OFFICE OF THE AmORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
Holcaorablr Tfm Seay - page 2 

oontnot with the Amarillo Ba84ball Club, Inc., 

in rordr and Slgura8 the 8am4 a8 the contrect 

rdurod to in the anolo84d order, 

-At tha tire this order ram p8884d and the 

oontmot wan 6ntued into, th4 8bovr refurod 

t0 prOpUtJ n8 6ituatad OUt8ib8 of thr City 

Liqiitr of the City oi Amarillo, but ban r4a4ntlt 

b48n inoorponted la the Uitr Lbit8. IU prop4rt7 llOW 1148 804 h8 iOr II loll& t-4 lain in 

th4 Aaerillo TJld4p4lld8llt Sohool Di8triet. 

"Purmmnt to the tunu of the oontxmot, 

thr Amarillo B484ball Club oonrtruotd upon 

th8 leas4d ~remi848 a be84ball park, oonri8ting of (mnd 8t4nd, bleaehars, ticket OffiO48, 

fOnO48, 4t6. 

“Th4 qU48tiOn hs8 now ari84n a8 to rhsth4r 

the Amarillo Ba84ball Club should be r4quir4d 

t0 p6;r t4X48 t0 the V4riOU4 taxing ag4uOi48 

On th4 4884884d VFh6tiOIi Or th4 8trUOtUr48 

pf404d Upon th4 14884d Prd4.8. 

%4 ~811 your att4ntion to tha tact that 

at the expiration ot ths oontraot involv4d, 

the tit14 to all OS thr lapromm4at8 oon8tru4- 

,tsd br th4 Amarillo Ba88bdl Club -8848 $0 

an& v48t8 ia th4 COW&~ u r4ntFd8 for the bUa 

of the grelud upon which rid b~W3lb4llt8 

am3 oonstruOtd0 

“I%4 VUiOIU hXilbg ag8Mi48 hew mqU48t4d 

that I writ4 pu I4pmtm4nt Sor vour opinion 

a8 to rh4th4r th4 improvam4nts oon8truotrd by 

th8 ba84ball olub are 8ubj4ot to taxation by 

the various taxing units.* 

The ?ollming arm putfnrnt p?Oti8iOlUS 8opi6d 

from the oourt ordu ati 14a84 whloh GUY 8ubEitt4d dtb 

your rvqueotr 
honorable Tom SSPJ - page 3 

(*I "It I8 agreed t&at et tL4 expiration 

Or tho tblm OS th18 l gr44mont th4 title to 4eid 

ba84ball park to bo colutruoted upon thr above 

d44crItctd.prop4rir 8hal.l pe84 to en& V48t in f44 

8iEpl4 in th4 COuntr, to b4 owned, o04upi46, and 

u84d by It a8 it 8048 rit, rhIoh 8eId ba84bell 

park 8hall b4 rscsivcd by th4 Cowt7 in full 8eti8fbQtiOn of all r4ntel8 due end owing to it hareund4r." 

(b) nlt 18 eg446 that Ia th4 814nt J&4- 

844 fei18 t0 UC4 Eidd ba84brll park fOT W2y an4 

Or morc baseball 8belOn8 iOr th4 pUtpO84 Of 

flayiog be84bell therein, th4n end in 8uoh 4r4nt 

the County, cr 44 on4 d48ignetrd by It., 8hell 

hers th4 right to OQOIIPJ, une end enjoy 8aia 

baseball park for eq and l ll purpo840 thet 4am4 

may be ussd wittbout de.eegin~ 88id property beyond ordinery w@er 8nd tber during all of such 

pears SS L4s840 do44 not play be84ball th4r4in; 

but in such year8 as L46844 pl4yS bssebal.1 in 

Eeid ba84bell park, it 4hall b4 4otItl86 to '~4 . 

