. . 

July 30,1952 

Hon. Robert 6. Calvcrt Opinion No. V-1487 

Comptroller of Public Accounk 

Auetin, Texam Ret Authority of the Comptroller 

of Public Account6 to honor 

niotor fuel tax refund claim6 

which have been revised to 

exclude those based on exemption invoke6 falsified by 

Dear Sir; claimant’0 boohheeper . 

Your request for an opinion of thk office ia based on the 

following fack: 

Your office hag received two refund claims in the amount6 

of $743.35 and $574.53, which were filed under the provkions of 

Article 7065b-l3, V. C. S. The fir& claim k for refund of tax on 

motor fuel ueed by the claimant in hi6 own farming operations, and 

the second ta for refund on motor fuel used by the estate of a deceaned perron, the farming operations of which are under the mupervkion and management of the firrt claimant. 

Attached to and flied a8 a part of the firet claim were four 

duplicate invoicee of exemption which had been falrified by alterationm of the dakr of purchase and delivery, to bring them within the 

six montha’ limiktion fixed by law for the payment of tax refunds. 

Attached to and filed a8 a part of the second claim were sfx dupticate invoiceB of exemption falrified in the mame manner and for the 

Bame parpone. All ten of the alkred invoice& of exemption were 

precluded by law from tax refund becauee deliveries, as shown by 

the date8 on the original copies of Bach exemption6 mainkined by 

the refund dealer, were made more than six month8 prior to the 

date the ciaimr were executed and filed. 

You have been informed that both claim8 were prepared 

by an employee who keeps the books of ‘the two farming operations. 

Both claims were eubecribed and aworn to by another employee who 

ack as farm manager of the two operations. Payment of both claims 

was denied under the provkione of mtbdivkion (f) of Article 706513-13. 

The attorney for these claimant* har e&ted in rubstance 

that the boohheeper, not realiuiug the seriousneBB of the offenne and 

in order to avoid censure for letting the exemptions become pant due, 

had changed the dates on the exemptioau of her own volition and 
Hon. Robert ~6. Culvert, Rage 2, (V-1487) 

i I: ;,, ,, : _ 

without the authority, direction, or knowledge of ths individnal 

claimant or anyone else in the organination of either claimant, and 

that neither the individual claimant nor the executor of the estate 

would have condoned such act. 

On the basis of the above facts, you ask whether your 

department can legally permit the claims here involved to be revised to exclude the altered invoices of exemption and then pay 

them in the amounts computed from the unaltered exemption invoices. 

The pertinent parts of Article 7065b-13. V.C.S., read as 

followsr 

“(a) In all refund claims filed under this section the 

burden shall be on the claimant to fur&h sufficient and 

satisfactory proof to the Comptroller of the claimant’s 

compliance with all provisions of this Articlei otherwist, 

the refund claim shall be denied. 

s(b) Any person, (except as hereinafter provided) 

who shall use motor fuel for the purpose of operating or 

propelling any stationary gasoline engine, motor boat, 

aircraft, or tractor used for agricultural purposes, or 

any other purposes except in a motor vehicle operated 

or intended to be operated upon the public highway of this 

State, and who shall have paid the tax imposed upon said 

motor fuel by this Article, either directly or indirectly, 

shall, when such person has fully complied with all provisions of this Article and the rules and regulstions promulgated by ,the Comptroller, be entitled to reimbursement of the tax paid by him less one pe.r cent (1%) allowed 

distributors for collecting and remitting the tax and complying with other provisions of the law. . . . 

. 

. . . 

s(d) When motor fuel is ordered or pnrchased for 

refund purposes the purchaser or recipient thereof shall 

state the purposes for which such motor fuel will be used 

or is intended to be used, and shall request an invoice of 

exemption which shall be made out by the 6elling refund 

dealer at the time of such delivery, or, if the motor fuel 

is appropriated for use by a refund dealer it shall be 

made out at the time the motor fuel irr appropriated or set 

aside for refund purpose,s. The invoice of exemption shall 

state: the refund dealer’s license numberi the date of purchase and the date of deliveryi the names and addresses of 

the purchaser and the selling dealer@ the purpose for which 
. ., . 

Hon. Robert S. Culvert, page ~3.(V-1487) 

such motor fuel wlll be used or is intended to be usedi the 

number of gaIlonr.delivered, or appropriated for use1 and 

any other information theComptroller~ may prescribe., No 

refund shall be allowed unless an invoke of exemption is 

made out at, the time of delivery, except as hereinafter provided. . . . 

