persons~8 oompensatedfrom funds of the companiesin liquidationdoes not negativetheir status aa state employees.Cf, Gagne v. Brush, 30 F. Supp. 714 (D.C.N. Hemp. 1940); In re Park Brewing Co,, 48 F. Supp. 750 (W.D.Mioh,,1942).In 80 fw na the State Employees RetirementAct IS concorned,tha statute does not requirethat members of the Re=lrcme2tSystem be paid out of state funds. It requiresthat the contrlbuttonby hhe State shall be chargedto the fund "sppro?riated, allocc.td, ma p2-0viaaa" to pay the 1 $ ti employee,eArticle21.28 of the Ineuwe Code makes provisionfor paper12of the compensationof tha employees ma all expensesof iiqdaats02 out of ma8 or asseta of the insurer. The State'smatch- con+zlhutionis a proper epense of liquidationand 1s payableout 0r the funaRthus allocated2nd p-0VidOd.
The holdlagof ,thlsopinion 1~ .Xir%teP to employeeswho per- form servicesfor the IlqMdator fnol;?ont to in windingup the affairs of . in s!?.pervisingtheir continuedoperation,es the case my be, 3.2oontrad.lstl~~otlon t0 em- ployeesof a oompanywho are rotnined. to o:>ntlnuet3e lmsinaasopera- tlone of the company. Personswho peti'nrfi scrv:.cmsfor the company ln carryingon the regularoperationsfor Mioh it.~~7sorganizedare not state employeea,alt,:mugh they zre ~7nderXre sup3nision 0r the liquida- tor during the time the receivernhlpcon".inuas.
The holdingthat XAe Iiquldo;torend.his sti&f C.o?WtitM3a state agenoy Is lnconaistentwith some of the statementamade in AttorneyGem- ar8a's opinionv-191 (1947). This opln!.on overrulesOpinionV-191 to the extent of such lnoonais.tency.
you hrvs etated that it 1s your belief that these employees ohouldnot be under the Texas UnemploymentCompensationAot (Art1010 522lb-1et seq., V.C.S.) and the old-age and survivorsinauranoeprovi- rlom of the Sooirl geourityAot if they we aoaeredby the Texae Bn- ployeerRetirementAot. Artiale 522Ib-17(g)(T)(0) provldeettit employ; .
Hon. C. E, Cavness,page'i5 (S-141)
mOnt shall not inolude'"'eervioepel-fOrMedin the employ of this State or any other state,or of any politicrl0ubdivisionthereof,or any lnatrumentality 0r any one or moreor the foregOingwhloh is who14 owned by this State or by one or more statesor politicalrubdivislons." The FederelUnemploymentTax Act containsa similarprovision(26 U.S. C.A. Seo. 1607(o)(7)).Llkewioe,the Sooial SeourityAot (42 U.S.O.A. Sec. 410 (a) (8)) and the Fedaral InsuranoeContributionsAot (26 U.S. C.A. Seo 1426(b)(8))exoludeserviceperformedln the employof a State rmm coverageunder th0se laws.
It shouldbe noted that the Texas EmployeesRetirementAct does not excludefrom membershippersonswho are coveredby other re- tirementsystems,exceptsystemssupportedwith state funds. SiELUl- taneouscoverageof these personsunder the RetirementAct and the Social SecurityAct would not Plolatethe RetirementAot. Any result- ing violationwould be against the Soolal Security Act for having in- cludedetate employeesin coverageunder that law.
The questionof ooverageunder the federalstatutesie a matter for federal Interpretation, and a oonsLWdctionby e state exe- outiveofficer is not bindingupon federalauthorities.We must conclude that the federaladministrative agenciesare free to place their own interpretation upon the meaning of "serviceperformedln the employof a State"as used ln the federal statutes. NationalCampaignCommittee v. Rogan, 69 F: Supp. 679, 686 (S. D. Cal. 1945).
With reapeotto the meeniq of thie provisionin the Texan UnemploymentCompensa%ionAOt, it ha61been held that unless a state unemploymentoomgensationaot dear4 differsfrom the federal law, it must be assumedthat the Legislatureintendedthat they be inter- preted rlike. Arnold collegefor Rygleneand PhysicalRaucationV. Denaher, 3.31Corm. 503, 41 Atl. 26 89 (1945). It is our oonolusion that in snaotingthe Texas UnemploymentC0mpensatlonAct the