8eid park for th4 portion ot such y4ar8 84 8eme 

Is not ueed for playing b284ball for plajlog or 

conducting oth4r iaeoesnt 8port8 tharoin, 48 

h4r4Inaboro prorib for, It b4in(r in th14 conneoliofi ~igrosd that et any the v&411 bss4ball 

8eR8On I8 not in prOgr488 l hd l.48844 18 ilOt 

using or hao not plennsd to ~80 8eId b444b8l.l 

park for oth4r ionoc4nt 8port8, tli4 Cou&ty shell 

hav4 the right to dolegate to thr hmerillo TriStRte GXpO8itiOn tiin right to U84 S8id ba84bRll oprk 

for May pUlYpo80 that Uill not dUM(;4 8epM J4or4 

then ~lnying b484bell th4rrIn, 8nd beyond ordindry weer an4 teer without coat whctso4rrr to 

8aid h84rillO Tri-%.at4 k'XpO8itiOn, JmOVid4d 

however +hat anp.mtuIel aaeiag4 bayorrd ordinary 

near end t4er don4 to 8eId pr4mI848 by 8eid ASerilio Trl-kIteta xspo8Ition 8hell b4 rsp4lr4d by 

it et It8 4We CO8t alId 4Xp4n84.” 
Honorable Tom Seey - page 4 

(0) "It la agreed that In the event It 18 

d8tenlned by the varlix18 taxing agene%&, that 

the lmprovem8nt8 oolutructed upon the above da8orib8d treat of land by Lea8er are taxable as 

porronal property, the L8888r shall and ~111 

promptly pay much faxes e8 they beaome due and 

payable .I 

(a.1 "It 1 8 l gmad that in the event L@8808 

install8 a lighting 8ymtam In Bald ba8obal.l park 

for the purpo88 OS playing ba8eball therein at 

night time., 8aa8 rhall be at all tlmss'aonulderad p8rronal proparty and sot a apart cf.&e 

bassball.park; and upon the expiration of thi 

trrm ,hereln or at any t~ime it d8slrsa Ls888s 

ahall have the rlgtt to remove all or any part. 

of said llghflng ry8tem from 8ald baseball park, 

there being rwssrved to the .County, howaver, the 

right to purchase 8ald lighting systam from 

Lesrea at the 8rplratldn of the teqhareof~or 

at euch other tlmr aa Le88e8 dl8oontlnues u8ing 

said baseball park or upon a breach oft any of 

the covenant8 hrrain contained and the doolaratlon o? a forraiture by the County ror a @rlcr 

to be determined in the same mannor prorldod 

for determining the value of 8alvage In Pangraph 3 horeof.w 

In mtro& v. Mla8ion Indepandont School ::lrt. 

et al., 195 3. W. 895, (r8tsrsed on,othar ground8 in gZE 

9. WC. ZOl) the tiourt held that improtsments placed apoo 

the land .oS a rsllroad company by a lessee with an agreearnt that It m8 for the ~88 bf tile 188sr8 and with the 

further a eament that it could be removed wac perso= 

wy +ZTYiZTr~eXa~TF an aourtald, however, 

by way of dictum: 

*If it were not ;lereonal property end wer4 

real estate, it oould not hate beentax an the 

property of the Mlralon Cotton Oil Company, but 

a8 the property of the railroad company that 

orrned the land to rhlch th8 lm,provsnsnts were 

8rrixea.- , 
, 

lionorable Tom Yeay - page 5 

In your tmot situation, we hive lmprovement8 

erected by the lr8ae8 upno lend of a oounty, with no 

right to rem018 much improvements, but an exprese agreement that title thereto "She11 pa88 t0 Md VOSt iAt . . . 

the OoUnty” rt the explratlon of the term of the lease. 

See paragraph "(a)* above. The lOa#e agreement furt bar 

provide8 tbRtth8 1888ee ~111 

imprOY=#nt# "ia the SVSJAt it f: 

ay the tales againat the 

8 dStSrP3i5ed by the var1OUS taxing agenOie8 that the i~9rOtWSntS OOnStrUOtod 

upon the above described tx%ct of land by Leee-e are taxable as personal property.* gee paragraph *(a)- above. 

