October 26, 1988 

Honorable James A. Adkins 

Commissioner 

Texas Department of Mental Health 

and Mental 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 

from the hotel occupancy tax 

imposed by chapter 156 of 

the Tax Code (RQ-1470) 

Dear Mr.- Adkins: 

You ask whether 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, 351 and 352 of the Tax Code.‘ 

Chapter 156 of the Tax Code imposes a state tax 

on a person who, under a lease, concession, 

permit, right of access, license, contract, 

or agreement, pays for the use or possession 

or for the right to the use or possession of 

a room or space in a hotel costing $2 or more 

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 impose hotel 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. On May 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 

on official business for a state agency are not exempt from 

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

the state hotel occupancy tax under chapter 156 of the Tax 

Code. We also conclude that there is no 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) I that officers and employees of the Federal Reserve 

Bank traveling on official business are not exempt from the 

state hotel occupancy tax. The situation addressed in 

WW-738 may not have been the best analogy in support df the 

result of WW-528, involving as it did possible issues with 

respect to taxation of federal instrumentalities not 

relevant to the question in MW-528. See. e a. 

State of Marvland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (i819). ?Pg+& 

ample support elsewhere, however, for the conclusion reached 

in MW-528. 

We would note at the outset, the well 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 for persons using a room thir:; 

days or more, and in chapter 156 for religious, charitable 

or educational organizations, indicate, under the exoressio 

unius rule of statutory construction, that any exemptions 

not expressly provided for are to be deemed as expressly 

excluded by the legislature from the statutory scheme. See 

Tax Code 55 156.101, 156.102, 351.002(c), 352.002(c). 

In Attorney General.Opinion JM-865 (1988), we concluded 

that counties and home rule cities were without authority to 

grant hotel occupancy tax exemptions to certain religious, 

charitable, and educational organizations. 

quoted the court in Citv of Wichita Falls 

That opinion 

v. CooDey, 170 

S.W.2d 777 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 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 is clear to us that it was intended by 

the framers of our Constitution that all 

property should be subject to taxation, upon 

1. We do not mean here to reconsider Attorney General 

Opinion WW-738. But see Attorney General Opinion H-380 

(1974) (Motor Vehicle Retail Sales and Use Tax not 

applicable to federal employee renting vehicle on official 

business). 

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

an equal and uniform basis for the 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 to be 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 as did the Coooer case, it reached its conclusion 

based on the general rule enunciated there that, under Texas 

law, tax exemptions exist only if specifically provided for 

in the constitution or by statute. We follow here the rule 

followed in JM-865. We find no specific provision in chapters 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 in those chapters. Hence, we 

conclude, as did- Attorney General Opinion- MW-528 , that no 

such exemption exists. 

SUMMARY 

State officials or employees travel ing 

at state expense on state business are not 

exempt from the hotel occupancy tax provided 

for in chapters 156, 351 and 352 of 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 by William Walker 

Assistant Attorney General 

P. 4949