Honorable Henry Wade Opinion No. C-533 

District Attorney 

County Records Building Re: Whether Dallas County Junior 

Dallas, Texas College District May Tax the 

Intangible Property and 

Rolling Stock of Railroads 

or Transportation Companies 

Dear Mr. Wade: 

and Other Questions Relating to Such District. 

You have requested that we reconsider Opinion No. C-458 

of this office dated June 21, 1965, pertaining to the taxation 

by the Dallas County Junior College District of intangible 

assets and rolling stock of railroads or transportation companies. 

Said Opinion C-458 Is hereby withdrawn and the following is substituted therefor. 

You ask the opinion of the Attorney General In answer 

to the following five (5) questions relating to the levy 

and assessment of ad valorem taxes by Dallas County Junior 

College District: 

1. Can a valid contract for the assessment 

and collection of taxes be entered Into 

by the Board of Trustees of Dallas County 

Junior College District and the County 

of Dallas for the Tax Assessor and 

Collector of Dallas County to assess and 

collect the taxes for the Junior College 

District? 

2. In the event that the answer to Question 

No. 1 is In the affirmative, what fees and 

commissions can the Tax Assessor and 

Collector of Dallas County legally charge 

the Dallas County Junior College District 

for the assessment and collection of the 

above referred to taxes? 

3. Can taxes be levied and collected for the 

year 1965? 

-2546- 
Honorable Henry Wade - Page 2 Opinion No. C-533 

4. May the District tax lntatiglble properties 

within Its boundaries? 

5. Can the District assess and levy a tax on 

the rolling stock of a railroad or transportation company? 

The relevant facts are as follows: The Dallas County 

Junior College District (hereinafter referred to as District) 

was created on May 25, 1965, pursuant to the provisions of 

Article 2815h of Vernon*s Civil Statutes. The boundaries 

of the District are cotermlnous with the boundaries of 

Dallas County. eat the election, the voters elected a Board 

of Trustees of the District and granted them the authority 

to assess and 'levy a tax for the support and maintenance of 

the District and to Issue bonds to'be paid,for by a tax which 

was also authorized. 

We answer your questions In the order in which,you ask 

them. 

1. 

Your first question asks If the District may contract with 

the Tax Assessor and Collector of Dallas Coun,ty to assess and 

collect ita ad valorem taxes. Our answer Is that It may enter 

into &&ah a contract pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 7b(c) 

of sald Article 2815~ This Article in Its relevant portlolis 

reads as followsr 

"When a majority of the Board of 

Education of such Junior College District 

prefer to have the taxes of their district 

assessed and coll&ated by the County Assessor 

and Collector, or by the City Assessor and 

Collector of an Incorporated city or town 

In the limits of which the Junior College 

District or a part,thereof Is located, or 

collected only by the County or City Tax 

Collector, same may be a@,ses?ed and collected, 

or collected only, as the case may be, by said 

county or city officers, as may be determined 

by the Board of Education of said Junior 

College District, and turned over to the 

Treasurer of the Junior College District fo: 

which such taxes have been collected. . . . 

-2547- 
Honorable Henry Wade - Page 3 Opinion No. C-533 

2. 

Your second question asks what fees and commlsslons may 

be paid In the event we'answer your first question In the 

affirmative. Our answer Is that the following provision of 

said Article 2815h, Sec. 7b(c) sets forth these fees and 

commissions In the following language: 

When the County Assessor and 

Collecior are required to assess and collect 

the taxes on Junior College.Dlstrlcts they 

shall respectively receive one (1%) per 

cent for assessing and one (1%) per cent 

for collecting same; . . .' 

3. 

Your third question asks whether the District can levy 

and collect taxes for the year 1965. Our answer Is that it 

can. 

