JIM MATTOX 

: torney General 

: >r.m, coun BulldIng 

: 0. BOX 12S49 

lullin. TX. 78711- 2nR 

51214752501 

1ex 910/974.1297 

’ Iecopier 512/4750299 

: 1 Jackson. Suite 799 

lies. TX. 75202.4509 

2141742.99U 

24 Alberta Ave.. bite I@3 

El Paso. TX. 799052793 

9lY53334U 

1001 Texas. Suit* 700 

“ourton.~lX. 77002.3111 

Y2255999 

@OR Broadway. suite 312 

,bbock. TX. 794013479 

361747.5239 

309 N. Tenth. Suild S 

IcAllm, TX. 79SO1.1685 

512lS92-4547 

,00 Main Plaza. Suite ro0 

San Anlonio. TX. 792952797 

51212254191 

The Attorney General of Texas 

December 21. 1984 

Ronorable Houston Munson 

District Attorney 

25th Judicial District 

P. 0. Box 99 

Gonzales, Texas 71’629 

Opinion No.JM-264 

Rc: Whether a county tax 

assessor-collector may retain 

fees for clericals and work 

performad in aiding an attorney 

hired by the county to collect 

delinquent taxes, and related 

questions 

Dear Mr. Munson: 

You ask us the following two questions: 

1. Is a county entitled to retain those 

monetary benefits as a fee of office paid to the 

county tax collector’s office staff for clerical 

work performed by said offi.ce on county time in 

aiding the attorney hired by the county to collect 

delinquent taxes, or do said benefits belong to 

the office staff? 

2. Is a county entitled to retain those sums 

of money .SS a fee of office paid by automobile 

dealers I,C the county tax collector’s office for 

copies o:i motor vehicle registration lists prepared by e;aid office on county time and furnished 

to said automobile dealers, or do said benefits 

belong to the office staff? 

Your letter states that the office of the Guadalupe County tax 

collector has assisted the attorney hired by the county to collect 

delinquent taxes br preparing lists of names of delinquent taxpayers 

and sending notices of delinquencies to these taxpayers. In return. 

the attorney paid a sum of money to the tax collector’s office which 

was divided among the tax collector and his deputies. This sum of 

money was paid by t:he attorney to the tax collector’s office once a 

year. The lists were prepared by county employees during regular 

working hours. 

Additionally, employees of the tax collector’s office prepared 

lists of all motor vehicles sold and registered in Guadalupe County. 

These lists were photocopied and distributed to area automobile 
Monorable Houston Munrou - Page 2 (JM-264) 

dealers on a regular basis. The automobile dealers paid a monthly sum 

of money that again vas divided among the employeas of the tax office. 

Likawise, these lists were p,reparcd by county employees during regular 

working hours. 

Both of your questions ask about the proper disposition of 

certain monies received anti retained by the office of county tax 

assessor-collector. Both questions appear to presuppose the propriety 

of the county’s retaining such monies in the first place; your only 

concern appears to be to vhom such funds should be distributed, the 

county or the clerical stai’f actually performing the work. We must 

first answer, however, the threshold question, the answer to which you 

presuppose, aa to whethw the county tax assessor-collector is 

entitled to accept such monies in the first place. We conclude that 

he is not authorized to do *ICI. 

Generally , a public oUficer has no authority to perform an act 

not authorized or requested of him by lav. Duncan v. State, 67 S.U. 

903 (Tex. Civ. bpp. 1902, no writ). 

All public offices and officers are creatures 

of law. The powers and duties of public officers 

are defined and Mnited by law. By being defjned 

ar.d limited by law, we mean the act of a public 

officer must be e,xpressly authorized by law, or 

implied therefrom. 

Fort Worth Cavalry Club v. Sheppard, 83 S.U.Zd 660. 663 (Tex. 1935). 

Specifically, an officer nwy not charge a fee for the performance of a 

particular duty unless a f@!e is provided by law and its amount thereby 

fixed. Nueces County hrrington, 162 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. 1942); 

McCalla v. City of Roc&?a, 246 S.W. 654 (Tex. 1922); Binford v. 

Robinson, 244 S.W. 807 T&x. 1922). Nor may he receive extra 

compensation for performinlg a duty otherwise imposed upon him by law. 

Set Hill Farm, Inc. V. Hill County, 425 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. Civ. App. - 

Waco 1968). aff’d, 436 S.W.Zd 320 (Tex. 1969); Jones v. Veltmann. 171 

S.U. 287 (Te-v. App. - San Antonio 1914, vrit ref’d); Attorney 

General Opinions JM-135 (1984); O-3656 (1941); O-2610 (1940); O-864 

(1939); cf. Attorney Gener;lL Opinion Mu-483 (1982). 

