October 26, 1988

Honorable James A. Adkins Commissioner Texas Department ofMental Health andMental Retardation P. 0. Box 12668 Austin, Texas 78711-2668 opinion No. al-972
Re:Whether a state official or employee traveling at state expense on official state business is exempt fromthe hotel occupancy tax imposed by chapter 156 of the Tax Code (RQ-1470)
Dear Mr.-Adkins:
You askwhether a state official or employee traveling at state expense on official business for a state agency is exempt from the hotel occupancy taxes provided for in chapters 156, 351and 352of the Tax Code.‘ Chapter 156of the Tax Code imposes a state tax

on aperson who, under a lease, concession, permit, right of access, license, contract, or agreement, pays forthe use or possession or for the right to the use orpossession of a room or space inahotel costing $2ormore each day.
Tax Code g 156.051. Additionally, chapters 351 and 352 of the Tax Code in similar language authorize a municipality and the commissioners courts of certain counties, respectively, to imposehotel occupancy taxes. This office was asked this question with respect to the chapter 156 state hotel occupancy tax six years ago. In Attorney General Opinion RR-528 (1982), this office ruled that "no such exemption exists" from the chapter 156 state hotel occupancy tax. OnMay 16, 1988,however, this office issued Letter Opinion No. LO-88-58, withdrawing MW-528 for further study and consideration. Having carefully considered the question, we now reaffirm the conclusion 

### of MW-528 that state officials or employees traveling at state expense onofficial business fora state agency are not exempt from

p. 4947Honorable James A. Adkins -Page 2 (JM-972)

the state hotel occupancy tax under chapter 156 of the Tax Code. We also conclude that there isno such exemption to the local hotel occupancy taxes provided for in chapters 351 and 352 of the Tax Code. Attorney General Opinion WW-528 based its conclusion in part on the ruling in Attorney General Opinion WW-738 (1959)Ithat officers and employees ofthe Federal Reserve Bank traveling onofficial business are not exempt from the state hotel occupancy tax. The situation addressed in WW-738 may not have been thebest analogy in support df the result ofWW-528, involving as itdid possible issues with respect to taxation of federal instrumentalities not relevant to the question inMW-528. See. ea. State ofMarvland, 17U.S. (4Wheat.) 316 (i819). ?Pg+& ample support elsewhere, however, for the conclusion reached inMW-528.
Wewould note at the outset, thewell settled rule that claims for tax exemptions are strictly and narrowly construed. See. e.a **Davies v.**  Mever **541** S.W.2d 827 (Tex. 1976). Also, we &e that the e&ess exemptions ' chapters 156, 351 and 352 forpersons using a room thir:; days ormore, and in chapter 156 forreligious, charitable or educational organizations, indicate, under the exoressio unius rule of statutory construction, that any exemptions not expressly provided forare tobe deemed as expressly excluded by the legislature fromthe statutory scheme. See Tax Code 55 156.101, 156.102, 351.002(c), 352.002(c).
InAttorney General.Opinion JM-865 (1988),we concluded that counties andhome rule cities were without authority to grant hotel occupancy tax exemptions to certain religious, charitable, and educational organizations. quoted the court inCitv ofWichita Falls That opinion v. CooDey, 170 S.W.2d 777 (Tex.Civ.App. -FortWorth 1943,writ which held that cities could not ref'd), by ordinance provide for tax exemptions on homesteads beyond those authorized by state law or constitutional provision.

It isclear tous that itwas intended by the framers of our Constitution that all property should be subject to taxation, upon

1. We do notmean here to reconsider Attorney General Opinion WW-738. But seeAttorney General Opinion H-380 (1974) (Motor Vehicle Retail Sales and Use Tax not applicable to federal employee renting vehicle on official business).

P. 4948Honorable James A.Adkins -Page 3 (JM-972)

an equal and uniform basis forthe purpose of defraying the governmental expense, excention onlv of SW nronertv ?s% document soecificallv exemnts therefrom a such as the Leaislature shall. under Constitutional restrictions, bv XDllC lancuaae. declare tobe exemnt. (HmpEasis ii added in Attorney General Opinion JM-865 (1988),at 3.) Cooner, 170 S.W.2d 777, 780. Though JM-865 did not deal with pronertv taxation exemptions asdid the Coooer case, itreached its conclusion based on the general rule enunciated there that, under Texas law, tax exemptions exist only if specifically provided for in the constitution orby statute. We followhere the rule followed inJM-865. We findno specific provision inchapters 156, 351, 352, or elsewhere in state law or in the constitution to the effect that state officials or employees traveling on state business are exempt from the hotel occupancy taxes provided for inthose chapters. Hence, we

,that no conclude, asdid- Attorney General Opinion- MW-528 such exemption exists.
SUMMARY

State officials or employees traveling at state expense on state business are not exempt from thehotel occupancy tax provided for inchapters 156, 351 and 352of the Tax Code.

JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas
MARY KELLER First Assistant Attorney General
LOU MCCREARY Executive Assistant Attorney General JUDGE ZOLLIE STEANLEY Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN Chairman, Opinion Committee Prepared byWilliam Walker Assistant Attorney General

P. 4949