Under the following authorities, the levy and assessment 

of taxes by the Mstrict~ is governed by the same laws governing t.axatlon by independent school districts. 

a) Section 7 of said Article 2815h provides, in part: 

I, The issuance of the bonds for 

Junlor'C&.iege purposes.,, and the provision 

of the sinking fund for the retirement 

thereof, and the payment of ln,terest 

and the levying of t,axes for the support 

and maintenance of the Junlor College, 

shall In so far as same is applicable, 

be In accordance with the general election 

laws ax&the laws governing the Issuance 

of bonds Andy the levying of taxes fin the 

Independent School Dlstrlc~t, . . . 

b) Section 7a of said Article 2815h (Acts, 1937, 45th 

Leg.9 p. 248, oh. 130,. sea. 3~). further provides, In part: 

?!he Assessor and Collector of such . 

Junlo~r College Dlstrlct shall assess the 

taxes and collect the same in the manner 

now provided by law for, the collection 

-2548- 
Honorable Henry Wade - Page 4 

of ad valorem taxes.by County: ~Assessors 

and Collectorsand where. there: is not 

,herein contained any.speciflc provision, 

or direction as to how anything connected 

with the assessment and collect,ion of 

taxes shall be done, then the provision; 

of the General Law shall prevail. '. . . 

., 

cl The case of Shepherd v. San Jacinto Junior College 

District, 363 S.W.2d.742 (Tex.Sup. 1963), holds that Section 3 

of Article VII of our State, Constitution pertaining to taxation 

for benefit of schools and school districts is-applicable to 

Junior College Districts. 

Although the college district was not created until %y 

25: 1965. the district has the authority to levy and collect 

taxes for ~the year 1965 on ~allproperty within such newly 

created district which was owned by the taxpayers on January 1st. 

Blewitt v. Megargel County Line Ind. Sch. Dist., 285 S.W. 271 

‘(Comm.App. 1926); 

.Afferbach, 12 S.W. 

. ...185 S.Wi, 367 (Tex.. 

The Court in Blewitt v. Megargel, 'supra, stated: 

: : ,f . . . when an independent school 

district is created after the 1st of 

,: January of a ~given year, all property :: 

within such newly created district, 

which wasowned by t.he, taxpayer on January 1st of that year, 'IS subjectto' 

any tax authorized by.law, whether 

such taxes have been authorized theretofore or may be authorized duringthe 

year, and can,be levled~by the body : . . 

given the power to levy $t any time 

during the year;' . . . (Underscoring 

added.) 

4. and 5~. 

In your fourth questionyou ask if the District may tax 

intangible properties. within its boundaries; ,,.(You do not 

mention intangible assets of railroads or other companies). 

We presume that In your fourth ,questionyoumeant to ask 

whether the District might use the Intangible values determined by the State Tax Board for rallroads and other companies 

-2549- 
. 

Honorable Henry Wade - Page 5 Opinion No. C-533 

enumerated In Articles 7105 and 7105a of V.C.S. We will 

answer this question acting upontis presumption. The other 

companies mentioned are ferry companies. bridge companies, 

turn plke companies, toll companies, oil pipe'llne companies, 

all common carrier pipe line companies of ,every character 

whatsoever engaged in the transportation of oil, motor bus 

companies, common motor carriers operating under certificates 

of convenience and necessity Issued by the Railroad Commission, 

and contract motor carriers operating under contract motor 

carrier permit,s issued by the Railroad Commission. We answer 

this question in the ne~gatlve. 

In answer to the fifth que~stlon, the District may not 

tax the rolling stock of railroads. As to the taxation of 

rolling stock of other tr.ansportation companies, we express 

no opinion as It is necessary to know the facts in each particular case, ~8inc.e the taxation of .said~property falls within 

the same general. category of taxing per,sonal property of any 

owner except railroads and other companies above mentioned. 

There is no parti,cular provision In the statutes providing 

for the .sltus and valuation of rolling stock of other transportation companies and that 1s to be determined by t.he general 

law with reference to the sltus of personal property for taxation. For that reason 'we decline to pass upon that matter 

without 'knowing 'the ,speclfic facts pertaining to each company. 