The flr8t qu8Rtlon for our detennlnation 1st 

Are the btiprOVement8 COnStrUOted by the 1eSeee upon the 

land 0r the county *personal 9ropertyY Xe think not. 

It ia true that the lease provides that title to the 

improvsm85te #ho11 ,?ess to and vest in the county "at 

the expiration of the Dorm” of the lame, but we m-9 of 

the opinion theft suoh im~rovemente lost tlielr character 

ae Wperson&l property" immediately upon being erected 

upon the land of the oounty and then became a mrt of 

the "real 9et5tS " or the oounty. 

i%'# have been unfibli, to find any Texas OaSeS 

directly in point, but in Intrrnational Nnr. Co. v. 

Barber, 47 K. E. 46, a ahod eracted by tie leeoee upon 

P pier, pUr#Uant t0 a lea88 from the City requiring it8 

Iid 

-~=t~~~h+p!l& yy~~o~2t~~8~"~- 

GEiFt 0 prqomo eo yassoonasitwaa 

ereoted and arrixea to the realty, and hence not 88888- 

sable Sor taxation am property of the le.88ee. The court 

Said: 

*The appellants rert tholr argument with 

reapeat to t&e question of OwnerShi upon the 

prOViSiO5 of the leaee abovo roneioned, that the 

ohed shall beoome the property of the oity after 

the 8r9lration of the lease, whloh provielon, 

as they maintain, shorn thrrt it Wall in ContWplstlon of both parties that the ereotione 

Should be the property Of the #teamShip company 

aurlnu the texm of tho lease. We think that 

this is a5 inaorrWt view Of the eitWtiO5. 
Iionorablo Tom Seay - page 6 

It is a ranlliar rule that, when 8truotur88 

are 8r8otea by parsons not ow58re 0r the land, 

they beooru part or the realty, and am 8Wh the 

property et the landowner. lt r8qulre8 a5 

a~8W85t t0 bo .Xpr@###d in OrdSr t0 PrSVSJlt 

the operation of this rule. If the right of 

removal la r888rred to tha 108808 in a lease, 

than in euoh a ease ho will be regarded a8 an 

OW58r Or r#ai #Sk88 ?OT th0 pmpO88 Of 8aXation.* 

88 think the above oaea i8 OOfiSOt i5 prinO~pl8 

and in haneony with the *diotwP in Armstrong T. Nl88ion 

I5&8~8nd85t Sohool Diet., 8UPl.a. ATtie 7171 prOYid88 

that *al1 real oatate shall be a88e88ed to the omer ther8ot 

. . . ." *Real s8tat8w i8 0058tru8d by Artiole 7146- to 

inoluae the land itself. . . and all buildings, #tl'Wt~## 

and Lmprorem85ts, or othar fiXtUrC38 of nhaterer kind thereon 

. l .* 

15 Dougherty v. ThO1~p805, 9 8. Vi. 09, the YUprelLe 

Court of Teras maid: 

"'ThS g#ll#l'M1 rId0 i8 that the OW58r Of real 

l Sk tr f i#a##d 18 kX@id UpOlI the #ld.irO VSlUe 

th8 pro-and tki# SIRtiSiieS the OOmtitUOf 

tional requ~r8m8nt tha8 *all property in th3.8 

State rh8that OWlk#d~-b~ Pot-1 PSQDIU Or OOrf 

OIdOM Other thM=&Oi&Nl, 8hm b8 baX8d 

II p,rOpOrtiO5 t0 it8 falU0. '" (mphaSi8 OUFS) 

the Imad of the OOUnty i5VOlVad i 

088 Of tbi8 0 

f 

iniOn, that 

n pour fist 8 tUatb8 Wa8 

Bia l88Um8, for the POr 

rxmpt from taxation prior to the exeoution of the lease. 

