character, quality and 

quanttty of such property, and the sald officer 

accepting said rendition from such person, firm 

or corporation of such property is satisfied that 

ft is correctly and properly valued according to 

the reasonable cash market value of such property 

on the market at the time of Its rendition, he 

shall list the same accordingly; but, if the assessor 1s satisfied that the value Is below the reasonable cash market value of such property, he 

shall at once place on said rendltfon opposite 

each piece of property so rendered an amount equal to the reasonable cash market value of such 

property at the time of Its rendition, and if such 

property shall be found to have no market value by 

such officer, then at such sum as said officer 

shall deem the real or intrinsic value of the property; and ff .the person listing such property or 

the owner thereof is not satisfied with the value 

placed on the property by the assessor, h,e shall 

so notify the assessor, and if desiring so to do 

to make oath before the assessor that the valuation 

so fixed by said officer on said property Is excessive; sueh officer to furnish such rendition, 

together with his valuation thereon and the oath 

of such person, firm or officer OP any corporation, 

if any such oath has been made, to the commissioners’ 

court. of the County in which said rendition was 

made, which court shall hear evldenoe and determine 

the ~true value of such property on January 1 19 

(here give yeas for whioh assessment is madej asIs herein provided; such officer or oourts shall 

take Into consideration what 5eid property could 

have been sold for any time withln six months next 

beiore the lat day of January of the geap ?OP which 

the property fs rendered.” 

In addition to Article 7211 ‘quoted above the following 

provisions direct the Assessor to’.transmit ‘to the Commissioners’ 

Court (Board of Equalization) assessments of rendered and unrendered pPopert$: 

“‘Article 7218 
Hon. E. F. Campbell, page 3, v-194 

"The assessor of taxes shall submit all the 

lists of property rendered to him prior to the first 

Monday in June to the board of equallzatlon of his 

County on the first Monday In June or aa soon thereafter as practicable, for their Inspection, approval, 

correction or equallzatlon a O D 6 -" 

"Article 7206 

It 0 0 0 (I The assessors of taxes shall furnish 

said board on the first Monday in Hay of each year, 

or as soon thereafter as practicable, a certified 

list of names of all persona who either refuse to 

swear or to qualify or to have algn%d the oath required by law, tog&her withtie asaeasment of aaid 

person's property made by him through other information; and said board shall examine, equalize and 

correct assessments so made by the assessor, and 

when so revised, ecjuallzed and corrected, the same 

shall be approvsd. 

"Article 7217 

"The assessor of taxes shall furnish the board 

of equalization on the first Monday in June of each 

year, or as .soon theresfter aa practicable, a’certiffed list of names of all persona who either refused to swear or qualify or to sign the oath as 

prescribed in this title; also a list of the names 

of those persons who refused to rendera list of 

taxable proper%y as required by this title a a .,'I 

The foregoing statutory provlslons cover generally 

the duties imposed upon the Tax Assessor in racelvlng the rendition of property owners at the value set by them In making voluntary renditions of their property for the purpose of taxation 

and changes made in said renditions by the Tax Assessor as to 

value and the transmission of such renditfons, whether changed 

by him OP not, to the Commissioners ) Court (Board of Equalization) 

for the purpose of equalizing and correetfng the values shown by 

the rolls. . 

When he has transmitted the renditions to the Commissioners' Court for fts official action, he has completed ,a11 

that is required of him until the~Commissfon%rs' Court ha8 

acted upon the same as the Board of Bqualfzation. 

We pass next to the constitutional and statutory duties 

of the CommfssfonersV Court as a Board of Equallzatlon~ The Commissioners' Court is a constitutional COUPE provided for by 
Bon, B. F. Campbell, page 4, v-194 

Article V, Section 1, of the Constltutlon which 1s aa follows: 

"The judicial power of this state shall be 

vested In one Supreme Court, in Courts of Civil 

Appeals, In a Court of Criminal Appeals, In D&strict 

Courts, in County Courts, in Commissioneps Court&, 

in Courts of Justices of the Peace, and in such 

. other courta as may be provided by law," 

supplied) 

(Emphasis 

The jurisdiction of the Commissioners' Court 1s'dePined 

in the'latter part of Section 18 of Article V of the Constitution 

as follows: 

"The county commissioners so chosen, with the 

county judge, as presiding officer, shall compose 

the County Commissioners Ccurt, which shall exercise 

such powers and jurisdiction over all $ountg businesp, 

aa is conferred by,thls Constitution and the laws of 

the State OF as ma 

(Emphasis supplied 7 

be hereafter prescribed." 

