Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
‘Fhaque 1 out or 8 mn- ot~otlbm OS t * At368 1931. iv0 rsat:sit ti .' 6 *2 ggmrable W. N0rr1st?n, Page 2
“(2) B ares dollnquent ;Iltate, Count , Who01 Distriot aztd Road Distrlot taxes fru# 192 B to 1940, a.nuluslYs. No sulit has bean filed. B tendsrs to the ' Tax Oolleotor all taxes sxospt thorns which he alati are barrad by the statute of liaftations aontrlnod in tha above Artials,
"Qusstionr Would the‘~?u Oollootor bs proteotsd fron liability en MS bond If hs aaospted the taxes as so tendsrsa?
In Our Opinion fo. O-1262 this department has hold that all taxes appearing upon ths gsneral tax rolls egalast any sep- amtoly sss~smsd traot or:traats of land, must, under ths statutes, and d6clslons adverted to therein, bs pal6 at the mama re@,atlons tima, in tha sntlr0Iiy and not par%iallT, l xaept *s otherwlso pro- tided by statute in ths ease of oertrin sahool distriat twces (Artlole 7336e, Vernon*8 Taxaa bl*ll .8tatutas). Although thb faa- tlm1 sltuatloa before us in ths vrlting of tha opinion mr0m0.d to appears to smbreoe ourrent tax*8 rather than delinquent taxes, ths prbolplos and ruthoritles upon vhloh aId opinion 1s groundad, vould~likewlss obtain In ths Instant ease vhers dslln&nt taxos are involved. We enclose a copy of this oplulon for Tour oonsid- l nbl0n.
It lr aooo~ly our oonoluslon that sssessor-aollmotor taxes for lIllam Cm&y vcmld not be authorlsed collsst and rewlvo any part&al payment of the delinquent state, oountj, school dirtrlat road distriot taxes involved hem+, unless reqwlzed to ds so w tha maMatow krms of soms applluablo statute or ths Nrmrl JwQgmant of a aourt of aerspetent jurisdlotlon. In passing, howover,~let it be said thrt this aoncolusion should not be owftasod vlth the ~~~0tdti0nea rulo~or law that taxes, ourrent or dolfaquont, my ba .pald upon any em separately oss~ssed traot or pave1 OS l.aM vithout payment of' taxes assmised against other twcrts par- 601s of realty ovnad by the taxpayer. This rulr Is annouuoed w atr supreme court ln ths aase or Rluhay, et al vs. xoor, 249 a. v. 172, and fully reaognlsod In suoeosslre opinions of this depart- wait, lmludlng our Opinions Ilos. 0.1262 O-928. It does appear frc~ tha trots statsd by jou whether ons or more trrots or pareels of land ara Involved, OF, if more than one traot of lupd, vhether suuh treets are separately assessed so as to fall within th6 above mile. We nurs1.y hold that, subject to s&d rule, the
aonorable Y. Norrison, Psge 3
& ass.ssor-ooll.otor of hour oouatr m8y not lsw?ull~, absent s0ae o*%ling et&at* or j*ent, 8ooept 8nd noelre less than the totel smount of ourreat 01 delluqueat taxes oharged ogslnst u&y one srplrmtoly ~ssessod tract of ha, or, If more than one traot of iad, 8gqlnst such traats as are rendwed 888b8886 In 80iid0.
!lWe questlou remins if the following provision of Artl- ale 7298, Veraonts Texas Civil Hatutes, eonrtltutes, umler the spInion referred to and the oondltlons of the assessor-oollaotor's o??lolal bond, an oxoqdlon, w lav, t8 that o?flolal's ostablish- d duty of oollaotlng aud ame tlng nothlng less than the entire of taxes, uurrentorde f lnqueat,due mdovlngunder woae a8eullt *rsssNalt. We quote from sald statute:
"That no delinquent taxpayer shall ham the right pleaa in any Court or in sny msnuer rely upon any Stat&e of Llmltatlon by vay of defense .~@.nst the gmyrmat of tax08 due f+roln him her to the State, Or sny oouuty, oitr, town, ~avigatlon Dlstrlot, Dminrge Dietriot, Road Dlstrlat, Leree Dirtriot, R~olam.stlon Dlstrlot, Xrrlgatlon DlstrLot, Improvaseat Distrlot, @ho01 Dlstrlat end all other Dlstrlots~ r0vtded, that no suit shall bs broqht for the eol eotlon of delinquent taxes a Sahool P
Dirtriot or Road District unless Lnstituted althln ten yecrrs fraa the time the same shsll beoom della- quent."
We think the proviso of the above-quoted statute is, striotljr properly 003i8tm,a, a limitation statute, and the ml.8 and doolsione governitrg and applloable to general statutes of liaitotion vmld apply hwe. Ruder suoh, It must be said that these dallnquent s&o01 luu~ro8d di8trI0t taxes are not mtt46, nleased or discharged w the statute cited and quoted above tit ssm only goes to the ramody and fumlshes the taxp8yer a defense to a~ action bron&t the li.mlktlon period. for such taxes after ti sohool and read distriot taxes in the instant case are still due ma owing to the mrpsotlre involved, do- tulag atlthorities *pit+ the assertion of the t8xpajer that he will invoke th8 appll- *able stat&e of limitation as to a portlti of them. It is 0nly U&s remedy for their oollectlon uhiah may be ~ffeoted by this llrltatlon statute. IiLmltatlon is a defense vhloh must be speolal- 19 urged, Is personal to the debtor, tmd may be waived by hfpr.
gommble W. Jlorrlsgn, ~40 4
p@ $eus &mlsprudsnoe, 245, It is our e@nlon that it is fop +e tax assa~sor-oolleotor 0s ONWOR county but for the Omtq to detenlm the applloablllt~ o? this partinsnt statuts to th8 f8OtS bSfOP6 US. until the time th8t the i88ta~8 0s ltoltstlon olrs proper4 urgqd adjudged by ths oourt the tax- ppr ssy vrlve this aefume. In 'ths intorim, the80 s&ool and ~BOM¶ dlstrlob taxes l rs still dUS,8ad owing and tlu 888S880r- sellmotor Of t8xe8 is raqulrsd, under the ruling m~tlonea above, $s urns rorg avallabls moans to oolleot suoh tams.
We aooordlngly answer both of your qusstlons in ths ~gdaw3.
YOum vary wul~ ATTO- - OP mx# w
Assistsnt