tiorable Aw3rsw J:Hiokey 

County Auditor 

Viotoria county 

Viotoria, T-6 

Dear Sir: OpiaLoa x0.0-1709 

Ret A66666iIIg for taxes buildings 

partly oompleted on J6!ms.ry 

first. 

We are in fsmipt of your letter of Novsmb6r 16, 1939 in fiioh you 

requ~st.6n opinion of tkd.6 Dspar~~t asto.whefher or not bulldings partly 

oompi6tsd on the first day of Jsanaary 6hould beassessed for tax66 ~ovuring 

the apart of the Wilding that was oompleted* 

Arti 7146 of the Reolssd Civil Statutes povid66 as follows: 

"All property, real, ~@6rsonal or II&~&, l xeopL suoh as my bs hsreiaafter 

6xpmssly axmnpted, Is subjbot to bxation, and the 66616 shall be readarc 

sd 6ad list6d as herein presorlbed.6 

Article 7146 of tImRevIsed Civil Statutes provides as follows, 

"Real property for the .purposs of tsxatiom shall be ooastrued~to inolude tht 

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, quarries and fossils in aad under t&s sm~e.~ 

It is to 'be noted thatArtiol6 7146, supra, does not limit the defiaition of real property to iaolude only 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 inolude ths value of an improvmeat on land, which 

improvaneat is a partly oompletsd building. 

We are unable to find q ease in Texas which direoly deoides this 

point. %wmr, the following quotation from 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 oompletbd state on.January 1, 1917, 6nd that, under a custom of 

the city, inocmpleted improvmmts rem not taxable; that, umder suoh ou8- 

tan, the oity mu6 obligated to refund said taxes upon appellmt's petition 
Hon.AndrsnJ~ Hiskey,Pags 2 (O-1709) 

to the counoil. It is notnesessary +%I determine if the oily would or oould 

be bound to raaittaxes by mason of sny oustms established by .the oily 00u11- 

oil, for there is no uvideaoe in this oase of the exkteaoe of such oustom.s 

Hbil6 ths SUE Aatoaio Court of Civil AppeUs la this ease doe6 not dirE&~ p666 upon our poiat here, the Court's lpngruge iadiates th6t h6dths 

building keen partly oompleted as of Jsnuuy 1, if it nrs to bs tax exaqvt, it 

oould oaly be 60 by reason of a oustom Ost6bli6hed v the Citg Council of 

Laredo md not by opslrtioa of 16ws The Court r6fu66s to 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 Southern 117, the Suprm6 Court of i,otisi6aa considered 6 ooatsaticol thaf 

6a a-eat building ma not suh&ot totaxatioa as a part ofreal estate 

because the ssme m6 on* portly oompleted as of January 1. The Court overrtisd the oOateatiOa 6ad St6tsd 6s fOllOn6t 

"There is no reason why the iaoonplete lnaildiag should not hav6 been assesssd 

for taxes as a part of the real estate. The admission in the plaintiff*8 pstifioathot 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 should be held valid, w6s 6a admission thrt the iaoasplete 

building ~66 proper* of some vnlu6.s 

A like aoateatioa -8 made to the Suprsme Court of Illinois laths case 

of hoplo ex x-01 YoDsnough, Ooun~ Cslleotor v. llvshfil Rield 6ad Cenpaay, 

189 N. E. 005. fn holding a Iuildiag p6rtly oomplete to be subjaot to assessment fortaxes,the oourt stated as followar 

"In Miohigatirand Wlilding Cnrp. v. Parrott, SSO Ill. 291, 199 N. E. 205, 209, 

the taxpqsr sought to evade paymsnt of taxes on a s6veatesm-stoqv building 

under coastruotioa on the ground that it was act under roof on April 1 of the 

taxpclylag year. It nas 6lleged+lmt it ma th6 pr6~iX0s Of 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 ohsage in the value v rsasm of 

the Lnprovemexrbs thereon 6ndadd to the assessment aooordinglyss 

SApprodimPtely (22,000,OOO had lmaa expsnded on appell6nt's building prior to 

Apti 1. ItnO oocupbed &'tWWl+tSO tSaPntSdthiath0 'Sasuiag SirtgdSy6. 

It o6aaot be said that oa April 1 the luildiag 1p6 of ao value or th6t it did 

not add to the mark6t value of the lends The reoord ooaoluaively show6 thaf 

the improvemeat was as8e886ble." 

It is the opinion of this Department, thsrsfcre, that land upoa whioh a 

building is 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 

ATTORNEY GEIERAL OFT EXAS 

iTiDR1vgy GENERAL OF’EXAS 

APPMVED6 OPINION UUdKITTE2, SW2 CHAIRUS By /a/ Billy Goldberg 

ASsiStmt