There is, however, an express llmitatlon upon the jurisdiction thus conferred upon the Commissioners' Court, that is, 

it mast be "county business", 

Tke Constitution has further expressly conferred upon 

the Legislature the power to provide, as nearly as may be, the 

valuation of all property subject to or rendered for taxation, 

This is provided for by A~ticls VIII, Section 18 of the Constftution as follows~ 

"The Legislature shall provide for equalizing, 

as 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 clasaification of all lands with reference to their 

value in the several counties." 

This brings us to yc~r concrete problem of whether or 

no% the Commiss loners I Cour% (Board of Equalization) may act upon 

Its own motion in equalizing value without Its jurlsdlctlon in 

this regard being first invoked by the Tax Assessor. The answer 

to this questlon 1s in %he affirm&tive~ We dlscuaa briefly our 

reasona for this conclusion. As above noted, Sectlm 18 of 

Article VIII of the Constltulon requires %he Legislature to 

"provide for equalizing as near as may be, the valuation of all 

property subject to or rendered for taxation," Pursuant to this 

constitutional mandate the Legislature has by the Wactwnt of 
. 

Hon. E. F. Campbell, page 5, v-194 

Articles 7206 and 7212 V.C.S. provided for equalizing the valuation of all property subject to or rendered for taxation. 

The terms of Article 7206 are: 

“Each commlssloners court shall convene and 

sit as a board of equalization on the second Monday 

in May of each year, or as soon thereafter as practicable before the first day of June, to receive all 

the assessment lists or books of the assessors of 

their counties for Inspection, correction or equalization and approval I ” 

Article 7212 v.c,s, provides: 

“The boards of equalization shall have power, 

and it is made their official duty, to supervise the 

assessment of their respective counties, and, if 

satisfied that the valuation of any property 1s not 

in accordance with the laws of the State, to lncrease or diminish the same and to affix a proper 

valuation thereto, as provided for in the preceding 

article; ‘O o m . O” 

When the Legislature said In Article 7206, V.C.S.; 

!‘shall examine, equalize and correct assesments so made by the 

assessor, and when so revised, equalized and corrected, the same 

shall be approved” and sald l.n Article 7212, V.C.S. the “Board 

of equalization shall have power, and It Is made their offlclal 

duty, to supervise, the assessment of their respective counties, 

and, if satisfied that the valuation of any property Is not In 

accordance with the laws of the State, to increase or diminish 

,the same and to affix a proper valuation thereto,” It dealt with 

such matters unquestionably as “county business” appropriately 

entrusted to the Commlsslonsrs I Court acting as a Board of Equallzatlon, In the exercise of this quasi judicial function the 

Commlsslonersl Court (Board of ISquallzatlon) may do so upon its 

own initiative without a suggestion from the Tax Assessor. 

This view has been confirmed In the ,Case of Brundett 

et al vs. Lucas 194 9,W. ~614 (Ct. of Civ. App. San Antonio) e !lbe 

following is stated: 

“We conclude that the act of 1879 which became article 5120, R-9. 1895, and article 4715 Rd. 

1879 were both designed to give the board of equalization the power to equalize assessments In al,1 

cases, regardless of whether the assessor or any one 

else made complaint, and this appears to have been 

the construction placed thereon by the Suprem Court 

. 
Hon. E. F. Campbell, page 6, v-194 

when it cited both provisions in support of its 

statement with reference to the change made. In 

1907 said article 4715, then No. 5124, was amended 

so that the first portlon thereof reads as follows : 

“‘The boards of equalization ,shall have 

power) and it is made their official duty, to 

supervlse the assessment of their respective 

counties, and, if satisflea that the valuation of 

any property is not in accordance with the laws 

of the state, to increase or diminish the same 

and to affix a proper valuation thereto, as provided for in article 7569 of this chapter . 0 0f 