Article VIII, Sec.. 8 of the Texas Constitution provides 

as follows.: 

"Railroad Property; How Assessed.. - All 

prope~rty of railroad companies shall be assessed, 

and the taxes collected in the several counties 

in which ,sald property Is situated, including 

so much of the roadbed and fixtures as shall 

Abe In each county. The rolling .stock may be 

assess~ed in gross In the county where the prlncipal office of the company 1s located,, land 

the county tax paid upon It ahal, be apportioned 

by the Comptroller:, in proportion to the dis- 

,tanae such road may run .through any such County, 

among the .several counties through which the 

road.passes, as part of their tax asse,ts. 

Article ma, v.c.s., provides for the sworn rendition of 

property made,by railroads to the county assessor and provides 

for rendition of all personal property of a railroad except 

the rolling stock. 

,- 2550- 
Honorable Henry Wade - Page 6 Opinion No. C-533 

Article 7169 provides that ~the value determined by the 

County in whlch:.the principal office .of the road is located 

shall be certified to the.State Comptroller and by him certified and apportioned to each county-in proportion~to the 

mileage of the railroad in each county. 

Articles $205 - 7113, inclusive, V.C.S., provide for the 

determination of the value of the intangible assetsof railroads and other companies by the State Tax Board and for 

apportionment of the values between the counties according 

to the mileage of the road in each county. The intangible 

values of motor bus companies, common carrier motor carriers, 

and contrac,t motor carriers are'likewise apportioned in the 

counties in proportion to the distance the lines traversed 

by said carriers in each respective county. 

The original Act (now Article 7105, V.C.S.) provided for 

the taxation of.the intangible assets of railroads only, but 

said Act has been amended, as shown by said Article, to include 

ferry companies, bridge companies, turn pike or toll companies, 

oil pipe line companies, oil common carrier pipe line~.companies 

of every character, motor buacompanies, and common carrier 

motor carriers:ogerating undercertificates ,issued by the Railroad Commission., We are interested.only in the question as to 

whether the district.may tax the intangible assets of,a railroad and other transportation companies above mentioned. 

Opinions of the Attorney General's office ranging as far 

back as 1909 and court decisions hold that the rolling stock 

and intangible assets of a railroad are note subject to taxation ~by~ school districts.and other subdivisions of the county. 

In Attorney General's Departmental Opinion No. 2794, Rook 

63,,page 

lg28-1g3o ;: 

20, dated December 20, 1929; (page 286 Biennial Report 

itwas held thatthe intangible property and rolling 

stock of .&ilroads are not subject to taxation by a school 

districteven though the district comprises an entire county. 

In Opinion dated ,January 24, 1938 (Let,ter Book 379, pages 

779-783) it was held that the Nueces County Navigation District 

No. One, which district had the same ~boundaries as the county, 

could not tax the intangible assets of railroads and pipe line 

companies for the reason that such tax would not be a State 

and County tax. 

In Opinion No. b-7469 dated October 29, 1946, it was held 

that a junior college district which has boundaries coextensive 

with the county cannot tax the intangible assets or rolling 

stock oft a railroad. 

-2551- 
Honorable Henry Wade - Page 7 Opinion No. C- 533 

Opinion No. S-184 dated December 30, 1955, held that the 

rolling stock and intangible assets of a railroad are not subject to taxation by the Dexar County Hospital District which 

is coextensive with the boundaries of the county. 

We approve the holdings in said four opinions. 

In State v. H. & T. C. Ry. Co., 209 S.W. 820 (C.C.A. 1919) 

it was held that the intangible property and rolling stock of a 

railroad were not subject to taxation by a navigation district 

in Harris County, even though the boundaries of the district and 

the county were the same, and it further said that the district 

had no power of taxation except as is expressly conferred upon 

it by the law of its creation. The Court also said: 

"!Phe intangible assets and rolling 

stock of appellee is not property 'within 

said district,' within the meaning of the 

Constitution and statutes, and, the power 

of the district to tax same not being 

expressly granted by the act of its creation, the tax proposed to be levied is 

unlawful." 

