Aus~xni. TEXAS 787Pl 

February 22, 1966 

Hon. John L. David Opinion NO. c-621 

Dallsm County Attorney 

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 captioned matters: 

"&e&ions have developed in.our County Tax 

Assessor's office concerning the proper county to 

tax certain properties 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. 

"There have 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 controversies between 

Hartley County and Dallsm County, I would like to know 

the answer to the following situations which 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 company has its office 

in Dallas County but 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 equipment be rendered? 

Should all his pickups and trucks be licensed and 

rendered in Dallam County or should they be prorated 

between the two counties." 

Inasmuch as Question No. 1 involves two parts, namely 

registration and.situs' of tangible personal 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 Hartley County and used 

in his business located In Dallsm County is governed by Article 

6755a-2 Vernon's Civil Statutes which states as follows: 

. ..l&&y .: 

%ver owner of a motor vehicle,~'trailer or 

er use or to be.used upon the public 

highways of this state shall anply each-.yearto 

'the State Highway Department through the.County 

Tax Collector of the county in -which he.resides 

*for 3 

or controlled by .him for the ensuing or current 

calendar year or unexpired portion~thereof. . . .' 

(Emphasis added) '. 

:. 

'In the 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~this state may operate them 

under number plates and license obtained as a 

result of registrat5on.df.such cars .in a county 

other than the ownerkretiidence. We think the 

law requires registration.of the c'a? in the 

county of residenc.e;.:; L I. .We note that intwo~ 

cases our Courts of Civil Appeals .have heId that 

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

cars may only be registered .in the county of the 

owner's residence. See Miller et al. v. Foard 

County .et ,al., .59 S.W. (2d)277,:and Cass County 

v. Morris County; 9 S.W.. (2d) 373.'" (Emphasis added) 

You are advised that an individual is required to register 

his motor vehicles in the county ofhis ~residence regardless of 

where he conducts his business because his residence is his 

legal domicile. This conclusion follows the holding of Attorney 

General Opinion No. O-2050. 

This matter has been determined in Attorney General Opinion 

No. O-.1023 wherein this office stated: 

"The above Article ~(Article 6755a-2) fixes 

s'itus of registration as the county,in which he 

resides. . . .(t 

This office has heretofore held-in Attorney General Opinion 

No. O-2229; that a .personregisteri 

. other than that of his residence wi 

-Article 604 of the Penal Code when he operates the same upon the 

<pub If o h 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 

registration from 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 .residence is the only place to register the trucks' : 

used in his business. 

In determining the answer to the second part of Question 

No. 1, which involves the situs of tangible personal property 

for ad valorem tax purposes; one must consider the governing 

statutes snd case law. 

The provisions under which the trucks are to be taxed are 

found in Article VIII, 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 constitution provides: 

.‘ 

'All property, whether owned by persons or 

corporations shall be assessed for taxation, .and the 

tsxes paid in the county where situated. . . .w 

., 

Article 7153 provides,: 

"All property; real and personal, except such 

as is required to be listed and assessed otherwise, 

shall be listed and assessed in the county where it 

is situated;- and all personal property,~subject to 

taxation and temporarily removed from the State or 

county, shall be listed and assessed in the county 

of the residence'of the owner thereof, or in'the 

county where.the principal office of such owner-is 

situated. . . .'I 

We have.-found.no cases which~are~squarely determinative of 

the question under ~considerat~ion; ,however, we have found some 

authorities',which we 'deem relevant to a determination thereof. 

In Attorney General C&ion~No. VL373i.-the following 

statements were,mad.e: I _ ,: 

."'The.'common law maxim ~of "mobilia sequuntur 

personam" (movable6 follow.the person), that is, 

that personal property has its legal situs for 

taxation pruposes at the place 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 shall be assessed for taxat;on, and 

taxes paid in the county where situated, it has 

been held by the Supreme Court of Texas that this 

provision.1~ no more than a declaration of,the 

common law rule in that "since it has reference to 

the ~taxingpower, it'evidently meant property 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:Southern Lif In 

Co. v. City of'Austin: m3 S W 776 

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

12SW . . 68 9. This interoretation 1s said also to 

apply to Article 7153, R:vised Civil Statutes of 

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

Texas, as amended,, enacted pursuant to the above 

'constitutional provision (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., 2 33 2S.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 ~applied to 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'of its 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 

."One exception to the rule that tangible'personal 

'property is only taxable in the c'ounty 'of the residence 

of the owner is, ~that tangible personal property which 

by its character and'concrete form is capable of having 

a value and an actual physical situs, may be taxed in 

the county where permanently located.".(Rmphasis added) 

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 tangible personal 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 

Civil A 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 property may be taxed in a state others than 

its owner8s'domitiile, it must acquire~there a location 

more or less permanent. 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 'idea of the characteristids .of the permanency 

of real estate. It merely involves the concept of being 

associated with the general mass of property in the state, 

as contrasted with 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 tangible personal property'is~ taxable in 

the counts of the domicileof the owner unless the 

property has acquired a permanent fixed 'situs of.its 

own separate~and apart from that of the county of 

the. ownerls.domicile." (Emphasis a&led) 

Since the second part.of Question 1,~the.firs.t part of Question 

2 and the first snip second part of Question 3 involve the s~sme 

princip.,les~.of law,-I,+.-, the~situs of tangible .personal property for ad'valorem tax puiposes., .we shall consider them together 

The facts presented in your opinion request are insufficient in 

all three situations to enable this office to determine specifically'the'proper county in which the property should be rendered 

You are advised that, based.upon case law and opinions of this 

office, tangible personal property-has its situs in the county 

of the owner's residence, unless it has ~acquired,an actual permanent~ situs apart from the owner. The determination of the 

controlling facts must ineach instance be determined by the 

proper taxing authorities. 

The second partof 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‘of vehicles, 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 individual must be registered 

under Article 6755a-2 in the county of the owner's 

domicile. The situs of tangible personal property for 

ad valor-em taxation purposes 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