R-470

OFFICE OF 

# THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 24, 1947~

Hon. George H. Sheppard Comptrollerof Public Accounts Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-215

Dear Sir: &Wl'IX,'BIEXAS

Re: The proper method to be followed to collect delinquenttaxes from an Oklahoma truck line doing business inTexas, under the intangible tax law.of this State.

You request opinion of this Department by letter of May 12, 1947, as to procedure to~be follWed in enforcingpayment-ofdelinquentintangibletaxes against a truck line. (Arts. 7105-7116 V.C.S.) -. This questionmay be answeredby the simple statement that if it beaomes necessaryto file suit for the collectionof this tax, such,a stit should be f%led adprosecuted by the CountyAttorney, or such other at-, tormyas might be legally designated by the Commissioners* Court of the Coun'ty, as in the case of any other delinquentad valorem taxes upon tangibleproperty.

A brief reference to the statutesgoverning the assessingand collectionof intangibletaxes, makes this quite apparent.

Article 7105,V.C.S., provides in part as follows: "The intangibletaxablevalues of said motor bus companiesand said common carriers shall be apportionedto the county in or through.which they operate in proportion to the clistanoe in miles of the highways traversed. by said carriers in each respective county."Hon. George H. Sheppard - Page 2 (V-215)

-.-- Article 7113, V. C. s., provides:

"Thereafter,

and not later than the W;;,d&yy,f June of each year, said board

. a final valuationand apportionment'oi

the intangible

assets.
. . and shall, as soon after such 20th day of June as practicable, certify to the tax assessor of each county the amount found to be apportionable.

. . The Tax assessor of such county, up-n receiving such certificate

. . . f

sha 1 place, set down and list

. . . upon the tax rolls of the county..
. . any and all such intangible assets, at the value so . . . certified

The foregoing statutory provisionsclearly commit the collectionof intangible taxes to the tax collectorsof the respectivecountiesas apportioned by the Intangible

Tax Board. If it should become necessary to file suit for delinquentintangibletaxes it would be in the same manner as applicableto other delinquent taxes on tangibleproperty.

In order to insure an orderly and effective method of collectingthis tax, it became necessary to fix a situs of taxation. The apportionment method obviously was the most feasible,and this was the method adopted. The-.oase of State vs. Texas Paoific Railway Company et al, 62 S. Yi. (2d) 81, very clearly demonstrates the feasibilityof fixing the taxable situs upon the apportionment

basis as provided in the Act, and from this case we quote:

'"It is the settled law that, as a whole, the intangible assets of a railroadHon. George H. Sheppard - Page 5 (V-215)

oompahy have no situ8 in any or the oouhties throughwhich the railroad rims. Missouri,K. & T. Ry. v. Shannon 100 Tex. 379 100 S. W. 12X3. 10 L. R. A. tN.S.) 681; Lively v. Ry.: 102 Tex. 345, 120 S.W. 852. But this does not mean that the Legislaturehas no authority to provide for the partition of the intangibleassets of a railroadcompany, for taxationpurposes, and to fix the situs of the respectiveportions in the respebtivecounties sharingin the partition. On the contrary;the Legislature has authority to do this, and has, in effect, done that very thing. In what is sometimes

known a.8

the'intangible

tax law, being chapter 4, tit. 122, of the Revised Statutes (articles7098-7116), the Legislature

has provided a state tax board, and made various provision8for the astertaihmentby the board of the true value of ' the intangibleasset8 of a railroad company, for the purpose of taxation;and for the apportionment

of such value, for taxation purposes, to the various counties in which lines of the railroad 1118. The standard by which such apportionment is to be made by the board is prescribedin the act, The oonclusion

rea8oI&3b~ly~follow8 that, by these apportionment provisions of the statutes, the Legislatureintended that such apportionment,

when made a8 prescribed, would fix the situs of each portion in acoordanoe with the allocation made by the board.

. . ." This ease clearly demonstrates that the Legialaturehas the authority to fix the situs for the purpose of taxationin the respeotivecounties sha'ring in the apportionment, in derogationof the comnon rule that the situs for the 'taxation of personalproperty is at the residenceof the owner.

Raving by legiislative aation fixed the situs of the taxabilityof the intangibleassets of those subject to the act, it became necessary to commit to some appropriate

authoritythe collectionof the tax and the enforcementthereof,and this ha8 been done by committing it to the county officialsa8 taxes upon other property. The intangible

value8 as certifiedby the Intangible Tax Board are entered by the tax assessor upon the assessmentHon. GeorgeH. Sheppard - Page 4 (V-215)

rolls of the county and the amount OS tax liabilitydeterminedby the applicationof the appropriate rate.
It follows from the foregoing that suit for the collection

of delinquentIntangibletaxes shouldbe filed in the counties where the tax is levied and by the same officialand in the same manner as providedby statute for collectionof delinquent taxes on tangibleproperty. The County Attorney of Leon County shouldproceed to collect the deli,nquent Intaligible

tax of this taxpayer as in the case of any othek delinquenttaxes as provided by Article 7345b, V. C. S.

County officialsare authorizedto collect delinquentIntangibletaxes in the same name; and under the same statutory provisionsas delinquenttaxes upon tahgible property. v.. c. Arts. 7105-7116and 7345b,::,w s .; State of Texas vs. Texas Pacific Ry. Co. 62,s. W. (2d) 81.
Yours very truly,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

U'L/lh/wb 

# ,,ZPJ~

L. P. Lollar &@ Assistant

APPROVED WY 24, 1947