DAN MORALES

ATTORSEY CESERAL 

## QBffice

of tfie !Zlttornep &date of Qexae

October 7,1993 

## @eneral

Mr. Jack W. Garison BxecutiveDirector Texas Department of Licensing and Beg&ion P.O. Box 12157 Austin, Texas 78711
Honorable Mike Driscoll Harris County Attorney 1001Preston, Suite 634 Houston, Texas 77002 Opiion No. DM-259

Re: Whetheramemberofanappraissl review board may appear before theboardeitherinacapachyasawurtappointed receiver or a registered property tsx we without violsthtg con&t-of-intmst laws and related questions (BQ-507, JD# 18811)

Dear Mr. Garison and Mr. Driscotl: Eachofyouhas~ustodetamineametheramrmberofMappraisalmiew board or an appraisal district board may paform certain professional services. Mr.Driswll asks whether a member of an apprsissl review board may repmsem a taxpayer in connection with the valuation of a certain tract or parcel of land in the board member’ scapacity as a court-appointed receiver of the same tract or parcel of land. Mr. Garison a&s whether an appraisal review board member may pet%ormproperty tax consulting services, in the ssme or a ditferent appraisal district, without violating contlictof-interest laws. Mr. Garison also a&s whether an appraisal district board member may perfom property tax consulting servicq either in the ssme or a different appraisal district.

An appraisal review board generally consists of three members, Tax Code 4 6.41(b), who meet to exsmine and approve appraisalrecords that the chief appraiser hss submitted to the appraisal review board. Id 58 6.42(b), 41.01. Section 41.41 of the Tax Code provides a property owner with a right to protest several hinds of actions before an appraisal review board:

(1) determinstion of the appraisedvalue of the ownefs property or, in the case of land apprsised as provided by Subchapter C, D, or E, Chapter 23, determinstion of its appraised or msrhet value; (2) unequal apprsissl of the owner’ s property; (3) inclusionof the own&s property on the appraisalrecords; (4) denial to the property owner in whole or in psrt of a partial exemption;

p. 1345Mr. JackW. Gsrison - Page 2

Honorable Mike Driscoll (DM-259)

(5) determination that the owner’ s land does not qualify for appraisal as providedby SubchapterC, D, or E. Chapter 23; (6) identification of the taxing units in which the ownet’ s property is taxable in the case ofthe appraisaldistrict’ sappraisalroll; (7) determination that the property owner is the owner of property; (8) a determinauonthat a change in use of land appraisedunder SubchapterC, D, or E, Chapter 23. has ocaured, or (9) any other action of the chief appraiser, appraisal district, or appraisal review board that applies to and adversely affects the property owner. See ah id. $8 41.411, 41.42, 41.43. Following notice and a hearing, see id. $5 41.45, 41.46. 41.461, the appraisal review board must determine the protest and, if necessary, correct the appraisalrecords to conformwith its determination. See id. $41.47(b).

Mr. DriscoU asks about the propriety of an appraisal review board member mpment& a taxpayer in a capacity as the court-appointed receiver of the taxpayer% property, which lies in the appraisalreview board’ s jurisdiction. Jn his brief, Mr. DriscoU CXplGlS:
A receiver holds property for the be-n&t of the owner and the

receivds actions are generally in accordance with the best interests of the property owner. The receiver is also entitled to reasonable compensationfor his services as receiver.

. . . In the situation at hand, the memberbad been appointed receiver by thejudge of the 247th District Court of Harris County, Texas[,] in 1984. The judge of the 247th ordered that the receiver sell the property using “prudent real estate practices” and that the proceeds be distributedbetween the husbandand wife. Subsequently,the receiver was appointed to serve on the Harris CountyAppraisalBeviewBosrdin1989andagainin 1991..

