. . . 

E YTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

FVIIiL WXEASON 

AlTORNRY ORNERAL June 27, 1960 

Mr. Ramle H. Griffin 

Criminal District Attorney 

Beaumont, Texas 

Opinion No. WW-866 

Re: Payment of auditing or 

accounting fees under a 

Dear Mr. Griffin: tax remission act. 

You have requested an opinion from this Department 

on the following question: 

“May the corpus of the fund set up 

under Acts 1929, blat Legislature, page 

656, chapter 292, as amended by Acts 1941, 

47th Legislature, page 1308, chapter 584 

and Acts 1945, 49th Legislature, page 615, 

chapter 353 for the benefit of the City of 

Port Arthur be reached to pay expenses of 

an audit required to be made annually by 

said Act and for which no funds have been 

allocated?' 

Section 1 of the above mentioned Act, (which is 

codified in the historical note found under Article 

6830, Vernon's Civil Statutes) provides in part: 

"Commencing with the fiscal year beginning September 1, 1929, and ending August 31, 

1961, there be and hereby are donated and 

granted by the State of Texas to the City of 

Port Arthur, Texas, situated In Jefferson 

County, Texas, eight-ninths (8/g) of the net 

amounts of the state ad valorem taxes collected on all property, both real and personal, 

in Commissioner's Precinct No. 2 of Jefferson 

County, Texas, as it existed on January 1, 1945, 

which shall be ascertained and apportioned as 

now provided by law; . . .' 

Section 2 provides that the Collector of Taxes of 

the County shall make a monthly report to the Comptroller 
. 

Mr. Ramle H. Griffin, page 2 (WW-866) 

showing each and every item of State ad valorem taxes 

collected by him upon the property in Precinct No. 2. 

He shall present such report together with the tax reccl t stubs to the County Clerk, who shall within ten 

(lo! d a y 8 compare the report with the stubs, and If 

the same agrees as regards names, dates and accounts, 

the Clerk shall certify to Its correctness for which g 

shall be paid by the Commissioners Court, Twenty-five 

7256) cents for each certificate and Twenty-five (25$) 

cents for each two hundred (200) taxpayers named In said 

report. 

Section 4 provides in part: 

"The municipal authorities of the City 

of Port Arthur, Texas, shall, on the 1st day 

of January of each year, cause to be made an 

itemized statement, under oath and in tripllcate, showing the amount of money received by 

the City of Port Arthur, Texas, under this Act, 

and how, to whom, and for what purpose the 

same has been expended. One copy of such statement after having been audited shall be forwarded to and filed by the County Clerk of Jefferson 

County, Texas, as hereinafter provided, and the 

other to the Comptroller of Public Accounts. 

The said statement shall be sworn to by the 

treasurer of said City, and the correctness thereof shall be certified by an auditor appointed 

by the Commissioners Court of Jefferson County, 

Texas, who shall, while auditing said statement, 

have before him all vouchers uoon which expenditures have been made from said fund. . 1 .'I 

(Emphasis added). 

Section 5 provides in part: 

"The moneys herein and hereby granted 

donated to the City of Port Arthur, Texas, _ - _. _ ^ _ ^ . 

and 

are 

aeclarea to be trust funas sor tne purpose 

of aiding said City in paying the Interest upon 

and principal of and providing a sinking fund 

for an issue or Issues of bonds heretofore or 

hereafter issued, the proceeds of which bonds 

have been or are to be used exclusively In constructing and maintaining seawalls, breakwaters, 
. - 

Mr. Ramie H. Griffin, page 3 (WW-866) 

shore protections and primary drainage 

systems in order that said'city be protected from calamitous overflows and storm waters; 

. . . The use and diversion of such moneys 

for any other-purpose whatsoever is hereby 

prohibited; . . .I' (Emphasis added). 

The Legislature declared that the moneys donated 

by this Tax Remittance Act shall be a trust to be used 

for a threefold purpose only; i.e., to provide a sinking fund for, pay Interest tipon and the principal of 

certain bonds Issued or to be issued. It expressly 

states that the use of such moneys or corpus for ane 

other purpose whatsoever Is prohibited. The payment 

from these funds for the expense of an audit could 

certainly not be classified under one of the above 

named categories. Therefore , your question is answered in the negative. 

The State, while donating these funds to the City 

of Port Arthur, provides various "check-points" to 

ascertain whether or not the trust is being properly 

administered. It is the duty of certain county officials to see that this "checking" Is accomplished. 

Section 4 of the above Act requires the Commissioners 

Court to appoint an auditor to audit an annual statement made by the municipal authorities of the City. 

The Act is silent as to just who should bear the expense of the audit, thus your opinion request. Section 

2, however, expressly states that the Commissioners 

Court shall pay the County Clerk for checking monthly 

reports made by the Collector of Taxes in regard to 

this fund. 

In view of this and the fact that it is the delegated duty of the Commissioners Court to appoint or 

employ the auditor, we are of the opinion it was the 

intent of the Legislature that the expense of such an 

audit should be paid by the Commissioners Court of 

Jefferson County. 

SUMMARY 

The corpus of the fund set up under Acts 

1929, 41st Leg., p. 656, ch. 292, as 
- . 

Mr. Ramie Griffin, page 4 (WW-866) 

amended by Acts 1941, 47th Leg., p. 1308, 

ch. 584 and Acts 1945, 49th Leg., p. 615, 

ch. 353 for the benefit of the City of 

Port Arthur may not be used to pay the 

expense of an annual audit required by said 

Act. It Is an expense that should be paid 

by the Commissioners Court of Jefferson 

County. 

Very truly yours, 

JMF:hb 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

J. C. Davis, Chairman 

Byron Fullerton 

Charles D. Cabaniss 

C. Dean Davis 

Robert A. Rowland 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

James M. Farrls 

Assistant Attorney General 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY Leonard Passmore