Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1978 )

The Attorney General of Texas
nil optaka
August 31, 1978 Ch0mxb Orinir
Mr. Thomas T. League Opinion No. Ii- 1235
County Auditor
Smith County Re: Whether article 7044a,
Tyler, Texas V.T.C.S., requiring the tax rate
to be set on or before July 20
applies to counties.
Dear Mr. League:
You have asked if article 7044a, V.T.C.S., applies to counties. Article
7044a provides:
Section 1. From and after January 1, 1966, all taxing
authorities which use the services of the county tax
assessoreollector, either to asses or collect taxes for
such taxing authority, shall, on or before July 20 of
each year, notify the county tax assessor-collector
whose services are to be used by the taxing authority
of the tax rate for the succeeding taxable year
adopted by the taxing authority.
Sec. 2. In the event any taxing authority using the
services of the county tax assessor-collector for either
assessing or collecting taxes of the taxing authority
fails to notify the county tax assessor*ollector of the
tax rate adopted by the taxing authority, prior to July
20, as provided in Section 1 of this Act, the tax rate
for the succeeding year shall be the tax rate for the
preceding year, rather than the tax rate adopted by
the taxing authority, and in no event shall a new tax
rate be in force and effect unless notification of such
tax rate is furnished the county tax assessor-collector
prior to July 20 of each year.
Sec. 3. In compiling the tax roll for a taxing
authority using the services of the county tax assessor-
collector, the county tax assessor-collector shall use
p. 4929
. .
Mr. Thomas T. League - Page 2 (H-12351
the rate furnished him by the taxing authority prior to July
28 of each year, or, in the event the county tax assessor-
collector has not been furnished a new tax rate, the county
tax assessor-collector shall use the tax rate adopted for the
preceding taxable year by the taxing authority.
Shortly after the statute was enacted in 1965, Attorney General Opinion C-
647 (1966) indicated that the provisions of the statute are applicable to counties.
The opinion reasoned that the statute is applicable to “all taxing authorities which
use the services of the county tax assessor-collector, either to assess or collect
taxes for such taxing authority” and that since the county is a taxing authority
which uses the services of the county tax assessorl?ollector, the county is required
to meet the deadline established in the statute. See also Attorney General
Opinions H-849 (1976); C-753 (1966); C-701 (19661.
It is our view that Attorney General Opinion C-647 was not correctly decided.
That opinion failed to consider the effect of other statutes relating to the time the
county commissioners court establishes the tax rate. The most relevant statute is
article 689a-11, V.T.C.S., which provides in part:
The Commissioners’ Court in each county shall each year
provide for public hearing on the county budget - which
hearing shall take place on some date to be named by the
Commissioners’ Court subsequent to August 15 and prior to
.the levy of taxes by said Commissioners’ Court. . . . When
the budget has been finally approved by the Commissioners’
Court, the budget, as approved by the court shall be filed
with the clerk of the county court and taxes levied only in
accordance therewith. . . .
The phrase “levy of taxes” and variations thereof can have many different
meanings, see Amaimo v. Carter, 212 S.W.2d 950 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1948,
writ ref’d n.r.e>; however, in this context, we believe it refers to the establishment
of the tax rate. Article 689a-11 clearly contemplates that taxes will be levied only
in accordance with the approved budget. We believe this expresses the intention of
the legislature that the tax rate should not be established until the county has
considered and adopted the budget. -*. See Victor v. State 158 S.W.2d 760 (Tex.
19421 and Cranfill Bros. Oil Co. v. State, 54 S.W.2d 813 Tex. CIV. App. - El Paso
1932, writ ref’d) which held that an order which does nothing more than to establish
.the tax rate is a tax levy.
Statutes which relate to the same subject matter are to be read and
construed together, and any conflict between their provisions will be harmonized if
possible. Standard v. Sadler, 383 S.W.2d. 391 (Tex. 19641; State v. Standard Oil Co.,
107 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. 1937); International Service Insurance Co. v. Jackson, 335
P. 4930
Mr. Thomas T. League - Page 3 (H-1235)
S.W.2d 420 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1960, writ ref’d n.r.e.). A construction which
concludes that a statute has impliedly repealed another is to be avoided if at all
possible. Lasater v. Looez. 217 S.W. 373 (Tex. 1919); Cole v. State, 170 S.W. 1036
(Tex. 1914)*x te v. Jackson, 370 S.W.2d 797 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston 1963) aff’d
376 S.W.Zd 341(Tex. 1964). this case. we believe the armrooriate construction of
article 7044a is that it was intended to’apply to the various taxing authorities other
than the county which utilizes the services of the county tax assessor and that no
implied repeal of article 689a-ll was intended. See, e.g., V.T.C.S. 1042b, article
2351a-6; Education Code SS 23.94, 130.121; Water Code SS 51.595, 56.073.
Accordingly, it is our opinion that the deadline for setting the tax rate established
by article 7044a does not apply to counties. Attorney General Opinion C-647 is
overruled.
SUMMARY
A county is not required to set its tax rate on or before July
20.
Attorney General of Texas
APPROVED:
&f&g//&${
C. ROBERT HEATH. Chairman
Opinion Committee
1sn
P. 4931