. On December 9, 1992[,] the property owner notified the appraisal district that the reviewboard memberwould be handling [a] protest and withdrew his approval of the 1992 market value which had previously been settled with a district appraiser. Footnote omitted.]

p. 1346Mr. Jack W. Garison - Page 3

HonorableMike Driscoll (DM-259)

Mr. Driscd particularly asks about the applicabiity of section 6.412(a) of the Tax Code and section 36.08 of the Pensl Code. Under section 6.412(a) of the Tax Code, an individualis ineligiblefor service on an appraisalreview board if the individualis “related within the second degree by consanguinityor affhdty, as determined under Article 5996h, Revised Statutes,1 to an individual who is engaged in the business.

. of representing property owners for compensation in proceedings under this title in the appraisal district for which the appraisal review board is established.” (Footnote added.) The legislature enscted section 6.412(a) in 1989. see Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 796. 4 12. at 3595, and amended the subsection in 1991 by adding the language “as determined under Article 5996h, Revised Statutes,” see Acts 1991,72d Leg., ch. 561, Q 45, at 1988.

Former article 559611,

V.T.C.S., see slrpro note 1, which the legislature also enacted in 1991by the passage ofHouse Bill 1345, see Acts 1991,72d Leg., ch. 561, Q 1. at 1979-80-&e same bii that amended section 6.412(a) of the Tax Code-provides that relationshipsby wnsanguinity or aflinity must be determined using the civil Jaw method. See Gov’tCode 8 573.021. The GovernmentCode provides for the calculation of degree of relationshipas follows:

Sec. 573.022. (a) DE

TERMINATJON OF CONSANGUINITY. Two individualsare related to each other by wnsanguinity if: (1) one is a descendantofthe other, or (2) ifthey shsre a wmmon ancestor.

. . . Sec. 573.023. (a) COMPUTATION OF DEGREE OF CONSANGUINITY. The degree of relationship by wnsanguinity between an individual and the individual’ s descendant is determined by the number of generations that separate them. A parent and child
are related in the first degree, a grandparent and grandchild in the second degree, a great-grandparent and great-grandchild in the third degree and so on.

. . Sec. 573.024. (a) DETERMINATION OF AFFINITY. Two individualsare related to each other by affinityif: (1) theyaremsrriedtoeachother;or

‘In 1993 the .ticven@tird Legislah~t repealedV.T.C.S. Miclc S9%h. See Acts 1993, 73d l&g., ch. 268. The lnamial in thatsrlicle was oxiitied as chspter573 ofthc Gavcrnment cnde.

p. 1347Mr. Jack W. Carbon - Page 4

HonorableMike Driscoll (DM-259)

(2) the spouse of one of the individuals is related by wnsanguinity to the other individual. By definition,the determinationof degree of a relationshipby wnsanguinity or by athnity
assumes a relationshipbetween twopersons. Thus, for purposes of calculatingthe degree of a relationshipby wnsanguinity or by &My, a person may not be related to hhnselfor herself We do not believe the legislature envisioned that section 6.412(a) of the Tax Code would apply to a situation in which a member of the appraisal review board is the

“individual who is engaged in the business.

. . of representing property owners for wmpensation in proceedingsunder this title in the appraisaldistrict for whichthe appraisal review board is established. ” See also infra note 11 and accompanyingtext (describing legislative history of Tax Code section 6.035(a)). Jn our opinion, therefore, section 6.412(a) ofthe Tax Code is inapplicable to the situationbefore us here.2 Additionally, section 36.08 of the Penal Code is inapplicable. Section 36.08 prohibits gifrs to public servants in ceriain circumstances; it does not prohibit a public servsnt from receiving adequate compensationfor servicesthe individualperformed in an unofficial capacity. See Penal Code $5 36.08, 36.10(a)(l). See genera&v Attorney Generd OpinionH-551 (1975).

