Aus~xni. TEXAS 787Pl February 22, 1966

Hon. John L. David Opinion NO. c-621 Dallsm CountyAttorney 316 Denrock Avenue Re: Where the owner of a Dalhart, Texas wholesale oil business lives in Hartley County, but his business is located in Dallam County, whether his transport trucks and other equipment be registered for license and rendered for ad valorem taxes in Dallsm County and related Dear Hon. David: questions.
We quote the following excerpt from your letter requesting the opinion of this office on the above captionedmatters:

"&e&ions have developed in.our County Tax Assessor's office concerning the proper county to tax certainproperties located in Dallam County. As you may not know, Dalhart is the county seat of Dallam County but about thirty per cent of the City of Dalhart is located in Hartley County. Almost all of the business establishments are located in Dallam County but many of the owners reside in Hartley County. "Therehave been several occasions when a determination for the proper method of determining the situs for tax purposes of tax property was necessary and in order that I might settle these controversiesbetween Hartley County and Dallsm County, I would like to know the answer to the following situationswhich are actual cases confronting our tax assessor and collector. "1. The owner of a wholesale oil business lives in Hartley County but his business is located in Dallsm County. Should his transport trucks and other equipment be registered for license and/or rendered for tax purposes in Dallsm County?



### -3014-Hon. John L. David,page 2 (c-621)

“2. A cattle transport companyhas its office in Dallas Countybut operates in Texas and other states. The owner lives in Hartley County. Would *tax situs'be in Dallam County and should the vehicles be licensed in Dallsm County?

‘3. .A farmer lives in Dallsm County but owns and/or operates farms in both Dallam and Hartley Counties. 'He has considerable farm equipment and moves. it from one county to the other as needed. In which county should his equipmentbe rendered? Should all his pickups and trucks be licensed and rendered in Dallam County or should they be prorated between the two counties." Inasmuch asQuestion No. 1 involves two parts, namely registrationand.situs' of tangiblepersonal property for ad valorem tax purposes, for the sake of clarity, each aspect will be considered separately. The first aspect involving the proper place for registration of trucks.

owned;by aresident of HartleyCounty and used in his business located In Dallsm County is governed by Article 6755a-2 Vernon's Civil Statuteswhich states as follows:

...l&&y .: %ver owner of a motor vehicle,~'trailer or er use or to be.used upon thepublic highways of this state shall anply each-.yearto 'theState Highway Department through the.County Tax Collectorof the county in -whichhe.resides *for 3 or controlledby .himfor the ensuing or current calendar year or unexpiredportion~thereof.

. . .' (Emphasis added) '.

:. 'Inthe case of.

Cpp v. State, 94 SiW.'2d 180 (TexXrim. 1936) the Court said: : ,' ~(:: . .~.,. "The.only..question involved is whether own,& of cars residing:

in~thisstate may operate them under numberplates and license obtained as a result of registrat5on.df.suchcars .ina county other than the ownerkretiidence. We think the law requires registration.ofthe c'a? in the county of residenc.e;.:; LI..Wenote that intwo~ cases our Courts of Civil Appeals .haveheId that

-3015-Hon. John L. David, page 3 (c-621.)

cars may only be registered .inthe county of the owner's residence. See Miller et al. v. Foard County .et,al.,.59S.W. (2d)277,:and Cass County v. Morris County; 9 S.W..(2d) 373.'"(Emphasisadded)
You are advised that an individual is required to register his motor vehicles in the county ofhis ~residenceregardlessof where he conducts his business because his residence is his legal domicile. This conclusion follows the holding of Attorney General OpinionNo. O-2050. This matter has been determined in Attorney General Opinion No. O-.1023

wherein this office stated: "The above Article~(Article6755a-2) fixes s'itus of registration as the county,inwhich he resides.

. . .(t This office has heretoforeheld-in Attorney General Opinion No. O-2229; that a .personregisteri

.other than that of his residencewi -Article 

### 604 of the Penal Code

### when he 

### operatesthe same upon the <pub o h If under such registration.

i In Attorney-General Opinion No. O-370 this office held that the county tax assessor and collector not.only exceeds his authority, but commits an illegal act if he receives a license ree ror registrationfrom an owner of a vehicle who has a legal residence inanother county. Therefore, it.appears to be a well settled rule of law by virtue of cases and .opinicns~om this office that the county of 'the

### owner’s.residenceis the only place to register the trucks' : used in his business.
In determining the answer to the secondpart of Question No. 1, which involves the situs of tangiblepersonal property for ad valorem tax purposes; one must consider the governing statutessnd case law. The provisions under which the trucks are to be taxed are found in ArticleVIII, Section 11 of the Texas Constitution and Article 7153,,Vernon's Civil Statutes.

-3016-Hon. John L. David,page 4:(~-621)

Article VIII, Section ll.of the Texas constitutionprovides: .‘ 'Allproperty,whether ownedby persons or corporations shallbe assessed for taxation, .andthe tsxes paid in the countywhere situated.