If not, we think the 1888ee liable for the payment OS th8 

taxes UndSr the covenant "(0)" above. A8 we CO58til~S this 

oofenant, it is trntamou5t to 0ayiILg that the ls88ee will 

pay all taXe8 against the lmprov8mente, ii any are juaicially deterJ&bed to be dUD. any Other oolutruction would 

rO5dSr this oova5e0t ~Oani5glOeS. 

J~~~ming that the leaSed portion Of the COUnty 

was exuppt, prior to the lOeSQ, thl8 qUeStiO!l next uriLW8; 
Iionofabls Tom zZn8y - ;?nga 7 

316 auch@operty l&8$1 Jta y&apt chtmdter whag leaaad:~ . 

the baeeball club for the purpose of ylts.yinc baseb611 thereon? 

Le think not. Gbviously, 8UOh property fs S.lbjeCt to %x8- 

tion unle88 exempt either by the constitution or the stat,l&es 

of this State. 

orolu8ively to this State, 

Of" shall be exempt from taxation. Countias are political 

aubdivislons of thr: state. Constitution, Article 11, Section 

1. 

frtlcle 7150 would appear to be broad enough to 

cover the property in question, for certsinly such property 

"belongs exclueivaly" to the county, but au pointed out in 

City of .libilene v.Stata, 113 S. ii. (2d) 631, the exemption 

declared in this Article was more comprehensive than the 

power which the Legislature possessed. 

In Cltp of Abilene v. State, supra, t,he court held 

that 24 tracts of land nurcbased by the City of Abllene for 

the purpose of a reservoir site for impounding water to be 

used by the city wae exempt frou all taxation, though suoh 

traots were beins temporarily leased for agrictiltural purposes, where the city had not abandoned its Intention to 

build the reesrvoir. it iS significant thet the trial court 

found that eince acquisition of the lands by the city, it 

had "been leuslng 8.aile for agricultural jxr?ose.s for an appr~r1mat.e aggregcte annual rental of 22, LOO and that during 

the pact five years Oa8h rentals have been paid therefore 

and that prior to thattime receipts from mid property in 

cash rer8 baaed upon apnuul production of ngriCUltUr81 products undrr the normal l/3 and l/4 rentaln." In construing 

tho above quoted provielons of our constitution ant Article 

7150, the court said: 
Honorable Tom Seay - p: ge 8 

. WThese~oonrlderatiors leaa us teChn conclusion that 8s to the power of the Legislature, 

to exempt pub150 property 'from taxation, 811 

such property should be regarded as *used for 

publio purposee' when it Is owned and held for 

public purposes*, but not o-:ned or held exclu- -- 

“* . . It is, tterefore, our vier'that 

when the facts of a given case sst8bXsh the 

ownership of property by a muniolpal oorpcration,~whIoh haa been acquired for an authrrlzed public purpose, and tha purpose for which It 

is owned and held has not been abandoned, such 

property ie to be regarded a8 used for public 

purpoees ( 8nd the Legislature has the power to 

provide by Ceneral 18~ for its exemption from 

taxation." 

There can be little doubt that the property owned 

and beld by Potter County for a fair-ground 1s "public 

property" within the rontemplatlon of our Constitution, 8nd 

owned and held ror a "public purpose." *Cases cited in 92 

A. L. H. p. 77D. a;e think by the authority ofCIty of kbllene v. State, suprh, it ten be seid to be "used for e.pub110 purpose." No "cash rental" was paid PotFCounty, 

but only the “bareball park” eta. whioh wa8 8 physical lmproviment to the fair-grounds. In this respect, here is a 

strongar fact ease than ths City of Abllene v. Stats, supra, 

for there the oitp did receive "oash rentals." -,otter County re88rVed the right to use the vbaseball p8rkusetC. at all 

time8 it was not being used for playing baseball, thereby 

lnoreaeing the deeirabillty of Its rair-gound fecilities. 

.See paragraph "(b)" above. 