“And thus’ amended, it now appears as article 

7570 R.S. 1911. As l,t now reads, It it111 confers ample power to equalize without complaint, 

even though the words ‘without complaint from any 

one’ were omitted; but If such omission could be 

given the effect contended for by appellee, nevertheless article 7564 gives the board full power 

to equalize and makes it the duty of the board to 

do so, regardless of whether any;complalnt has 

been made by t,he assessor or any one else. This 

article received renewed legislative spproval in 

1909, therefore cannot be said to be affected by 

the repeal clause &the act of 1907 had there 

been a conflict between the two acts, We conclude 

that the judgment cannot be sustained on the theory 

that, as the assessor made no complaint, the action 

of the boeti was not authorized.” 

We point out that whet was formtirly Article 5124 dlscussed in this case is now Article 7212 and as will be observed 

Is in identical language, but as it read before amended It 

specifically said “without complaint from any one” - Bow ever s as 

was saLd in Brundett et al vs, Iucas supra, t,he power still remains to act “without’ complaint from any one under Article 

7206 - 7212, The phrase without complaint from any one” was 

iii the amendment simply eliminated as surplusage. Article 7212 

“shall have power etc.” Shall have power to do what? 

i%cle 7212 gives the answer as follows: 

11 to auperyfse the essesment of 

thelr,iespectfve counties, and, If satisfied that 

the veluatlon of any property 1s not in accordance with the laws of the State, to increase OP 

zp;im;zh the same and lo affix a proper valuatfon 

9 a 0 0 0 0 0 D 
. 

Hon. IL F. Campbell, Page 7, v-194 

A more recent case to the same effect is Wright vs. 

State (Ct. of Civ. App. Amarillo) 80 S.W. (26) 1015 from which 

we quote as follows: 

"The action of the equalization board In 

fixing values IS judicial In Its nature, and they 

may flx such values based upon matters wlthln 

their own knowledge a e e The general rule is 

that equalization boards may act upon their own 

judgment of what la equal and just, and, In the 

absence of fraud, their determination cannot be 

challenged if It appears that they have previously 

Inspected the properties with the view of determlnlng values 0 s D 0 *" 

It does not follow, however, that the Commissioners 

Crrurt (Board of Equalization) may increase the values in the exercise of its Judicial functions wlthout giving the taxpayer 

notice and an opportunity to be heard, for such notice Is a 

necessary prerequisite to its jurisdiction, and without It there 

would be a lack of "due pro 89s". 

fil 

Highland Park Independent 

School District of Dallas C 

Company, 80 S.W. (2d) 1053. 

nty, et al vs. Republican Insurance 

Hoefllng vs. San Antonio 39 S.W. 

918 (Supreme Court.) In this latter case the court said: 

The board has no power to increase 

that v&e'(referring to the value fixed by the 

property owner in his rendltlon) without glvin 

notice to the owner 0 0 0 *" (Parenthesis ours k 

It follows from the foregoing that we are of the oplnion 

that the Commissioners I Court (Board of Equallzatlon) has the 

power and authority to raise or lower valuation of property for 

taxation without the same being lnltlated by the Tax Assessor, 

but if the valuation is to be raised notice mst be given to the 

taxpayer of the Board's intention to raise such valuatFon and 

give him an opportunity to be heard. 

SUMMARY 

The Commissioners' Court (Board of Equalization) has the power to raise property valuation for taxation without its jurisdiction belng 

first invoked by the Tax Assessor. It may act 

upon its own inltlative. If the valuation 1s 

increased, however, notice mst be given to the 

taxpayer. Article 7206, V.C.S., Article 7212, 

V.C.S.; Brundett et al vise Lucas, 194 S.W. 613, 

State vs. Wright, 80 S.W. (26) 1015. 
Hon. E, F. Campbell, page 8, v-194 

Yours very truly, 

ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS 

By: s/L. P. Lollar 

L. P. Lollar 

Assistant 

APPRUVED MAY 10, 1947 

s/Price Daniel 

ATTORNEY G-