OFFICE OF THE **AfToRNEY** GENERAL OF TEXAS **AUSTlN**

HonorableL. **P.** Beard CountyAuditor Bell oounty Belton, Texaa
Dear Sir: **Opinion PO.**  **O-3702 Rer**  **Situa of**  **taxation of**  **road**bulldingaquf~ntbelong3.q to l rerldent of Beu; county

Ye are la reaelpt OS your letter in whlah you requert the opinion of thir departmenton the faatr ret **out am** **follawrc**

**“My dtentlon**  **bsr beea**  aallsd **to the**  fast that we heve a road aontraatoror builder in Bell County, or rather thlr 18 hia hosts **and** plaa8 of resldenae, who haa not renderedhl8 road bulldlag equipment to Bell Oounty for Ad valorem tax purporer.
?Ilr aontention18 that the equI.pment iraa
not in Bell county on the lat. 0r atwry or the 1st of the year and for that reamn lr not rubjeat to being rendered for tax purposes ln Bell oounty.

%Ul ppu pleame advileme under there aonditionsIf this pxwpertg la aubjeet to be**lng** arrerred **ln Bell**  **3 our&y**  **for tar**  **purposes. ”** 
Seotion 11 of Artiole **VIII** of the Conetltutlanof Texas provide8aa follow:mnorable L. P. Heard, p-e 2

"All property,*ether awed by paraag~ or aorporatlona

ahall be aaaeaeed for taxation, and the taxes paid in the oounty rlberealtwitsd, but the Leglalature may, by a tvo-thlrda vote, authorire the payment of taxer of aonresidentsof oouatlea to be made at th4 office of the Comptrollerof Pub110haoouata. And 611 **lands** and other propertynot rendered for tPurt1w.s

by the ovn4r theraof akmll b4 lanea a- ed at lta i%lr value by the proper offlaer."

Artlole **7153** or the Revised Civil Statutesprotides as f’ollovar

aAll property, real 8nd personal, **eraopt mah**  as **la required**  **to be**  listed **and** ara~aeed othervise, ahall be listed and 488488ed in the oounty vhepe it la eltuated~ and all peraanal property, aubjaat to taxationand tomporarlly removed from the State or aounty, shall **be** listed and la8eaaed in tha aoaaty of the residence of the ornor thereof, or la the aounty vhere the prinalp41 ofti4e of au4h
ovner la altuPtsd.*

The road bullbing egulmeentyou refer to la alaaa4d as tPngibleperaonalproperty.

The ge wral rule as to the lltw of taxation of tsngfblopereunalproperty v48 stated % the Glpra4 court of **Tame** in the oaae of Qreat Southern s4 Ia4uP4n44 oam- ~~v;,City **of Austin,**  **243 le.W.,778.**  **The aourt**  raid **ar**

“Underthe ocnmon law, 'rablllaaeauuntur p4raomm~ vaa a vell-eatablbliahed mxlm, and personalproperty of every d444tiption ne taxable only at ths dmlaile of its ovaer, reg~dleaa of its a4tu4l laaatian. This la atlll the baa14 priaalpleupan vhl.oh the tutatlon of personal propertyrests.

. . . I) It is true that the aatu4.l aitua of cer&&'alaaasa of vlalble arid twkbleHonorable L. P. Heard, page 3

personalproperty,as vell as intangibleproperty having d.mllar charaateriatlbr, as, for example,money, Rtate and munloipalbonds, circulating

bank notes, and shares of stock in private oorporatlone, may have a altua for taxationvhere they are permanently kept, aepcrrate

and apart from the domiaile of the
ouner.

. . ."

The rule of lav applloablein Texaa.la,therefore, that tangiblepersonalproperty la taxable in the oounty of the dorialle of the omer unless the propertyhas acqalred
a permanent fixed l ltua of its ovn separatean8 apart from that of the aountg of the ovwr~a domialle. %ere temporary abaenae fror the oounty of the ovner~a domlalledoes not give trngiblepersonalproperty a taxable altw in another oouat 7 and remwe It from taxation in awh eountf of the
ovwr a domlalle. This vaa pointed out by the Port Worth Court of Ulvll Appeals in the wee of City of **Fort** Worth v. Southland ffreyhound Lines, 62 8.W. 954, In that aaae the City of Fort Worth attempted to tax the motor bwaea of tbe SouthlandOrayYzound Llaea, Ino., a aorporatlm vhoae ple4e of domlolleand prinolprlpl8ee of bualneaavaa Bexar County, Texas. The aourt held that the footi that the busses operated tempomrlly throughthe City of Fort Worth did not **render** then 

### l ubjeot to ttuatlonin Tnrrant County. The fast th+t the buaaea operated temporavAly~Ln a number of oouutlea plawd them in auab a eategory that they vere taxable only in Hexar County, Texw, the aountp of the oo~poratlon~a domialle. The reason for thiu yam beoauae the busses as tangiblepersonal property had aoqulredno t-able altua in any other aounty.