,. 

. . . 

s(f) Any person entitled to file claim for tax refund 

under the terms of this Article shall file such claim with 

the Comptroller on a form prescribed by the Comptroller 

within six (6) months from the date the motor fuel was delivered to him, or from the date the.motor fuel was lost, 

exported or sold to the United States Government, and no 

refund of tax shall ever be made where it appears from the 

invoice of exemption, or from the affidavits or other evidence submitted, that the sale or delivery of motor fuel 

was made more than six (6) months Drier to the date the 

and closing dates of the periods covered in the r:fund 

claim filed. . . . 

. 

. . . 

“It shall be the duty of every person claiming tax 

refund to ver e contents 0 

sue: p”r’sF %othall file cla:z for i refund on a<y 

e claim filed and an 

mo or ue which has been used to propel a motor vehicle, 

tractor or other convevance uuon the public hishwav of 

‘Texas for anv ourn&ePfor which a tax refund ii not authoriaed her&. 0; who shall file any duplicate invoice 

or exemption in a claim for tax refund on which any date, 

figure or other material information has been falslfled 

or altered after said duplicate invoice of exemption has 

been duly issued by the refund dealer and delivered to the 

claimant, shall~forfeit his right to’the entire amount of 

the refund claun filed. (ISmphasis added.) 

Under the’ submitted facts the ten invoices of exemption which 

were altered involved sales or deliveries of motor fuel which were 

more. than six months prior to the receipt of the refund claim by the 

Comptroller. 
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 4 (V;lrSn _ . . 

I 

There 16 no question but that the refund claims represented 

by the kn altered or falrifkd invoice6 of exemption are barred from 

payment by the six months’ limiktion provided by sktuk. The only 

question to be determined here is the legality of paying the portions 

of the two total refund claims which were properly filed within the 

slz months’ period and which were subskntiakd’by analtered lxxvoices of exemption. 

The tax refunds authorized by the Motor Fuel Tax law are 

in the nature of exemptions or exceptions and must be strictly construed. The right of the claimant to mahe application for a refund 

is statutory and the procedure set out in the statute must be strictly 

complied with to entitle the claimant to that right. Att’y Gen. Op. 

O-6363 (1945)i Armstrong v. Driscoll Construction Co., 110 P.2d 

651 (Colo. Sup.7941). 

The tax refund section of the act conkim detailed reporting 

and recording provisions which were designed to prevent kz evasion, 

fraud, and the filing of stale claims and to aid in a uniform and efficient administration of the law. The forfeiture pr.ovisions of subdivision (f) of Article 7065b-13, V.C.S., here involved, were only 

recently enacted by the Legislature (Section XXII of Chapter 402, 

Acts 52nd Leg., R.S. 1951, p. 695) in an obvious attempt to strengthen 

the act with regard to the filing of falsified or altered refund claims. 

In construing this statute, it is apparent to us that the clear 

intent of the Legislature was set forth in plain wording in the provision that the claimant sshall forfeit his right to the entire amount 

of the refund claim fileds where the invoices, of sxempfionre altered or falsified with regard to dates, figures, or other material 

information. Responsibility for the acts of the claimant’s agent or 

employee in falsifying or altering the invoices of exemption must 

be imputed to the claimant, otherwise the particular forfeiture provision could, as a practical .matter, be circumvenkd with impunity. 

There is no statutory provision which would authorize the 

Comptroller to waive this forfeiture provision on equltable or other 

grounds and he, therefore, has no authority to do so. Att’y Gen. 

Op. V-835 (1948). 

Your request did not present any questions with regard to, 

and we are not passing upon, the possible applicability of various 

other statutory provisiozs for fines, penalties, or criminal prosecution in this instance. 

It is our opinion that the person claiming the taz refunds 

in question,, which included certain altered or falsified invoices 

of szemption. forfeited his right to the entire claims which were 

filed. 
! 

/ - 

../ 

, 

-.. . 

Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 5 (V-1487) 

SUMMARY 

The right of a claimant to the refund of motor fuel 

taxes which is based in whole or in part on’ altered or 

falsified invoices of exemption must be forfeited in its 

entirety. Art. 7065b-13(f), V.C.S. 

APPROVED: 

W. V. Geppert 

Taxation Division 

Mary K. Wall 

Reviewing Assistant 

Charles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

Yours very truly, 

PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney General 

?izkEGk 

Assistant