The Honorable Tom

Criminal District Jefferson County P. 0. BOX 2553 Hanna Attorney

---. Opinion No. H-857
Re: Constitutionality of article 7150h,V.T.C.S., Beaumont, Texas 77704 granting a tax exemption to disabled veterans.
Dear Mr. Hanna:
You have asked our opinion on the constitutionality of article 7150h,V.T.C.S., which provides a tax exemption for certain disabled veterans and for certain members of their families. Article 7150h provides inpart:

Section 1. There are exempted from all property taxes levied by the state, a county, city, town, school district, special district, or other political subdivision of the state the value of assessed property owned by a disabled veteran or by the surviving spouse or children of adeceased veteran in the amounts provided in thisAct.

. . . Sec. 3. (a)A disabled veteran whose disability is less than 10percent isnot entitled toan exemption under thisAct. (b)A disabled veteran whose disability is 10percent ormore, but notmore than 30percent, is entitled to an the first $1,500 of the assesse m - prbperty.Emphasis added).

p. 3615-

The Honorable Tom Hanna -page 2 (H-857)

Article 8, section 2(b) of the Texas Constitution authorizes an exemption for disabled veterans. Itprovides inpart: The Legislature may, by general law,

exempt property owned by a disabled veteran or by the surviving spouse and surviving minor children of adisabled veteran.
. . .A veteran who is certified as having adisability of less than 10 percent isnot entitled to an exemption. A veteran having adisability rating of not less than 10percent normore than 30 percent may be granted an exemption from taxation for $1,500. wpmd'v-- - vzued atx to

Both the Constitution and statute go on toprovide exemptions of asmuch as $3,000 forpersons having greater percentages of disability. For purposes of convenience, we will refer only to theveteran with adisability rating of not less than 10percent and notmore than 30percent.
You suggest that the statute isunconstitutional for two reasons. First, the Constitution discusses the exemption forproperty "valued at up to $1,500," while the statute provides an exemption for "the first $1,500 of the assessed value of [the]property." You assert that the Constitution must be read aspermitting an exemption only if the total value of theveteran's property is $1,500 or less. Under this interpretation, the Legislature would be powerless togrant an exemption for any veteran who owned property the total value of which was more than $1,500. Initially, we believe itappropriate tooutline the history of theprovision and some of the standards bywhich the statute must be judged. The constitutional amendment authorizing a tax exemptionwas adopted by the people inNovember 1972. The Legislature which convened twomonths after thepassage enacted implementing legislation. Acts 1973, 63rdLeg., ch. 281at 668. Although thatAct contained constitutional infirmities

p.3616. .

The Honorable Tom Hanna -page 3 (H-857) V
[seeAttorney General Opinion H-88 (1973)1, the language

wm relates to the questions raised by your inquiry is identical to that contained in the current statute andwas neither approved nor disapproved in the earlier opinion. The Supreme Court of Texas has indicated the rule to be used in interpreting portions of the Constitution which envision future implementation by the Legislature. The Court said:

It has long been thepolicy of the courts of this State to construe liberally constitutional provisions directing the action of legislatures, so as to carry out the purposes forwhich such provisions of the Constitution were adopted. Texas National Guard Armory Board v.McGraw, 126 S.W.Zd 627, 634(Tex. Sup.9r
In addition togiving a liberal construction to such constitutional provisions, the courts have indicated they will afford great deference to the contemporaneous legislative construction of the Constitution. b The Supreme Court of

Texas has indicated that:

[t]herule isgeneral and elementary that contemporaneous and practical construction of,constitutional provisions by the Legislature, in the enactment of laws, has great weight, and gives rise to a strong presumption that the construction rightly interprets themeaning of theprovisions. Walker v. Meyers, 266 S.W. 499, 501-02 (Tex.Sup.T924).

AmericaiiYKZZiit Co. v. City ofAustin, 246 S.W. 1019 (Tex.Sup& - In this case the Constitution gives the Legislature the ability to exempt property valued at up to $1,500. We believe the grant of legislative authority carries with it the authority tomake reasonable definitions necessary to implement the constitutional amendment. Ina similar case, the Legislature was given the power to exempt certain property

p.3617.

The Honorable Tom Hanna -page 4 (H-857)

used by theministry of churches. The property inquestion was used as a residence by an ordained minister who served as an administrator for a jurisdictional conference of the Methodist Church. Reversing the ruling of the lower courts, a unanimous Supreme Court said:

The general power given the Legislature to exempt any property owned by a church for exclusive use as a residence for itsministry carries theparticular and essential power of determining who, andwhat activities, shall constitute theministry of a church. McCreless v. City of SanAntonio, 454 S.W.2d 393, 395 (Tex.sup. 1970). Likewise, we believe article 8, section 2(b) of the Constitution carries with it theparticular and essential authority of the Legislature todetermine if the exemption applies (1) to all property owned by theveteran, but only if the total property has avalue of less than $1,500, (2)to any single piece of property owned by theveteran which has avalue of less than $1,500 or (3)to the first $1,500 of all property owned by the veteran. Given the strong presumption that the contemporaneous legislative construction is constitutional and given the authority afforded the Legislature by article 8, section l(b),we are of the opinion that the exemption has been validly determined toapply to the first $1,500 of the veteran's property. The second argument you present is that the statutory exemption of $1,500 of the assessed value ofproperty is invalid since the Constitution refers tovalue rather than assessed value. Here, the Constitution refers toproperty "valued at up to $1,500." In the context of advalorem taxation, the orocess bvwhich avaluation isassianed to a oiece of property is assessment. Allen v. & Independent School District, 283 S.W. 674 (Tex.Cic App. -- Texarkana 1926,no writ). The Legislative determination that the constitutionally authorized exemption extends toproperty with an assessed value of $1,500 is reasonable, andwe believe is well within the authority of the Legislature as set out in theMcCreless case.

p.3618. . . .

The Honorable Tom Hanna -page 5 (~-857)

We are strengthened inboth our conclusions by the practical effect of the restrictive interpretation you advance. If the exemption were limited toveterans who have disabilities of between 10 and 30percent and whose total property isvalued at less than $1,500, or to $3,000 in the case of themost severely disabled veterans, the constitutional provision would have almost nopractical effect. It is inconceivable that such avirtually meaningless gesture would have beenmade by the Legislature which drafted the constitutional amendment or by thepeople who adopted it. Accordingly, in light of thepower granted the Legislature tomake reasonable determinations regarding the scope of the constitutional authority and in light of the strong presumption that the Legislature's determination is constitutional, it is our opinion that article 7150h,V.T.C.S., which grants a tax exemption for certain disabled veterans and their families, isvalid.
SUMMARY Article 7150h,V.T.C.S., which grants an exemption from taxation for certain disabled veterans and their families, is constitutional. Very truly yours,

General of Texas
APPROVED:

Opinion Committee jwb

p.3619