Boxever, in a ease vbere tamgiblepersonalproperty does roqilire a permanentsitu8 in a aounty other than the ooltsty

of the ovner*a domlalle in relation to the tax year in qwation such property la taxable ia the countyvhero the sake is actually located. The Court of Cioil Appeals of Texas Ln the oaae of Clampittv. Johnson, 42 S.Y. 866, atated as follova:

"It 18 quite certain from the testimony in this oaae that appelleea moved their oattleHonorableL. P. Heard, page 4

TV? Sterling county intendingto pasture them there until the following spring. The drought ln Runnele county had 80 seriouslyaffected the range as rendered it neceeeary for them to proaure a range elecwhere. The cattlewere moved in November, and it is a matter of crammon knowledge that new grass does not spring up and grow to any considerable extant in this etate ln the months of November,December, Jpnuary,and February. Hence we aa it is reasonablycertain that 9 that appel &es’ purp;o; ?h~ to keep the cattle in SterlingCounty

x tL;x thcg plaacd them there until the followingspring,and this purposevaa oarrled out, as shown by the agreed facts; and vhlle live atoukmay be in a partlaularcounty under such alrcumatan~er as vi11 not render them aubjeot to taxation In said county,as, for tietanae,while being driven through the oounty, or held there temporarilyfor the purpose of sale or trade, still we are aatisfled that the aattle referred to in this
ease were situated in Sterling c?ounty on the 1st say of January, 1894, within the meaning of the tas laws, and were therefore subject to taxation In said oounty.'

The test in each case vaa eat out by the &?lveaton Court of Civil Ap Haden, 214 S.W. 7 6.

geala in the oaae of City of Galvestonv. The Court stated aa follower

"The law seems to be well settled In Texas ttlat

tha proper place to tax peXYVJna1 property le the resideme of the ovner,provided it has not aoqtired a altua for purpoaes of taxationelsewhere, in whloh inatanae It la to be taxed where situated. ConIltltution of Texas, wt. 8, I 11; R.3. arta. 7510 and 7514~ City of Austin v. XnauranoeCo., 21X S.W. 482. Indeed, the oaoea oLted in the foregoingOoncluaione so hold, partioularlythe ouffey Case, with reference to such phyeloalproperty as is here involved,and both litigantsappear to proceed upon the assumptionthat such isEonorableL. P. Heard, page 5

the rule, differingonly aa to vhether thlo propertyvan shovn to have a tltua where located. The question, then, u9on thin feature of the aase turna in thir court, on vhether
or not the evidencevaa lrufflclent o support the trial court’s fX.ndlng that the 9ro9ertg
aa to vhiah any reeorery SOF taxbe war denied had in fast acquireda rltus outside of the alty of GRlveeton,vhere it8 ovnec realded.’

By way of appliaatlonof the above authorltleeto .thesituationyou present, the iact that the road equlplnent VW out of Bell County on the lrt day of January, ir not a fast vhbh ln ItrelP 9reventr the property froaa being tarablo in Bell County. If the road build- eqUlgmenthas been lltuated in another oounty on a permanentbaela In relation to the taringyear In question then the r~ae vould be taxable In the eouuty**vhere** actually rituatedand **not ’** **in** Bell County. Siovevor, i? ouch road equIpkent,a8 Ir the ordinary same, la **wed and**  awed from one oounty to snothor to vork on partlouler jobs, aad rwh equl9mentnever auqulrer OZI aotual ritur in any county other than the ovner’rdomiaile,then uuder the lava of thir Nate it Is ow 09lnlon the same vould be taxable in Bell aounty

.
We trust that the foregoingfully awvers your lnW-Y.

Yours very truly

Al'T~.BYOBT@i$AL

of TEXAS