## R-909

THEATTORNEY GENERAL

OF TEXAS

PRICE DANIEL Auwrx~ 11.-a .4TTORNEYGENERAL * December 3. 1947

Hon. LaVernI. McCann County ,Attorney Hockley County Levelland, ‘T,ex~ Oplalon lo. v-437 Rer Tsability of lend purchased fop a county poor farmbut prereatly I~eaae&or rented to tn-ird pertlea Dear Madsmr

Youhave requested a~ opinion from this Department ilato the taxability of certMn land ownedby Eockley County. Your request adviser us’oi’the following iacts : G”Ia 1928Bockleg County bought a labor of

’ land containing 177scpea, i~or a County Poor Farm. There is not~rnd never has bean any~‘htieM OStmprooementa on the farm. The lend has been l,eesed and rented for agrloultural, pumoaea and also l,es,aed to dn o,iPcompanyfor the development .andprod,ucti.on of oil: and at this time there are three ,produclng oil wells onthe farm. All the Income derivedfrom the land In question, whether from egrlculture or 011production, has been turned into the Genersl Charity Fund of the County andhas never been used for any other purpose.

“The farin la located in the~Levelland Independent Sohool District andhas been placed, onthe 1947 tax ,rolla of the District. TheCounty end S&o,01 are ruxioua to knowtheir legal ,poaition Ynthe mstter andthe taxes will be paid or the farmwill be removed fMm the dlatHct*r tex,rolls 8a soon loan oplaiou orn be had from your dspartment l’

“The property. of cout&thes

. .,. ow~ff, end hold only for public ,pmoaea
. . .” is dmol utelyH0n. LeVera I. McCann- Page 2 (V-447)

exempt from taxation by virtue of Article XI, Section 9 of the Conatitutlon of the State of Texas. hphaaea added throughout this opinion). A. &M.Consolidated School Dlatrict v. City of Bryan, Texas, 143T 348184 .

. 0 1914 Likewise, i to the power'conferred by Ariicle VIII,,Se%?%s??fethe Constitution I, ( * *
. but the Legislature may, by general lawa, exempt from taxation public property used,.for public purpoaea. "), the Legislature i140; V.C.S., ensoted, Section 4 of Article

exempting wall property; whether real or personal, belonging exclusively to this State, or an olitical subdlvlalon thereof.

. .'I This, pravls on -37---L een held olleiatfve as 'an exercise of all the power the Leaislature had.*valid to that extent. and‘deolaratory o? an exemption for "public property used for plblit purposes.
. . .I' City of Abilene v. S?%'i%, 113 S. W. (2) 636. Seotlon 6of Article 7150, V.d.S. reads 88 follows: *Poor-houaea .--All landa, houses and other buildings belonging to any county, precinct or town, used exclualvely for the support or accomodation of tha., poor.8 Thusit is appsrent that if the county had accomplished its initial purpose of establishing a poor farm onthe land here Involved, said land would no8ba exempt from taxation. Thequestion is whether the present leasing and renting of the land to third partlea prevents its coming within any of the various categories of exemption above set ,out.

Weare not advised as to whether or not Hockley County still plans to utilize the land for apoor Sam. If, in fact, there has been no abandonment of the puapoae for which the land was orlalnalls bouaht. it is tax exempt

. v. City &AE;kene V*State.-11 S.li;, (2) 631; State City of B 161 S.W. (2) 324. Weenclose scope of Opinion OJi2cIb0; thla Department, which diseussea these casea in detail in connection with a consideration of the tax exemption of certaln~ olty property. Likewise this opinion atates andadheres to tha convene ~ofthe rule: I-e., tax exemption oannot be accorded property whloh la not used for public purposes or held in furtherance of a present intention t,o~devote said property to 8 speaific public purpose even,though the public is benefit: ed lndlreotly through funds derived from the property. TheOpinion also, distlngulahea the cases ,whichhave dealt with situations in which the,property stood aa a aubsti-Hon. LsVern I. McCann.- Page 3 

## (V-447)

fact situation there property washeld for tute for a special fund from the under consideration In which the’ the benefit of a park fund. Weview the dlstlnctlon there dlvwn as applicable to the facts of thla oaae, and you are therefore advised that if Hockleg County no longer holds the land for a apeclfic public purpose, it Is subject to taxation. Seotlon 

## 6of Article 7150, previously quoted, does not change this result. Even If the language of this section were construed to include the revenue derived from county-owned income producing property and used exclusively for the support of the poor, (andwedo not think this construction the corroot one), such Inclusion would be anattempt to exempt public property regardless of its use and ineffective br reason of beinn in excess of the exemntive Dowers~ cbnferred by Article VIII, v. State, 113S.W. (2) 631.Sectby 2. City of-Abllene

Ofcourse a determination of the exemption atatus of the land ownedby the county has noeffect onthe taxation of the estate held by the owners of the 011 lease; for “since the ordinary form of oil andgea lease passes to the lessee an Interest in real property, he Is iiable for the tax thereon to the extent of the

31Tex. Jur. a 452andauthorltiea cited thereTherefore, the ownera of the 011 lease from the cointy are liable for aid hold their estate subject to all taxes imposed ontheir estate by the State, county, School District, andany other taxing unit having jurlsdiction to impose a tax thereon. SUMMARY Landpurchased for a county poor farm is exempt from taxation If there has been in fact noabandonment of the Intention to use the land for auohpurpose even though Dart of the land la Dresentlv leased for ig&ultural purpose; and pa& for the produotion of oil. City of Abllene v. State, 2: ix* 631; State v. City f Beaumont,

. . 344. If there Is n: present Intention to devote the property to a specific public purpose, the fact revenue derived from the property goes to the General Charity Fund of the county is not sufficient to exempt the land from taxation. Opinion o-4285. The estate created by the 011 lease from the oounty ia subject to taxation by the State, OoUnty,Hon. LaVern I. McCann- Page

## 4 (v-447)

School Matrict andany other taxing unit having jurisdiction to impose a tax thereon; andthe lessee Is liable for such taxes to the extent of the grant. 

## 31 Tex. JUP. @ 452. Yours very truly ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OFTEXAS

BymMW CrW

Assistant

APPROVRD:

%z- cz4LL-J ATTORNEY

GENERAL