We believe that section 41.69 of the Tax Code governs this situation. Section 41.69 precludes a member of an appraisal review board from participating in the determinationof certain taxpayer protests:

A member of the appraisalreview board may not participate in the determinationof a taxpayer protest in whichhe is interested or in which he is related to a party by atlinity within the second degree or by wnsan8uinity withinthe third degree, as determinedunder Article 5996h, Revised Statutes.3 Footnote added.] The legislature added section 41.69 to the Tax Code in 1979. See Acts 1979,66th Leg., ch. 841, Q 1, at 2309.

To fully answer your question, we must deduce the meaning the legislature intended when it used the word “interested” in section 41.69 of the Tax Code.

2Suxion 41.69 nf the Tax CQ& pmhibils P member of an appmial review bard from psrtioipaing in the determination of a tapnyu protest

inwhich the member

pusonally is intaemd or in which the member

is mlatedwithin a prohiiited degree tc a parry h&vat to thepmtest. Seeinfio (qootiq Tax Gxk @on 41.69). Clearly, ifthe legislatun wanted

to writesection6.412(a)to applyto a situationin which the appraisal reviewboard

member was personally

im~lvcd as well as a situationin which the member

was mlatedto an individualrqescn~ proper& ownersbeforethe appraisal review bosrd,the legislatotecouldhavedone so.

p. 1348Mr. Jack W. Garison - Page 5

HonorableMike Driscoll (DM-259)

U~&or&unately,

we found no legislativehistory indicatingthe kinds of situations in which the legislatureenvisionedthat an appraisalreviewboard membermight have an interest in
a taxpayer protest. We look, therefore, to similar wnstitutionsl and statutory provisions in existence in 1979, of which we presume the legislature was aware. See Attorney General Opiion V-1215 (1951) at 2.
The majority of the provisions we exsmined,however, modify the word “interest” in such a way as to affect the interpretation of the provision. See, e.g., Tex. Con.% art. III, 5 18 (prohibiting legislator from being “interested, either directly or indirectly” in certain contracts with state), art. III, $22 (requiring legislator with “personal or private interest” in proposed legislationto disclose interest and refrain from voting on proposal); Gov’tCode 5 573.058(a) (requiring state board or commissionmember with “personal or private interest” in matter before board to disclose interest and to refrain f?om voting on matter); Local Gov’t Code 5 81.002 (requiring newly appointed wunty judge or county commissioner to at&-mthat he or she “will not be interested, directly or indirectly” in wntract with or claim against county). We found one provision, article V, section 11 of the Texas Constitution, that uses the word “interest”without any attendant modifiers, and
we believethis provision and thejudicial interpretation ofthis provision are instructive for
our purposes here.
Article V. section 11 forbids a judge from sitting in any case in which the judge “may be interestad,.

. . or when he shall have been counsel in the case,” among other things. “Interest” has been construed to refer to a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the case. See Tex. Cons&art. V, 5 11 interp. commentary; City of Oat Cltflv. Stoe, 79 S.W. 1068, 1069 (Tar. 1904) (and cases cited therein); Attorney General Opiion DM-109 (1992) at 34 (and cases cited therein). We accordingly interpret section 41.69 of the Tax Code to apply whenever a member of an appraisal review board has a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the determination of a taxpayer protest before the appraisalreview board. In our opinion, a memberof an appraisalreview board who, as a paid, court-appointed receiver, is representing a taxpayer in a protest before the appraisal review board has, as a matter of law, a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the result.4 Section 41.69 of the Tax Code accordingly precludes the membe?s participation in the appraisal reviewboard’ sdeterminationofthe protest.

p. 1349Mr. Jack W. G&on - Page 6

HonorableMike Driscoll (DM-259)

We note that chapter 171 of the Local Government Code also may apply in this situation. Chapter 171 of the Local Government Code, which regulates wnflicts of interest of local public official-$ includinga member of an appraisalreview board, requires
a local public official,prior to a vote or decision on any matter involvinga business entity
or real property in which the officialhas a substantialinterest, to disclose the nature and extent of the interest. Local Gov’tCode 5 171.004(a);see 35 D. BROOKS, COUNTY AND SPECIAL Dl8TRRX

