# 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 orcollect 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 bythe taxing authority. Sec. 2. In the event any taxing authority using the services ofthe 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 1of 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 20of each year. Sec. 3. In compiling the tax roll for a taxing authority using the services ofthe 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 isrequired to meet the deadline established in the statute. See also Attorney General Opinions H-849 (1976);C-753 (1966);C-701(19661.
It isour view that Attorney General Opinion C-647 wasnot 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 inpart:

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 15and 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, 212S.W.2d950(Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1948, writ ref’d n.r.e>; however, inthis context, webelieve it refers to the establishment of the tax rate. Article 689a-11clearly contemplates that taxes will belevied only inaccordance with the approved budget. Webelieve 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 158S.W.2d 760 (Tex. 19421and Cranfill Bros. Oil Co. v. State, 54S.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 isatax 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, 383S.W.2d.391(Tex. 19641;State v. Standard Oil Co., 107S.W.2d 550 (Tex. 1937); International Service Insurance Co. v. Jackson, 335

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

S.W.2d 420 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1960,writ ref’d n.r.e.). Aconstruction which concludes that a statute has impliedly repealed another is to be avoided if at all possible. Lasater v. Looez. 217S.W. 373 (Tex. 1 919);Cole v. State, 170S.W. 1036 (Tex. 1914)*x te v.Jackson, 370S.W.2d797 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston 1963)aff’d 376S.W.Zd341(Tex. 1964). this case. webelieve the armrooriate construction of article 7044a isthat it wasintended 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

Acounty isnot required to set its tax rate onorbefore July 20.

Attorney General ofTexas APPROVED: 

# &f&g//&${

C. ROBERT HEATH. Chairman Opinion Committee
1 sn

P. 4931