. . .w

., Article 7153provides,: "Allproperty; real andpersonal, except such as is required to be listed and assessed otherwise, shall be listed and assessed in the county where it is situated;-

and allpersonal property,~subject to taxation and temporarilyremoved from the 

### State or county, shall be listed and assessed in the county of the residence'ofthe 

### ownerthereof, 

### or in'the county where.the principaloffice of such owner-is situated.

. . .'I
We have.-found.no

caseswhich~are~squarelydeterminativeof the question under ~considerat~ion; ,however,

we have found some authorities',which we 'deemrelevant to a determination thereof.
In Attorney General C&ion~No. VL373i.-thefollowing statementswere,mad.e:

I

_ ,: ."'The.'common

lawmaxim ~of"mobilia sequuntur personam" (movable6follow.theperson), that is, that personal propertyhas its legal situs for taxationpruposes at theplace of the owners domicile, is the general rule in Texas. Although the Constitution of Texas (Art ,VIII,~.Sek; 11) .provides that 'all.proRerty,whether owned by persons or corporations shallbe assessed for taxat;on, and taxes paid in the countywhere situated, it has been held by the Supreme Court of Texas that this provision.1~ 

### nomorethan a declaration of,the common law rule in that "since it has reference to the~taxingpower, it'evidently

### meantproperty where situated for the purposes of taxation under .the general urinciules of law as then understood." kty of %ort Worth v. Southland Greyhound Lines,, 

### 2dJ;L; Gi.C.& S.,F 'RY:Co. v.~City~ f

d 292. Greai:SouthernLif In Co. v. City of'Austin:m3 S W 776

.&Lble, G-14 S.W.'766;~F&r 6 v. 12SW 68

. . 9. This interoretation1s said also to apply to Article 7153, R:vised Civil Statutes of



### -3017*Hon. John L., David, page 5 (c42i)

Texas, as amended,, enactedpursuant to the above 'constitutionalprovision (See c.as~es supra, t
. .*'I See also City of Ama;;lll vi Carter, 380 S.W.2d 177 (Tex.Ci;oApp. 1964) and Sanford In D d t School Dist. v. Ii. B. Zachry ., 393 S.W.2d 402 (Tex.Civ.App.,error ref., n.r.,e.1965)

. In discussing the doctrine of "mobilia sequuntur ersonam" the Court in State v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., 33 2 2 S.W.2d 457 (Tex.Civ.App.1951, error ref.~) at page 461 quoted the fallowing with approval from Cooley on Taxation, &h-Ed. Voi. 2, g 440:

‘.I,

. So far as~appliedto taxation, it

. . merely means that the situs of personal property for.pu.rposes

of taxation is the domicile of the owner unless (1) there is a statute to thecon- .trary,or (2) the property is tangible and has acquired an actual'bitus'ofits own in a state or place other thane~re the owner is domiciled,

. ~..*" : The Crown Central'case,'supra cites State v. Fidelity & Depositon8;O&W. 5-b (Tex.Civ.App.1904 error ref.) for.the propositi : I ."Oneexception to the rule that tangible'personal 'propertyis only taxable in the c'ounty'ofthe residence of the owner is, ~thattangiblepersonal property which by its character and'concrete form is capable of having a value and an actualphysical situs,may be taxed in the county where permanently located.".(Rmphasisadded)
In Great Southern Life Ins. Co. v. City of Austin, 112 Text 1, 243 S.W. 778, 781 (1922), is stated:

,,

. . . It is true that the actual'situs of certain classes,

of visible,

and tangiblepersonal property,
. . . may have a situs for taxationwhere they are kept rj;eparate

and apart from the domicile of %%is%F

. . . (l3nphasis added)
In discussing the concept of permanency, the Dallas Court of CivilA peals, City of Dallas v. Overton, 363 S.W. 2d 821 (Tex.Civ. App. 

### % 19 2, error ref., 

### n.r.e.)at page 825 quo-&s the following from 110 A.L.R:pgs. 707,717:



### -3018-Hon. John L. David, page 6 (c-621)

"'The courts are all agreed that before tangible p~ersonal

propertymay be taxed in a state othersthan its owner8s'domitiile, it must acquire~therea location more or lesspermanent. It is difficult to define the idea of permanency that this rule.~connotes.It is clear that '"permsnenc~y, as used in.the connection,does not convey the 'ideaof the characteristids.ofthe permanency of real estate. It merely involvesthe concept of being associatedwith the generalmass of property in the state, as contrastedwith a transient status--viz., likelihood of beingih, one state today and in another tomorrow.'" Further, in Attorney General Opinion No. O-3702, this office stated in part:

"The, rule of.& applicable in Texasis, therefore, that tangiblepersonalproperty'is~ taxable in the counts of the domicileof the owner unless the property has acquired a permanent fixed 'situsof.its own separate~andapart from that of the county of the. ownerls.domicile." (Emphasisa&led) Since the secondpart.of Question 1,~the.firs.t part of Question 2 and the first snip secondpart of Question 3 involve the s~sme princip.,les~.of

law,-I,+.-,

the~situs of tangible .personalproperty for ad'valorem tax puiposes., .weshall consider them together The facts presented in your opinion request are insufficient in all three situations to enable this office to determine specifically'the'propercounty in which the property should be rendered You are advised that, based.upon case law and opinions of this office, tangiblepersonal property-has its situs in the county of the owner's residence,unless it has ~acquired,anactual permanent~situs apart from the owner. The determination of the controlling facts must ineach instancebe determined by the proper taxing authorities. The secondpartof Question.2 and thethird part of Question 3 regardingregistrationof vehicles'is governed'by'the answer to'the first part of Question'l.'You are, 'therefore;advised that the proper place for,the registration‘ofvehicles, includin the pickups and trucks, domicile. $s.$n the county of the owner's

:

-3019-Hon. John L. David, page 7 (C-621)

SUMMARY Vehicles owned by an individualmust be registered under Article 6755a-2 in the county of the owner's domicile. The situs of tangiblepersonal property for ad valor-emtaxationpurposes is in the county where the owner resides unless it has acquired an actual permanent situs apart from the owner. Very truly yours, WAGGORERCARR Attorney General

ByL%G-Q-- Terry Reed Goodman Assistant
TRG/lTIl i
APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman Gordon Cass W. E. Allen Marietta Payne Douglas Chilton
APPROVED FOR TRE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: T. B. Wright