LAW 8 18.37, at 632-33 (Texas Practice 1989). Jn certain specified circumstances,the officialalso must abstain from tbrther participation in the matter.6 Id. Chapter 171 of the Local GovernmentCode expressly preempts common-lawwntlictsfinterest rules as they apply to local public officials. Local Gov’t Code 6 171.007(a); see also Attorney General OpinionsJM-1187 (1990) at 4; JM-424 (1986) at 4.
Under chapter 171 of the Local Government Code, an official has a substantial interest in a businessentity if

(1) the person owns 10 percent or more of the voting stock or shares of the business entity or owns either 10 percent or more or SS,CMM or more of the fair market value ofthe businessentity; or (2) 5nds receivedby the person gem the businessentity exceed 10percent of the person’ s

gross incomefor the previous year. Local Goti Code 5 171.002(a); see also Anomey General Opiion JM-.I187 at 2-3. Notably, section 171.004(a) of the Local Government Code applies to any local public official who has a substantial interest in a businessentity or real property that is involved in a matter before the governmentalbody. On the other hand, section 41.69 of the Tax Code applies only to members of an appraisal review board, but it applies to a taxpayer protest in which a member has a direct personal or pecuniary interest, regardless of the quantity of the interest. Thus, if a member of an appraisalreview board is interested in a particular taxpayer protest before the board but that interest is not a “substantialinterest”

Section 171.001(l) oftbe Local Govermnem Codedetines “localpublicof&id’ as .a member
iist% ?z? bodyoranotherofliax,wbelherelected,appointed,paid,orun@d,ofany

. . exerch responsibilities beyond thosethatam advisory

in nahue.”
%ection 171.004(a)(l) quires a local publico5icial lo abstainfrom participation in a matter kforcthgovcnunentalbodyofwhich(heofficialisamemkrifthcoff~cialhasasubstantialintaatina budacssentity,and”actionmthemancrwill~aspecialeconomic~:eamthcbusinmmtitythatis distinguishble from the tied on the public.” See infro (dclining “sobstantial inter&). Similarly, section 171.004(a)(2)mquiresa local publicofficial to abstainfromparticipation in a matter

beforethe gwanwntal~ofwhichthofflcialiramcmbcriftbc~~hara~intcrcninrtal pmperly, sod ‘it is reasonably

foreseeable

thatan actionon the matter will haveP specialeconomiceffect
on lbevalueof lhe property, distinguishable

fromits e&cl on thepublic.’ Id. (same).
Failure to comply with the requirements section 171.004 articulates may am&uIe a class A mi2demeanor.

LocalGJVV

code 0 171.003.

p. 1350Mr. Jack W. Garison - Page 7

HonorableMike DriscoU W-259)

within the context of chapter 171 of the Local Government Code, section 171.004(a) authorizes the member to participate in the determination of the protest, while section 41.69 of the Tax Code prohibits the members participation. Additionally, even if the member has a substantial interest, section I71.004(c) may authorize the member to participate after disclosingthe nature and extent ofthe interest, while, & section 41.69 of the Tax Code prohibits the member’ sparticipation. To the extent of any wnflict between section 171.004(a)of the Local GovernmentCode as it appliesto a memberof an appraisalreview board and section 41.69 of the Tax Code, section 41.69 prevails because it applies specificsUy

to members of an appraisal review board. See 67 TEX. JUR 3d Stitufes 8 126. at 719-24 (explainingthat if general provision of statute irreconcilably wnflicts with special or local provision, special or local provision generally prevails); id. 8 136, at 752 (stating that if general statute and more detailed enactment conflict, latter generallyprevails).

