the nature of an occupationtax. Gerard VS. Smith (T.C.A.1932) 52 S.W. (2nd) 347; Hurt vs. Cooper (Sup. Ct. 1937) 110 S.W. (2nd) 696. -.-. .
Hon. Gee. H. Shepperd,page 3 (o-801)
We call your attentionto Section14 whioh provides:or the payment of both an exmninationand a lieensefee by applicantsfor an operator'slicenseor certificate. Section17 providesthat an appli- cationfor a certificateto oonduota beau* parlor shall be aocompan- iad with a $10.00payment. This paymentis not desigated by the stat- ute as an inspectionfee or examinationfee, and we thing It was the intentionof the Legislaixrethat the $10.00paymentrequiredshouldbe for the certificateor licenseissued. Since the paymentIs for the certificate, until the certifioateis granted, no considerationhas been receivedtherefor,and the state would not be entitledto retainthe money upon rejectionof the application.
The same consideration6apply to the annualpaymentswhich In various sectionsof the act are oplled "renewalfees,! "annuallioenae fees" and 6annualregIstration fees*" _
You are, therefore,advisedthat you are authoricedto Issue mar-rants on the suspensefund for refundof eaoh of the Items listed In tha claim suhaitted.
Yours verytruly
4TTOREEYGHiEEALOF THEAS
ey /s/ ceai1 C. Cawma&
Cecil C.'C66siiaek AESiShDt
APPmr AFPRCVED /s/ @mild C. Mann OpinionCo666Ittee ATTORUEYGEliEULOF TEXAS W-R- E'~~K Chairman