In order forthe rolling stock and intangible assets of 

a railroad to be taxed, it is necessary that the tax be a 

county tax. In Dell County v. Hines, 219 S.W. 556 (C.C.A. 1920, 

error ref.), the Court di ti I h d the H & T. C. Ry. Co. 

case above mentioned. Th: f"a%ss% that case are that Be11 

county, under the constitutional provision, Article III, Section 

52 and Act of 1907 (Article 778a, et seq., V.C.S.), voted bonds 

for the construction of roads and since the tax thereby became 

a county tax, the Court held that the intangible assets and 

rolling stock of railroads are subject to taxation. In this 

case, Bell County.alone had voted bonds under the same act as 

the two counties in the case of 

S.W.2d 81 (Tex.Com.App. 1933), 

case said: 

'We do not think that the case of State 

v. Railway Co., 209 S.W. 820, is an authority 

as to the issue involved in this case. That 

was a suit to collect taxes for the use and 

benefit of the Harris county Ship channel 

navigation district, on the intangible ,assets 

and rolling stock of the railway company 

which had been apportioned to Harris county. 

The boundaries of the navigation district 

-2552- 
. 

Honorable Renry Wade - Page 8 Opinion No. C$33 

were the same as the boundaries of Harris 

county, but it was not Harris county. On 

the contrary, it was a body corporate, a 

separate legal entity, capable of suing 

and being sued as such. In that case the 

court held that, while the Legislature 

might have authorized the district to levy 

a tax on the intangible assets and rolling 

stock of the railway company, it had not 

done so, for the reason that it had,authorized the tax to be levied upon property 

'within said district'; and, while recognizing the power, of the Legislature to fix 

the situs for taxation of all personal property, as it had not fixed the situs of 

rolling stock and intangible values for 

taxation for district purposes in any district, the navigation company had no power 

to tax such property. Reference is here 

made to the case above referred to, and 

'the authorities there cited, for a full 

discussion of the question of taxing intangible assets and rolling stock. 

"For the reason that we have concluded as 

a matter of law that the road bonds issued by 

Bell county were county bonds, issued for a 

county purpose; that the tax levied by the 

commissioners1 court is a county tax, and 

that the intangible assets and rolling stock 

of appellee apportioned to Ball county for 

state and county taxation are the property 

of such county for the purpose of taxation, 

the judgment of the trial court is here 

reversed and judgment is here rendered for 

appellant." 

In State v. T. & P. Ry. Co., supra, the Court said: 

The standard by,which such apportionment'ik to be made by the board is prescribed in the act. .l&e conclusion reasonably 

follows that, by these apportionment provisions 

of the statutes, the Legislature intended that 

such apportionment, when made as prescribed, 

would fix the situs of each portion in accordance with the allocation made by the board. It 

is quite true, as contended by counsel, that 3?i 

-2553- 
. 

Honorable Henry Wade - Page 9 Opinion No. C-533 

the intangible tax law, it is provided in 

effect (article 7105) that intar 

pay the bonds, there provided for, shall 

be levied 'against the property in each 

of the counties, respectively.' Thls 

language, in the connection used, plainly 

comprehends all property situated, either 

actually or by operation,,of law, in any 

of the counties as such. (Emphasis added.) 

The opinion concluded as follows: 

"As regards the value of the rolling 

stock which under the provisions of 

artiole 8, j$ 8, of the Constitution, 

and of article 7169 of the statutes, was 

apportioned by the state comptroller to 

El Paso county, the situs for taxation 

purposes became fixed in that county. 

The reasons upon which this conclusion 

is based are substantially the same as 

those upon which our conclusion respecting intangible assets is based. In 

both instances, the situs became fixed 

in the county at large, but not, of. 

course,,,in any particular portion of the 

county. 

We believe that the Court in the T. & P. case correctly 

held that the railroad was liable for the tax on its intangible 

assets and rolling stock and further believe that it could also 

have held that the tax was a county tax as held in the Bell 

County case above mentioned. We believe that this is pmly 

the reason the Supreme Court .only aQQroVed the judgment, and 

not the opinion, of the Commission of Appeals. The Supreme 

Court refused writ of error in the Bell County case. 

-2554- 
. 