Mr. G&son’ s questionsinvolve a registeredproperty tax wnsuhant. Article 8886, section 2(d)(7), V.T.C.S., authorizes a registered property tax wmukant to perform or supervisethe performanceof the followingservices:

(A) preparing a property tax rendition or report for another person under Chapter 22, Tax Code; (B) representing another person in a protest under Subchapter C, Chapter 41, Tax Code; (C) wnsuhing or advising another person wnwming the preparation of a property tax rendition or report under Chapter 22. Tax Code, or wncerning a matter the person may protest under SubchapterC. Chapter 41. Tax Code; (D) negotiating or entering into an agreement with an appraisal district on behalf of another person wnceming a matter that is or may be the subject of a protest under Subchapter C, Chapter 41, Tax Code; or Q acting as the designated agent of a property owner in accordance with Section 1.111,Tax Code.7 V.T.C.S. art. 8886. 0 I(a)(7) (footnote added; footnote deleted). An appraisal review board hears matters protested under subchapter C, chapter 41 of the Tax Code. See id. 5 l(a)(7)(C). Thus, a property tax wnsultsnt will have occasion to represent taxpayers before an appraisalreview board.
7Scaionl.llldthcTaxCodcauthorizerapmpcrty-tode+i~~apasonu,rctast& owner’sagent for any purposeunder title 1 of the Tax Code (chaptersl-43) in ameuion wi(h the property orproperty

ownerandprovides

the m&cd bywhich a property - mayso designate.

p. 1351Mr. Jack W. Garison - Page 8

HonorableMike Hriscoll (DM-259)

Initially,Mr. Garison asks whether a registered property tax wnsultsnt may serve as a memberof an appraisalreviewboard.* We are unaware of any statutory or wmmonlaw provisionthat prohibits a registered property tax wnsultant from serving as a member of an appraisalreviewboard. Of wurse, section 41.69 of the Tax Code limits a member’ s participationin a taxpayer protest in which the memberhas a direct personsl or pecuniary interest. In our opinion, a member of sn appraisal rev& board who performs property tax consulting servicesin a taxpayer protest that is before the appraisalreview board has,
as a matter of law, a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the outcome of the matter. Accordingly, section 41.69 of the Tax Code prohibits the member’ sparticipation in the determination of the protest.9 Neither section 41.69 nor any other law of which we are awsre limits a member of an appraisal review board from performing property tax wnsulting servicesbefore an appraisalreviewboard of snother district, however.

Mr. Garison also asks whether a registered property tax wnsuhant may serve as a member of an appraisal district board, and conversely. whether a member of an appraisal district board may perform property tax wnsulting services, in the ssme or a ditferent appraisal district, without violating wntlict-of-interest laws.rO Section 6.01(a), (b) of the Tax Code establishesin each county an appraisal district, which has the responsibility of appraisingproperty in the district for ad vulorem tax purposes of the taxing units in the appraisal district. See Tax Code 6 1.04(12) (defining “taxing unit”); see also Attorney Generd Cpiion JM-3060 (1989) at 1. A five-memberboard of directors governs each appraisal district. Tax Code 4 6.03(a); see also Attorney General Opiion JM-1060 at 1. The duties of the appraisal district board are largely administrative; for example, the appraisal district board must appoint a chief appraiser, who serves as the chief administrator of the appraisal office, Tax Code 8 6.05(c), and approve an annual budget for the appraisal district, id. 8 6.06. Members of the public may wmment on any issue

*A0wt amoider all nf Mr. Oarimn’s qwsUon9, we me a- that article8886, section 6(a), V.T.C.S.. reqdms the wmmimioner of licensing and regulationto “establishstanda& of practice, condw4 snd ethico”for registered pmpertytax con&ants. Title 16, se&on 66.20(f) of the Texas Mminidrativecode~ulatathecodeofahicstowhichcschngistrrcdpropertytax~~mmust submit. Tbecodeofcthics~contDinraoprwisionrthatapplyto~ofthcrituationraboutwhich Mr. Oarioon asks IO nor opinion, bownm, anick 8886, section 6(a). V.T.C.S., authorizes UK commissi~ to promulgate suchpmvisions. 9Forthcreasonsstated~,wcQnocw~dat&applicabilityofchapal7loftbcW Ooemmal Cnde. See swpro wtcs 5,6 mui accompanying text (discussingchapter 171 and ampring GavcrnaentCodesection 171.004(a)tithTaxCodesection41.69). l”Additionally,

