Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1943 )

1
, OFFIZZ OF THE ATTORNEY GENEeAL 03 TECXAS
AUSTlN
T:i-?C such loan brokers . . . shell,
before begincinc bw:neaa in this State, exaoute and
aerivr a good and euffioieut bond in 32~ Sma of One
Thousand 3~llars to suoh County Judge in the County in
riL1ct.i said loan broker ia located and.dcins bwlness,
. . .
.. 62
.
Hon. c. 8. CcLwl899, par;4 e
-330t10n 5. . . , that eeah and every loan broker
ahaX 4ecp a wall bauad book In which he shsll register
all-of !113 transeotioo~ with other peracoa as saoh loan
broker at the tia:ethe s&lie oecw, ~Aic% st:all ke at all
tir;ea kc3J.Copec ,for inspection, cad such broker &all
give to t;iz 50rr'Gviex, or to all pcr3oris doln~: hwinees
with such broker, a tioket aho#ing a true and correct
atatemmt , . .
*Seotlon 8. . . .I (mphaais ours)
Sectiac 14 of hrtiale 7047, above mmtLored,
mid.0 that all loan brokers shall pay an annual tax oi
.130.
!? for saab plaae of business.
From an ln3paatioo ot :Wtfolo 7047, Subdivision 14,
above uentioasd, it is obvious t&at the tax liability iarpostd
by said statutd attaehea only by reason of a pardon, firm or
oorporation'a having engaged in the business of a *loaa broker";
the tax liability does not attaah by reason of the doiz~g of
acy act, bsfcre engtgfng In said said business.
The -pasting of the bond* mquirnd by the above
mntioned frtiolt? 6166a, is aa aat gsesoribdd by law to bs~
done b,y t‘ne person, firle or aorporation ,in qzmiltion bafora
the taxabls ooou~ation (the business of.a loan broke-
engaged in.
Ths very. teps of Artiole 6163a provide, as before
amtionsd, *That such loan brokers . . . S!lall, b8fOr4 b4ghlCkQ3
business 21. CM.3 .Sts.te, exeoute and deliver a 30~ suffioieat
boa3 . . .= (mphasis ours)
"I-Q~c?,?~%
%Ic?A *kt -p&~L~~~*ti =",B %mls%-i-w&L~dJ w
-~xticlt~ 6165a eowtitoted evidence su+Yicieat 'SO reuder the
one post&g -&a bond ~subjsct to the talt liability tiposed by
Jubdivlaion 14 of Jztiale 7047, would be terntamount to holding
that the pcstin~ of stash bond areated s prasum$iou thai; the
preen, firm or corpcration posting the bosd had eosa@d in
the taxable omu:aCiclt.
'78 cannot so hole as a matter of law.
63
. . .,
Eon. C.H. Carness, page S
There ia no aonstltutional provi3lon, no atstu-
tory twacmnent , and no general maxLrriof Texas Jurisprudenoe
whl.ch niakea the pssttng of ths bond In question,, a preswrp-
tion of law, or prim raoie evidenae, that ths one postfng
the bond thereafter sngsged in the taxable ocau:etion of a
'loan broker.
A preel;aptloa of la* ash oaly arise whtm tho lar
petemptorily requires sn inferenae or posstion to be estab-
lished -jvhanever faota apgear~ whioh the law aasmes ES the
basis of suab an infarsnae. (Sea Mftahsll T. --ltanton, 139
s. w. 1033)
From t5s foregoing stated prinoipla~s of law
it 13 therefore obvious that iram the fsat that a person,
A.ra or c@rporaSioa ha3 wetad then bond* refsrrad to lo
eald Artiole BlbSa, there oan miss no ?raeacnption of law
that the tat liability oreated by Subdtviaion 14, of Article
7047 has been ixourred by the one Wpostiag’ the bond.*
L!oreover , It has bsoo held by the sp:e::at.s
oourts 31 Texas that a resort to a presumption In order tom 5
establish a &VW faot is not psraltted where direct proof’
of the f4ef &a question ati be obtained. (See Skor Y. COffia,
137 s. w. 4501 writ or error rcfw3ed)
We apprehend that on the, gosstioa of whather or
not a given w.r302, firm .oq:aarporat*on- has eRga& in t>s
busines3 of a loan broker, may ra+dily be .resolvedby diraat
evidsnae. Seatioa 5 of Artiale 6165a in part providaa 823
follows :
*. . . t&at caoh and every loan broker &all keep
a Gffall bound book in wNeh be shall regiatar all of his
traasaatlonz, tith other persons aa such loan broker iit
tb.e time the 3a3e ooa.ur, whloh shall bs at al.1 .t&o8
kept open for inJpuation, and auoh broker shall give
to the borrowaf, or to all persons doinq ‘lusfm~s ‘Rit~h
such brokar, a ticket sbo-wine a true ahd ttorreot. state-
mnt of t:m amount of cash reosived by suoh borrower or
person to suoh broker giving aorrect ?ates of eaoh ad
every payment or areaIt thereon, and raid tickets &all
0orroeponS. corygctly wit?> all of ti-,e entries on said
register. . . .”
By face of legal prholplas, there dssa exist
a presimption that the foregoing raentloned provision of
;;eotiti@ 5 of Article 6165a has been ooeplied with by all
those eng.agad in the oooupation of a lam broker. 4Tbere
is a prasuaptio~a that all sea obey the 1~s.~ (Sea m%iitb v.
Lancaster, 248 3. 3, 474) And, subjeot to beinq orercone
by etidsnae to the oontrarf, It ir always prsswed~ that the
law has botu oonplisd with, and that all bnsiae3s la oarried
on in a lawful manner. (Kent v. National S’uppZ~ Cozqmop,
58 3. 7. (2d) 611; Pfaot. Xational ;jpBk v. ‘ilrst Stats Zank,
291 3. if. 206t ihl*irS V'i Xr;4lill, 119 2. k. 31-5)
You are tharsfcre advised thsb it .ls OCF oplnian
tbxst tbe postinlilgi of a bond *under .irtiola 616% oi 7. 3. C. 2.
oi’ l’kxes by a praon, fir% or corporation does not oonatituta
erideaoe saffioient to render suoh gsrson, firm or aorpration
I sub jaot to a tax liability under Astiole 7041, .3ubd4vfsion 14 .
1 ot aaid Statate.
i
if ,thit tar liability of a loan braker arises trofi> the
oan3uot by any person, firn or oorporation of the boaine.3s of .a
loa?! tm0ka.r, tha faots estab1iobi.a~ suoh tax liability .nlu~L;be
aaccrt%ined fr2rm evidenca ar,d not ?-rota any pcmxaption arising
fron stie posting of the bon d referred to in said ~?Arttiole 616%.
i
very truly yoEIPs