- 

The tax assessor-collector is required by statute to make a list 

of delinquent taxpayers anmi to ratify those persons whose names appear 

on the list of their dellrlquent status. Tax Code 5533.03. 33.04. If 

the notices about which you inquire are those required by the code to 

he prepared and sent out. the tsx assessor-colIector clearly may not 

charge for them. If, on the other hand, the noclces at issue were 

prepared in addition to those which the code requires, the tax 

assessor-collector may Ijk.ewise not impose a charge because he had no 

statutory authority to prepare them in the first place. There is no 

provision in the Tax Code which purports to confer authority on the 

county tax assessor-collector to enter into an agreement vith s 

p. 1177 
Honorable Houston huneon - P;rge 3 (JM-264) 

private delinquent tax attorney vhereby county employees perfona 

certain clerical tasks la return for consideration. 

It is true that while a public officer may not receive extra 

compensstion for performing a statutory duty, he 

mey earu a revurd, if he is under no obligation 

because of his official character to do the 

particular act for which the rcwsrd is promised. 

The general princ:lple prohibiting public officers 

from receiving rewards for the performance of 

their official dutles does not prevent them from 

entering into agr,zements with private individuals 

to render unoffic:I.al services in consideration of 

direct compensation being paid for such services. 

22 R.C.L. Public Officers 1235 (1918), noted in Crosby County Cattle 

Co. v. McDermett. 281 S.W. ;!93, 294 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1926. 

no writ); see also Morris ‘c. Kasling, 15 S.W. 226, 227 (Tex. 1890). 

There is no indication, ho’atrver, that the work was performed by the 

county employees scting in s private capacity. Even if such ware the 

CSSC, the employees of the tax collector’s office would still be 

Prohibited from retsinfng the money If the servlccs were performed 

during working hours using “any equipment. supplies or anything of 

value belonging to the county.” Attorney General Opinion O-6702 

(1945); see also Attorney Ge:aeral Opioions V-14 (1947); O-6908 (1945). 

Thus, in regard to your first question, it is our opinion that the tax 

collector of Guadalupe Couuty. or his personnel, may not lawfully 

retain the fees for preparing delinquent tax lists. 

We now turn to your second question. concerning the collection of 

fees for copies of lists of motor vehicles that were sold and had 

titles registered in GuaiUupe County. The Texas County Records 

Manual, prepared under the authority of article 5442c, V.T.C.S.. is an 

nofflcial. legs1 guide to records retention requirements for Texas 

county officials.” Texas County Records Manual, at ix (1978). The 

Manual requires a county tax assessor-collector to retain (for varying 

periods of time) lists of motor vehicles reP,jstered in the county and 

reports on motor vehicle t,rsnsfers. Texas County Records Manual. at 

B-223 (1978). The lists ws,uld be considered public information under 

section 3(s) of the Open Records Act, article 6252-17s. V.T.C.S.. 

which states that 

[a]11 icformstion collected, assembled. or msintained by governmental bodies pursuant to law or 

ordinance or in connection with the transaction of 

official busines!; is public information and svsilable to the publ:Lc during norms1 business hours of 

any governmental body. . . . 
Honorable Houston Munson - Psge 4 (JR-2643 

When a person applies for a lint of motor vehicles registered and sold 

in Guadalupe County, the tax collector’s office is required to produce 

the informstion promptly. V.T.C.S. srt. 62S2-17a. 64. 

The employees are simply discharging their duty to provide public 

informscion in accordance vith section 3 of article 6252-17a snd are 

paid by,the county for discharg:ing such duties. 

Becsuae the GusMupe County tax asseaaorcollector is required by statute to prepare a list 

of delinquent taxpsyers and to provide the public 

vith information of all the motor vehicles 

registered In the county, he has no authority to 

collect fees therefore either in public or private 

cspacity. 

Very truly you J k h 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

TOM GREEN 

First Assistant Attorney Geneml 

DAVID R. RICRARDS 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

RICR GILPIN 

Chairman. Opinion Cosssittec 

Prepared by Jim Hoelliager 

Assistsnt Attorney General 

APPROVED : 

OPINION comm-ree 

Rick Gllpin. Chairman 

Jon Bible 

Colin Carl 

Sussn Garrison 

Tony Guillory 

Jim Hoellinger 

Jennifer Riggs 

Nancy Sutton 

Bruce Youngblood 

p. 1179