Mr. G&son asks whdher the stateeIhics law, OovemmentCode chap&r 572, formerly V.T.C.S.akcle 6252~9b. Acts 1993,73d Leg., ch. 268.0 1,46, pmhiiits a member ofeilher an appraisaldiariaboardoran~praisalrcvicwboardfromprfonningpropcrtytaxwnsulting~~ia lhe sameor a di&mnt dihct, or wnvcrscly, a r@tered pmperIy tax wnsultant from servingon either board. The otstcethics law applies only to slaIeofficersand stateemployeesee Gov’tCode $572.001 (formerly V.T.C.S. art.6252~9b,8 1); it does not apply,therefore, to a member

of an appraisal

dislricl **bC4Ud0rflp@.9dlCWbOiUd.**

p. 1352Mr. Jack W. Garison - Page 9

HonorableM&e Driscoll (DM-259)

within an appraisal district board’ s jurisdiction, see id. 5 6.04(d), and may 6le complaints with the board, see id. 0 6.04(f). (g). Because a registered property tax consultant is authorized to represent a property owner for any purpose under title 1 of the Tax Code
see V.T.C.S. art. 8886, 8 I(a)(7)(E); Tax Code 5 1.11 l(a), a property tax consultant may have occasionto represent a properly owner before an appraisal district board.

We End no wngict-of-interest law that prohibits a registered property tax wnsuhant from serving as a member of an appraisal district board. Regarding the propriety of an appraisal district board member performing property tax wnsulting services either in the same or a different appraisal district, we note initiaUythat section 6.035(a) of the Tax Code parallels section 6.412(a) by making ineligiblefor service on a appraisaldistrict board an individual“relatedwithinthe second degree by wnsan8uinity or silinity, ss determined under Article 5996h, Revised Statutes, to an individual who is engaged in the business.

. of representing property owners for wmpensation in proceedings under this title in the appraisal district.” The legislature enacted section 6.035(s) by mews of the same bii that enacted section 6.412(a). See Acts 1989. 71st Leg., ch. 796, 8 4, at 3592. The legislature subsequently amended section 6.035(a) expressly to reference article 599613 V.T.C.S., by means of the same bii similarly amending section 6.412(a). See Acts 1991, 72d Leg., ch. 561, 5 43, at 1987. But see supra note 1. For the reasons discussed in connection with section 6.412(a), see stcpra notes l-2 and accompanyingtext, we believe that section 6.035(a) does not apply to a situation in which a memberof an appraisaldistrict board is “an individualwho is engaged in the business of apprsking propetty for compensationfor use in proceedings under this title or of representingproperty owners for wmpcnsation inproceedings under this title in the appraisal district.“tr

zr Hemiogs

onH.B.24.95

Before theHouse Subacun.en Ways

& Mesns, 71stLeg.(Apr. mement 0fRepmatsnve Vsligura) (rape svsilsble from Hcuss &aminee 8erviw OfIke). kIdditionoOy,

Rqmentstive Vsllgom

mawted forthembanamttlce thedrauanaam in Mentgomcry County, which evidently pmmptcd himto iatmdwe

House Bit 2495. Hewted thatth Montgomry ~Ehid~suwasnunorcdto~rrlativsinthcappraisalwwboccdimtErcaivad pmfemtM trcatmcotId. One of theboard members“ a. sqportu of IRcpnscntatin Valigura’r],* stsohsdavaygmdspprstsslbusinw. Id. RcprcscntativeVsligurafchthstwpencnccmin8before tbeapprairaldimidboardforprotcztorforvpluatioasrbouldreceive~typeofprrfaentiplmatmcnl Id. We believethatRsprescntative Valigura’ s testtmony laudsfirrtkr suppcn

tc ear wnclusion

that &on 6.035(a)

cdlhc Tsx Cede

applies cmly to sttustions

in which a relative of a board mcmk is iovolved in theappraisal

business; thelegislsturc

didnotintend

the s§ion

to spptyin a stmstion

in which theboard member him&forherself

is involved intheappraisal

business.

