Court Opinion

ID: 9769865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:05:25.324021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:08.839981
License: Public Domain

DIES, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
With respect, I dissent. In my view, the determination of taxes owed is a “contested case” within the definition of Sec. 3(2) of the Act (quoted in the majority opinion).
The Texas Administration Procedure and Texas Register Act [Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. *919Ann. art. 6252-13a (Supp. 1978)] was largely based on the Model State Administrative Procedure Act.1
The Texas Act differs from the Model Act in several important provisions. Under the Model Act a contested case means, “A proceeding, including but not restricted to rate making [price fixing], and licensing, in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing.” (Emphasis supplied) See Tex. L. Rev. article cited in footnote 1.
The Texas Act omits the phrase “required by law” before the words “to be determined.” In making this change, the Legislature’s “intent was to expand ‘contested cases’ beyond those situations in which agencies were required by statute to determine legal rights, duties, or privileges, and to include all instances in which agencies in fact determine legal right, duties, or privileges of parties even though no hearing was required by statute.” McCalla, “The Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act,” 28 Baylor L. Rev. 445, 448 (1976). See also, Tex. L. Rev. article cited, supra, at 287-288.
There is a very good reason for this legislative change, in this writer’s judgment. It will give the aggrieved taxpayer in our case the opportunity to present his position without first incurring the expense that flows inevitably from a court contest.

. Hamilton and Jewett, “The Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act: Contested Cases and Judicial Review,” 54 Tex. L. Rev. 285 (1976).