Honorable Henry Wade - Page 10 Opinion No. C-533 

The Constitution, Article III, Sec. 52, reads in part 

as follows: 

f, 

. . . under legislative provision 

any county, any political subdivision 

of a county, any number of adjoining 

counties or any political subdivision 

of the State or any defined district now 

or hereafter to be described and defined 

within the State of Texas, . . . uQon,a 

vote of a two-thirds majority of the 

resident property taxpayers voting thereon 

who are qualified electors of such district 

or territory to be affected thereby, in 

addition to all other debts, may issue 

bonds or otherwise lend its credit in any 

amount not to exceed one fourth of the 

assessed valuation of the real property 

of such district or territory, except that 

the total bonded indebtedness of any city 

or town shall never exceed the limits imQOSed by other provisions of this Constitution, and levy and collect such taxes 

to Qay the interest thereon and provide a 

sinking fund for the redemption thereof, as 

the Legislature may authorize, and in such 

manner as it may authorize the tame, for 

the following purposes, to wit: 

The Constitution does not say that the two counties constitute a district, but says that each county may vote bonds 

and levy a tax for the same. This clearly shows, as held in 

the Eel1 Count that if the county issues the bonds, the 

tax H or paymen CtEiof is a county tax. 

The original enabling act under the above provision of 

the Constitution was contained in the act of 1207, page 249, 

and only authorized the bonds to beg issued by a county or 

a political subdivision of a county. A later act of 1909, 

page 271, amended the 1907 act so as to add "district,,,now 

or hereafter to be described and defined, of a county. The 

original act of 1907 with the changes made in 1909 were 

carried forward as Article 627, R.C.S., 1911. 

It was not until 1927 that a separate act which is now 

Article 778a - 7781, V.C.S., authorizes bonds to be issued 

for roads by "any number of adjoining counties" and provides 

that the counties are authorized to issue bonds for suCh,,Qurposes and "to levy and collect annually ad valorem taxes to 

pay for the same. It IS, therefore, relevant to notice that 

both the Constitution and the Act of 1927 provide that the 

-2555- 
Honorable Henry Wade - Page 11 Opinion No. C-533 

counties are authorized to levy the taxes to pay for the bonds. 

We submit, therefore, that under the reading of the Constitution 

and the first section of the Act, it is clearly provided that 

the tax for the payment of the bonds is a county tax. 

It is true that other sections of the 1927 act provide 

for what is denominated a "road district ComQoSed of two or 

more adjoining counties' (Articles 778b, et seq.). However, 

even though the area of the adjoining counties are mentioned 

in the act as 'districts" ,yet it is clear that it is intended 

that the tax levied to 

by Section 9 (Art. 7781 P 

ay the bonds is a county tax as shown 

which reads as follows: 

"The amount of the bond tax to be levied 

annually shall be determined by the commissioners' courts of the respective counties 

before the period at.which the annual levy 

of taxes is made in the counties composing 

said district, an-the of the tax 

levied against the property in each of the 

counties, respectively, shall be levied 

by the commissioners' court of sumnty 

at the same time and in the same manner 

that other taxes in such counties are levied, 

and the levy and collection thereof shall be 

governed by the same laws that govern the 

levy and collection of county taxes. . . ." 

(Emphasis added.) 

We submit that it is clear that the tax provided for 

under the 1927 Act for adjoining counties, even though called 

a district, is a county tax and that the Court properly held 

that the railroad was liable for the same as the district 

was Composed of El Paso and Hudspeth counties and could have 

given that reason for its holding. It was the 1927 Act that 

gave the two counties authority to levy the tax. 

This, then, brings us to the question as to whether the 

Act authorizing the creation of the Dallas County Junior 

College District which has the same boundaries as Dallas County 

authorizes the district to tax the intangible assets and rolling stock of railroads. This requires an examination of the 

Junior College District Act. The statute authorizing the creation of Junior College Districts is found in Article 2815h, 

V.C.S. 

Section 17 of the Act authorizes the formation of County 

Junior College Districts in counties which would include Dallas 

County. . 