p. 1353Mr. Jack W. Garison - Page 10

HonorableMike Driscoll (DM-259)

We believe that chapter 171 of the Local GovernmentCode governs the situation about which Mr. Garison asks.12 Under chapter 171, a member of an appraisal district board must, prior to a vote or decision on any matter involving a business entity or real property in which the memberhss a substantialinterest, disclose the nature and extent of the interest and possibly to abstain from tinther participation in the matter. ‘3 See supra notes 5, 6 and accompanying text (discussing chapter 171 and comparing Gov’t Code # 171.004(a)with Tax Code § 41.69). However, whether, for purposes of chapter 171 of the Local Government Code, a member of an appraisal district board has a substantial interest in a business entity and therefore must comply with section 171.004(a) is a question involving the resolution of facts; such a question cannot be determined in the opinion process. Gn the other hand, we are unaware of any statute that limits a member of an appraisal district board from performingproperty tax wnsultant servicesbefore the appraisaldistrict board of another district.

SUMMARY

Pursuant to section 41.69 of the Tax Code, a member of an appraisal review board may not participate in the determination of a taxpayer protest before the appraisal review board in which the member, acting as a paid, court-appointed receiver of a tract of property in the appraisal district, represented a property owner becsuse the member has, as a matter of law, a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the outcome of the protest. Siarly, section 41.69 of the Tax Code precludes a member of an appraisal review board from participatingin the deterrninstionof a taxpayer protest if the memberperformed property tax wnsuhing services in the protest

RepmmnMvc Valigura’s bill, HouseBii 2495, was left pendingbefore the damunit& of the HouseCommiltceonWaysandMcans. Howcver,thcHouseChmitteeonWaysandMeansincorporatcd into its wmmittce substiMe for HouseBill 432 subrtantially similar languageto that House Bill 2495 propodforIhcacws&ion6.035ofUuTaxCdc. Furhnnorc,thcwmmitt~ddutepmpodtbc addition d section 6.412(a) 10 the Tax Code, rhe language of which is atbaaotially similar lo the lwgosge of section6.035(a). Rqmsatalivc Stila, lhe authorof HouseBill 432, wnsi6ered HouseBill 432tobe’anomnibusbilltbat...willdeanupthcproblanrofadministration~financingd appmiddiaricIsiathcatatc.’
12Section 41.69 ofthe Tax Code&es not applyIme beta= thatsectionappliesto the members ofanapp&salreviewbmrd,noItothcmanbcrsofanappraisaldistriaboard
Whis office has 9tated

thata member

of an appraisal

district boardis a local publicofficial for 7 of chapter171 of tie Local Government Code. See AnorneyGeneral OpinionJM-1187(1990)

p. 1354Mr. Jack W. Garison - Page 11

HonorableMike Driscoll W-259)

because the member therefore has a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the determinationof the protest.
Section 171.004(a) of the Local Government Code requires a member of an appraisal district board who has perfomxd property tsx wnsulting services in a taxpayer protest before the appraisal district board to disclose the nature and extent of the men&z’ s interest, but only ifthe memberhss a substantialinterest in a business entity or real property involved in the matter. The determinstion of whether an appraisal district board member hss such a substantial interest involves the resolution of facts; it is therefore outside the scope of the opinionprocess.

DAN MORALES Attorney General of Texss
WILL PRYOR First AssistantAttorney Genersl
MARYJCJZLJD Deputy Attorney Genersl for Lit&ion

RENEA HICKS State Solicitor
MADELEINEB. JOHNSON Chair, opinion Committee Prepared by KymberlyK. Oltrogge Assistant Attorney General

p. 1355