- . 

A IRNEX- GENERAL 

XAS 

August 21, 1969 

Honorable Robert S. Calvert Opinion No, M-451 

Comptroller of Public Accounts 

Capitol Building Re : 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Whether a declaration by 

purchaser, under penalties 

of perjury, that the tax 

on all motor fuel which has 

been purchased on credit 

card and Included in claim, 

has been paid, will support a claim for refund 

under Article 9.13(6), 

Dear Mr. Calvert: Motor Fuel Tax Law. 

You requested an opinion from this office and state the 

Pacts as follows: 

"Purchases of motor fuel for use In aircraft 

are usually made by credit card, or in many 

instances by several credit cards covering 

different brands of motor fuel purchased, for 

which the refund dealers delivering the fuel 

can not Issue receipts for the tax payments. 

In the past the claimant has been required to 

obtain a receipt from the distributors who 

issued the credit card showing that the tax 

has been paid by him on the fuel purchased 

which creates a burden upon the claimant to 

obtain a receipt, or often several receipts, 

to support his claim. 

"Article 9.13 of Chapter 9, Title 122A, 

Taxation-General, Revised Civil Statutes of 

Texas, authorized the Comptroller to pay a 

claim for refund of taxes paid on motor fuel 

used for non-highway purposes when made and 

subscribed by the claimant on a form preecribed 

by the Comptroller subject to the (felony) 

penalties of Article 1.12 of said Title 122A 

for making a false or untrue statement to any 

material Pact, 

-224C 
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 2 (M-451) 

"In lieu of requiring a claimant who 

purchase8 motor fuel on a credit card to 

furnish a receipt of payment from the 

distributor to whom he has paid the tax, 

the Comptroller would like to include in 

the claim form prescribed by him a8 part 

of the claim filed subject to the penalties 

of the said Article 1.12, a declaration 

that the tax on all motor fuel included in 

the claim which ha8 been pmrchased on a 

credit card has been paid to a duly licensed 

distributor of motor fuel in Texas, if it 

can be legally accomplished. 

"Will you please advise me whether such 

statement In the claim would serve as 

proof that @the taxes claimed have actually 

been paid by the claimant' a8 contemplated 

by the law?" 

The provisions which are applicable to the facts presented 

and thus govern are Articles 9.13(l) and g-13(6), Chapter 9, 

Title 122A, Taxation-General, Vernon's Civil Statutes, which 

provide, In part, as follows: 

Article 9.13(l): 

"In all refund claims Piled under this 

Article, the burden shall be on the 

claimant to furnish sufficient and satisfactory proof to the Comptroller of the 

claimant's compliance with all provisions 

of this Article; Otherwise, the refund 

claim shall be denied." (Emphasis added.) 

Article 9.13(6): 

” . . . o The claim for tax refund shall include a statement that the information shown 

In each duplicate invoice of exemption 

attached to the tax refund claim is true and 

correct, and that deduction8 have been made 

from the tax refund claim for all motor fuel 

u8ed on the public highways of Texas and for 

all motor fuel used or otherwise disposed of 

In any manner In which a tax refund is not 

authorized herein. If upon examination, and 

-2241- 
. . 

Hon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 3 (M-451) 

8UCh other investigation as may be 

deemed neces8ary, the Comptroller finds 

that the claim filed for tax refund is 

]u8t, and that the taxes claimed have 

-ten ac ua 

he shall issue warrant due the clalmant 

but no greater amount shall be refunded 

than has been paid Into the State 

'Treasury on any motor fuel, and no warrant 

hall b 

Tess 

id b th State Treasurer unprEs%ed :or Eayment within two (2) 

years from the close of the fiscal year in 

which such narrant was issued, but claim 

for the payment of such warrant may be 

presented to the Legislature for appropriation to be made from which said warrant may 

be paid." (Emphasis added.) 

.t 

less presented for payment within two (2) 

years from the close of the fiscal year in 

which such warrant was issued, but claim 

for the payment of such warrant may be 

presented to the Legislature for approprlation to be made from which said warrant may 

be paid." (Emphasis added.) 

We conclude that the quantum of proof to be required of the 

taxpayer claimant for his refund is a matter vested largely 

within the discretion of the Comptroller. A declaration from the 

claimant subje'ct to the penalties that he has paid the taxes in 

question to the duly licensed distributor is a fact or clrcumstance which would constitute some evidence or proof of such 

fact. Standing alone, however, it is not conclusive evidence upon 

which the Comptroller might Issue a warrant to such claimant. 

Article 9.13(6) restricts the Comptroller In issu%ng warrants for 

refunds in no greater amount "than has been paid into the State 

F==f* 

" Also, such statute requires a "finding" b the Comptroller 

rom ev dence as he may deem necessary that the tax tlaim is just 

and has actually been paid by the claimant. 

Accordingly, It is the opinion of this office that the 

Comptroller, In his di8cretiOn, may accept a declaration from the 

claimant, subject to the penalties of Article 1.12, Taxation-General

that he did in fact pay the tax In question on all motor fuel 

which he purchased and included in his claim for refund, as satisfactory proof that such claimant paid the taxes to the duly licensed 

distributor; provided, however, before the Comptroller may issue 

his warrant for the refund, the statute contemplates that the 

Comptroller In addition find from his examination of his records and 

such other Investigation as may be deemed necessary, that the 

claimant actually paid the taxes, the refund claim is just, and that 

he is not refunding any greater amount than has been paid into the 

State Treasury on the motor fuel. 

-2242- 
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 4 (M-451) 

SUMMARY 

The Comptroller, In his discretion, may accept a 

declaration from the claimant, subject to the 

penalties of Article 1.12, Taxation-General, that 

he did in fact pay the tax in question on all 

motor fuel which he purchased and included in his 

claim fpr refund, as satisfactory proof that such 

claimant paid the taxes to the duly licensed 

distributor; provided, however, before the 

Comptroller may issue his warrant for the refund, 

the statute contemplates that the Comptroller in 

addition find from his examination of his records 

and such other investigation as may be deemed necessary, that the claimant actually paid the taxes, 

the refund claim Is just, and that he Is not refunding any greater amount than has been paid into 

the State Treasury on the motor fuel. 

y General of Texas 

v 

Prepared by Kenneth L. Nordqulst 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION GCMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

George Kelton, Vice-Chairman 

Harold Kennedy 

James McCoy 

Rick Fisher 

Houghton Brownlee 

W. V. Geppert 

Staff Legal Assistant 

Hawthorne Phillips 

Executive Assistant 

-2243-