-2556- 
Honorable Henry Wade - Page 12 Opinion No. C-533 

Article 2815h-3b, Section 1 provides that the governing 

boards of all public Junior Colleges have power to issue bonds 

for the District and further provides that the total amount of 

tax levied shall never exceed One Dollar ($1.00) valuation of 

property "In the Junior College District". 

Section 2a under the same Article provides for an annual 

ad valorem tax not to exceed One Dollar ($1.00) rate of taxable 

property "within the District" for the maintenance of schools 

and further provides that the amount of maintenance and bond 

tax "of the district" shall never exceed the rate of One Dollar 

($1.00). 

Section 22 of Article 281531 provides that all taxes levied 

for County Junior College Districts "shall be assessed and 

collected in the manner provided in Section 7b and 7c.' (A footnote to this Article, page 637, V.C.S., states that this Section 

probably should read 'Section 7a and 7b'!. This is true for 

two reasons, to wit: There is no "Section 7~“. There are 

two Sections "7a" at page 627 but the first applies only to 

districts operating prior to October 1, 1936. Therefore, 

we will look to the other Section 7a and also to 7b.) 

Section 7a provides for assessing and collection of 

taxes by the Assessor and Collector 'of the District", and 

for the Board of Education to appoint a Board of Equalization 

to equalize the value of all property subject to taxation "in 

said District". 

Section 7b (c) provides that where a district has the 

County Assessor to assess the taxes that it may be assessed 

at a 'gr%ater value than that assessed for county and State 

i3isF9 

and in such cases the Assessor shall assess the 

or said district on separate blanks furn+shed by said 

district and prepare the rolls for said district . (&Qhasis 

.m This shows that the tax is not for a county tax, or 

it would not and could not have separate values and separate 

rolls. 

We see, then, that under the authority of the above 

H. & T. C. Ry. Co. case, the intangible assets and rolling 

stock of a railroad are not Droverts within the junior college 

district even though the boundaries-of the district are the - 

same as the county boundaries, for the reason that in each 

of the Articles above mentioned, it is not provided for the 

taxation of property "in the county" as was done in the Act 

of 1927 and county wide bonds. For this reason, the decision 

in the T. & P. Ry. case has no application whatever to junior 

-2557- 
” . 

Honorable Henry Wade - Page 13 Opinion No. C-533 

college districts, even though the boundaries of the county 

and the district are the same. The statutes do not "in 

effect", as stated in the T. & P. Ry. case, authorize the levy 

of taxes against all property "in the county", for the reason 

that the ttatutes provide only for the levy of taxes "in the 

district. As stated by the T.& P. R 

the rolling stock and intangi 

bl y. case, the situs of 

e assets of a rallroad are liable 

only for state and county taxes unless there is some other act 

in addition to the original act authorizing the taxing of such 

property for other than State and County taxes.- 

SUMMARY ---s--s 

Answering questions pertaining to Dallas County 

Junior College District, created pursuant to Article 

2815h, V.C.S. on May 25, 1965: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

It may contract with the Tax Assessor and 

Collector of Dallas County to assess and 

collect its ad valorem taxes. 

The fees and commissions of such Tax AssessorCollector for his services are 14% 

ing and l$ for collecting. 

for assessThe District may levy and collect 

year 1965. 

taxes for the 

Said District does not have authority to tax 

the intangible assets of railroads and other 

companies mentloned in Articles 7105 and 7105a, 

V.C.S. 

Said District does not have authority to tax 

the rolling stock of railroads. 

No opinion is expressed as to the taxation of 

rolling stock of other transportation companies. 

Attorney General's Opinion No. C-458 (June 21, 1965) 

is hereby withdrawn and this opinion is substituted 

in lieu thereof. 

Yours very truly, 

-2558- 
Honorable Henry Wade - Page 14 

HGC/fb 

APPROVED: 

OPINION cOmT!t!EE 

W. 0. Shultz, Chairman 

Kerns B. Taylor 

Paul Phy 

John Banks 

J. C. Davis 

APPPOVED FORTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: T. B. Wright 

Opinion No. C- 533 

-2559-