The Attorney General of Texas 

August 31, 1978 nil optaka 

Ch0mxb Orinir 

Mr. Thomas T. League 

County Auditor 

Smith County 

Tyler, Texas 

Opinion No. Ii- 1235 

Re: Whether article 7044a, 

V.T.C.S., requiring the tax rate 

to be set on or before July 20 

applies to counties. 

Dear Mr. League: 

You have asked if article 7044a, V.T.C.S., applies to counties. Article 

7044a provides: 

Section 1. From and after January 1, 1966, all taxing 

authorities which use the services of the county tax 

assessoreollector, either to asses or collect taxes for 

such taxing authority, shall, on or before July 20 of 

each year, notify the county tax assessor-collector 

whose services are to be used by the taxing authority 

of the tax rate for the succeeding taxable year 

adopted by the taxing authority. 

Sec. 2. In the event any taxing authority using the 

services of the county tax assessor-collector for either 

assessing or collecting taxes of the taxing authority 

fails to notify the county tax assessor*ollector of the 

tax rate adopted by the taxing authority, prior to July 

20, as provided in Section 1 of this Act, the tax rate 

for the succeeding year shall be the tax rate for the 

preceding year, rather than the tax rate adopted by 

the taxing authority, and in no event shall a new tax 

rate be in force and effect unless notification of such 

tax rate is furnished the county tax assessor-collector 

prior to July 20 of each year. 

Sec. 3. In compiling the tax roll for a taxing 

authority using the services of the county tax assessorcollector, the county tax assessor-collector shall use 

p. 4929 
. . 

Mr. Thomas T. League - Page 2 (H-12351 

the rate furnished him by the taxing authority prior to July 

28 of each year, or, in the event the county tax assessorcollector has not been furnished a new tax rate, the county 

tax assessor-collector shall use the tax rate adopted for the 

preceding taxable year by the taxing authority. 

Shortly after the statute was enacted in 1965, Attorney General Opinion C647 (1966) indicated that the provisions of the statute are applicable to counties. 

The opinion reasoned that the statute is applicable to “all taxing authorities which 

use the services of the county tax assessor-collector, either to assess or collect 

taxes for such taxing authority” and that since the county is a taxing authority 

which uses the services of the county tax assessorl?ollector, the county is required 

to meet the deadline established in the statute. See also Attorney General 

Opinions H-849 (1976); C-753 (1966); C-701 (19661. 

It is our view that Attorney General Opinion C-647 was not correctly decided. 

That opinion failed to consider the effect of other statutes relating to the time the 

county commissioners court establishes the tax rate. The most relevant statute is 

article 689a-11, V.T.C.S., which provides in part: 

The Commissioners’ Court in each county shall each year 

provide for public hearing on the county budget - which 

hearing shall take place on some date to be named by the 

Commissioners’ Court subsequent to August 15 and prior to 

.the levy of taxes by said Commissioners’ Court. . . . When 

the budget has been finally approved by the Commissioners’ 

Court, the budget, as approved by the court shall be filed 

with the clerk of the county court and taxes levied only in 

accordance therewith. . . . 

The phrase “levy of taxes” and variations thereof can have many different 

meanings, see Amaimo v. Carter, 212 S.W.2d 950 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1948, 

writ ref’d n.r.e>; however, in this context, we believe it refers to the establishment 

of the tax rate. Article 689a-11 clearly contemplates that taxes will be levied only 

in accordance with the approved budget. We believe this expresses the intention of 

the legislature that the tax rate should not be established until the county has 

considered and adopted the budget. See Victor v. State 158 S.W.2d 760 (Tex. 

19421 and Cranfill Bros. Oil Co. v. State, 54 S.W.2d 813 Tex. CIV. App. - El Paso -*. 

1932, writ ref’d) which held that an order which does nothing more than to establish 

.the tax rate is a tax levy. 

Statutes which relate to the same subject matter are to be read and 

construed together, and any conflict between their provisions will be harmonized if 

possible. Standard v. Sadler, 383 S.W.2d. 391 (Tex. 19641; State v. Standard Oil Co., 

107 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. 1937); International Service Insurance Co. v. Jackson, 335 

P. 4930 
Mr. Thomas T. League - Page 3 (H-1235) 

S.W.2d 420 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1960, writ ref’d n.r.e.). A construction which 

concludes that a statute has impliedly repealed another is to be avoided if at all 

possible. Lasater v. Looez. 217 S.W. 373 (Tex. 1 919); Cole v. State, 170 S.W. 1036 

(Tex. 1914)*x te v. Jackson, 370 S.W.2d 797 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston 1963) aff’d 

376 S.W.Zd 341(Tex. 1964). this case. we believe the armrooriate construction of 

article 7044a is that it was intended to’apply to the various taxing authorities other 

than the county which utilizes the services of the county tax assessor and that no 

implied repeal of article 689a-ll was intended. See, e.g., V.T.C.S. 1042b, article 

2351a-6; Education Code SS 23.94, 130.121; Water Code SS 51.595, 56.073. 

Accordingly, it is our opinion that the deadline for setting the tax rate established 

by article 7044a does not apply to counties. Attorney General Opinion C-647 is 

overruled. 

SUMMARY 

A county is not required to set its tax rate on or before July 

20. 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

&f&g//&${ 

C. ROBERT HEATH. Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

1 sn 

P. 4931