tiorable Aw3rsw J:Hiokey

CountyAuditor Viotoria county Viotoria,T-6

Dear Sir: OpiaLoax0.0-1709 Ret A66666iIIg

for taxes buildings partly oompleted

on J6!ms.ry first.

We are in fsmipt of your letter of Novsmb6r 16, 1939 in fiiohyou requ~st.6n

opinionof tkd.6

Dspar~~t asto.whefher or not bulldings partly oompi6tsd

on the first day of Jsanaary 6houldbeassessed for tax66 ~ovuring theapart

of the Wilding that was oompleted*
Arti 7146 of the ReolssdCivil Statutes povid66 as follows:

"All property,

real,~@6rsonal

or II&~&, 

### l

xeopL suoh as my bs hsreiaafter 6xpmssly axmnpted, Is subjbotto bxation, and the 66616 shallbe readarc sd 6ad list6d as herein presorlbed.6
Article 7146 of tImRevIsed Civil Statutes providesas follows,
"Realpropertyfor the .purposs of tsxatiom shall be ooastrued~to inoludetht 16ad itself,

wbtbr laid out in town lots or otherrim, and all lmild~s, &m1otur66 6x63. improvan~,or other fixbar of diatsoever kiadtherao!~,ud rll th6 rights 6nd privilsges‘belonging or in a?@60 app6rbaiaiag themto. and all mines,minerals,quarriesand fossils in aad under t&s sm~e.~

It is to 'be

noted thatArtiol6 7146, supra,does not limit the defiaition of real propertyto iaoludeonly lands and buildings, I& also iaolndse stxuotures

and 3mprov6m61ts

or ofhsr fixtums of whatsom?r kind. There oaa be no doubt Iart,

that 'this legislative definition

of real props* is saffioiently broad to oomr asd inoludeths value of an improvmeat on land,which improvaneat

is a partly oompletsd building.

We are unable to find q ease in Texaswhich direolydeoides this point. %wmr, the following quotationfrom the oa66 of Valdea V. City of Laredo, 29 S.W. (2d) 802, is ixterestlng: "Appellant

mats his OPSO primarily upon the contention that the building
nas not in a oompletbdstate on.January 1, 1917, 6nd that, under a customof the city, inocmpleted improvmmts rem not taxable; that, umder suoh ou8- tan, the oity mu6 obligated to refund said taxes upon appellmt's petitionHon.AndrsnJ~ Hiskey,Pags 2 (O-1709)

to the counoil. It is notnesessary +%I determineif the oily would or oould be bound to raaittaxes by mason of sny oustmsestablished by .the oily 00u11- oil, for there is no uvideaoein this oase of the exkteaoe of such oustom.s
Hbil6 ths SUE AatoaioCourt of CivilAppeUs la this ease doe6 not dirE&~ p666 upon our poiat here, the Court's lpngruge iadiates th6t h6dths buildingkeen partly oompleted as of Jsnuuy 1, if it nrs to bs tax exaqvt, it oould oaly be 60 by reason of a oustomOst6bli6hed v the Citg Councilof Laredo md not by opslrtioa of 16ws The Court r6fu66sto pm6 oa the validity ofths adoption of su6h a oustom.

Ia as 0666 of E6to Real Estate Corporation v. Lmisi6.aa

Tax Cos~~iasioa, 129 Southern117, the Suprm6 Court of i,otisi6aa considered

6 ooatsaticol

thaf 6a a-eat building ma not suh&ot totaxatioa as a part ofreal estate becausethe ssme m6 on* portly oompleted as of January1. The Court overrtisd the oOateatiOa 6ad St6tsd 6s fOllOn6t

"There is no reason why the iaoonplete lnaildiag

should not hav6 been assesssd for taxesas a part of the real estate. The admission in the plaintiff*8pstifioathot the Iuildiag ~6 one-fourth

oompleted

6ad would be worth $90,000 whsa completed,

with the altera6tive dmend for a reduotioa of the assessmeat to #13,500,if it shouldbe held valid,w6s 6a admission thrt the iaoasplete building

~66 proper* of some vnlu6.s

A like aoateatioa

-8 made to the SuprsmeCourt of Illinois laths case of hoplo ex x-01

YoDsnough,

Ooun~ Cslleotor

v. llvshfil Rield 6ad Cenpaay, 189 N. E. 005. fn holdinga Iuildiag p6rtly oomplete

to be subjaotto assessment fortaxes,the oourt statedas followar

"In Miohigatirand Wlilding Cnrp.v. Parrott,

SSO Ill. 291, 199 N. E. 205, 209, the taxpqsr soughtto evade paymsntof taxes on a s6veatesm-stoqv building under coastruotioa on the groundthat it was act under roof on April 1 of the taxpclylag

year. It nas 6lleged+lmt it ma th6 pr6~iX0sOf the board ofasssssor6 to omit such tisompl6ted btildiagi

fras tisessmxit. M held that 'during the ys6r %&mea April 1, 1929, impmvansata wer6 plaoed CQ app6116at1s prop erty,and it therefore in 1929 beo6sm the duty of the bmrd of 66sessors to determine

the faaomt,in its opinion, of sny ohsagein the value v rsasm of the Lnprovemexrbs thereon 6ndadd to the assessment aooordinglyss SApprodimPtely

(22,000,OOO

had lmaa expsndedon appell6nt's building

prior to Apti 1. ItnO oocupbed &'tWWl+tSO tSaPntSdthiath0 'Sasuiag SirtgdSy6. It o6aaotbe said that oa April 1 the luildiag 1p6 of ao value or th6t it did not add to the mark6tvalue of the lends The reoord ooaoluaively show6 thaf the improvemeat

was as8e886ble."

It is the opinionof this Department, thsrsfcre,

that land upoa whioh a buildingis partly ocsspleted oaths first day of Januasy is subject to be assessed for taxes at a valuation which iaaludes

the partially

oomplated

StIUOtUmo EGcRBcegw APPFWED DEC. 9, 1939 /s/Gerald C. ]lana TollI= W~t??Uly

ATTORNEYGEIERALOFT EXAS iTiDR1vgy

GENERAL OF’EXAS APPMVED6 OPINIONUUdKITTE2, SW2 CHAIRUS By /a/ Billy Goldberg ASsiStmt