Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1978 )


Menu:
  •                       The Attorney             General of Texas
    December      27,    1978         I---‘.’-..I..-,,. ._-. -.-. -.-_ _-__
    JOHN L. HILL
    Attorney General
    Honorable Jackie L. Vaughan
    Executive Director
    Texas Amusement Machine Commission              Re: Application of Amusement
    ‘7600 Chevy Chase Drive, Suite 402              Machine Tax in licensing require-
    Austin, Texas 78711                             ments to machines located on
    certain military installations.
    Dear Mr. Vaughan:
    You have sought an opinion on the authority of the Texas Amusement
    Machine Commission to regulate and tax the machines on the four federal
    bases over which Texas and the federal government have concurrent
    jurisdiction.  You state that the machines are either leased or owned by the
    nonappropriated   fund instrumentalities, the Army and Air Force Exchange
    Service.
    Coin-operated machines are regulated under chapter 13 of Title 122A,
    Taxation-General, V.T.C.S. Article 13.02 provides:
    (1) Every ‘owner’ . . . who owns, controls, possesses,
    exhibits, displays, or who permits to be exhibited or
    displayed in this State any ‘coin-operated machine’
    shall pay, and there is hereby levied on each ‘coin-
    operated machine’, as defined herein in Article 13.01,
    except as are exempt herein, an annual occupation tax
    of $15.00.
    (2) Provided that the first money taken from each
    coin-operated   machine each calendar year shall be
    paid to the owner to reimburse the payment of that
    year’s annual occupation tax levied above and those
    levied by any city or county. No owner shall agree or
    contract or offer to agree to contract to waive this
    reimbursement either directly or indirectly. No owner
    shall agree or contract with a bailee or lessee of a
    coin-operated   machine to compensate said bailee or
    lessee in excess of fifty percent (50%) of the gross
    receipts of such machine after the above reimburse-
    ment has been made. . . .
    P.   5142
    Honorable Jackie L. Vaughan        -    Page 2      (H-1307)
    There are provisions    for record keeping, licensing,         and registration.   Tax.-Gen.
    arts. 13.10, 13.17.
    It is the view of the Department of Justice that these federal instrumental-
    ities are constitutionally immune from state taxation and regulation.
    The United States Supreme Court has determined that a state sales tax on
    liquor bought with nonappropriated      funds by a post exchange located on a
    concurrent jurisdiction   base was unconstitutional.     U.S. v. Tax Comm’n of
    Mississippi, 
    421 U.S. 599
    (1975). On this authority it is our opinion that the
    provisions of chapter 13 are unenforceable against post exchanges which own coin-
    operated machines.     See McCulloch v. Maryland, 
    4 Wheat. 316
    (1819); Johnson v.
    Maryland, 
    254 U.S. 51-20
    ); 32 C.F.R. S 554.6 (1977).
    We turn now to the applicability of chapter 13 to persons who lease machines
    to post exchanges.      Generally, the states have authority to tax and otherwise
    regulate the conduct of contractors who do business with the federal government.
    Paul v. U.S., 
    371 U.S. 245
    (1963); Penn Dairies Inc. v. Milk Control Comm’n, 318 U.S.
    -James               v. Dravo Contracting Co.,vee                                Leslie
    Miller, Inc. v. Arkansas. 
    352 U.S. 187
    (1956). However, state law must yield to the
    extent It confl icts with’federal law. .U.S.~Const. art..6, cl. 2; Paul v. U.S., m;
    Leslie Miller, Inc. v. Arkansas, m;     32 C.F.R. S 554.6 (1977).
    Federal regulations    provide:
    Procurement.
    (b) Exchange procurement will be conducted on the basis
    of full and free competition       to the maximum extent
    practicable, and consistent with the immunity of exchanges
    from State regulations and control. Award will be made to
    that responsive and responsible contractor whose offer is
    most advantageous to the exchange, price and other factors
    considered.
    32 C.F.R. S 554.9(b) (1977). In that Texas law restricts the lessee to a maximum of
    50% of the gross receipts and designates the first $15.00 as reimbursement         it
    conflicts with section 554.9(b) and is unenforceable.      See
    -     Standard Oil Co. It.
    Johnson, 316 U.S. 481(1942).
    Attorney General Opinion H-110 (1973) in which it was said that your
    commission’s jurisdiction   is complete with respect to nonappropriated          fund
    activities on property not ceded to the United States is overruled to the extent it is
    inconsistent.
    P-   5143
    Hono