;n State v. City of lfou8ton, 140 :j. X. (2) 277 

(writ refused) the court said: 
Honorable Tom Sear - page 9 

I ~c‘.*a -I AL,- - ‘ - - 

- ,,_ .,,_ -- - - LL - m ..d. . ..-.. :.a,..- ,m d 

*Thr Saot that tha property ra8 rmntsd to 

prlrate poroo 1 l I8, sd warn Olossd to ths public, 

a0a4 not a4o444arlly detumiae that suoh i8 giot 

held for a publio purp~u.~ 

In our opinion, the Lurrlllo Baseball Club, 

1s nslthsr llablo for tax44 against ,ths lmproromeatm as 

Ino., 

aporsonal pr~psrtp bsloaglng to it,, aor br rsasoa Of its 

ootrrvlat la the lams4 to pay tuss, but that such blub 18 

limb14 to pay taxes against tha wloasehold iatarast" lt 

aoqtirod br the lsasa. ,Artiola 9198 protldur 

*Property t&d under a leau of three yearn 

or aoro . . . . bslonglng to this Stats, or that 

tlie owner 

Is uunot b •l~~~f~Ltant~oa 

XE 

the hands 'PT 

Tl bo eoa4 9 aZFZtTiYaTT 

~p~o~~oa, as' the property of thl psrson so holding the same. . . ." (smphasls oure) 

Artida T194 proridss, in part: 

. 

. "4nbla laasshold askates shall be ralusd 

at sueh a prlss as they rsuld bring at a fair 

voluntary sals for oash.* 

In Daugherty f. Thempson, supra, the Court saldt 

*Th* onlf law provl4lag that a 14444e shall 

pay tax44 Oa 1oassU proparty 14 found In artl010 4691, RsT. qt., mhlah dstarmlnes what laasshold l stat8 shall bo taxable. Eiubdlrision 4, art, 

MOP, E&. St,, aaa ham l pplioatioa to no other 

lusshold matatom than suoh u are Isad* taxable 

.* by the praoedlng artlols; for la all othei oases, 

in the abseaos of a statuk directing to the oonWary; the owmr Ot the nal l kti~ mtl8t ppy tax08 

oa the mtira ralua of the LaaIi, whether leased 

or not. In USM to nhioh arfAo10 4691 14 applioabla, it rust bo bald that it ma the lntentlon 

ot the le&s&tura ew to iqposa on ths lss8e. 

a tax based oa the raluo of thr utaublm laa8ohold oatate," an4 a& lmpomo upoa him n tax based 

oa a sum equal to the tull raluo oi the ram1 estata, to.bm l so er ta hd as proribs4 in subdldsloas 1, 8, 8, art. 4b92, Refd3t.m 
i;onorable Tom r;eay - page 10 

The texing pOliCy.ot the State IS axpress4d'la 

Art1010 8, Section 1, 0r our Conatltution as follcm4: *Ali 

property -- In this State, whether owned by natural pereorG?r -- 

corporations, othman munial al shall be taxed in roortlon to lts~e. 

&In 

1-.mzi&iL?~e-VlWEl&* 

%-rIi.b 

opertz , real , personal or mixed, except such as may 

expressly exempted, la subject to taxation, 

and the same shall ba rondared an~l~sted as%roln prorldod .” 

(4mpha414 ours) 

Since the property in question 14 *held under o 

lease of three pars or more* and is suoh property *that is 

ercuupt by law rrom taxation in the hands of the oanor thereor," 

we are oi the opinion that the "leasehold interest? of such 

baseball olub in said property is taxable against the .marillo Baseball Club, Ino ., and Article 7173 is both appllcable ani controlling inyour'fact situation. 

The lighting syntem is, of course, taxable against 

the baseball club. 

Trustlag that the above anmom your questions, 

we ma, 

Yours very truly, 

w@EOVED NOV. 10, 194S 

Grorrr Sellers 

FIRST ASS ISTAFT ATTCRN'T 

GENERAL 

ATl'ORtEY TlXEi!AL OF TFXAS 

BJr /*/ 

Thorn. B. Ruggaa 

r84istant 

16 

A?PROVED OPINION COMWITIEB 

BY BL'B CJIRUAN 

TBD:r*