Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE AfToRNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTlN
Honorable L. P. Beard
County Auditor
Bell oounty
Belton, Texaa
Dear Sir: Opinion PO. O-3702
Rer Situa of taxation of road bulldingaquf~ntbelong- 3.q to rerldent of Beu; county
Ye are la reaelpt OS your letter in whlah you re- quert the opinion of thir department on the faatr ret out am follawrc
“My dtentlon bsr beea aallsd to the fast that we heve a road aontraator or builder in Bell County, or rather thlr 18 hia hosts and plaa8 of resldenae, who haa not rendered hl8 road bulldlag equipment to Bell Oounty for Ad valorem tax purporer.
?Ilr aontention 18 that the equI.pment iraa or not in Bell county on the lat. 0r atwry the 1st of the year and for that reamn lr not rubjeat to being rendered for tax purposes ln Bell oounty.
%Ul ppu pleame advile me under there aonditions If this pxwpertg la aubjeet to be- lng arrerred ln Bell 3 our&y for tar purposes.”
Seotion 11 of Artiole VIII of the Conetltutlan of Texas provide8 aa follow:
mnorable L. P. Heard, p-e 2
"All property, *ether awed by paraag~ or aorporatlona ahall be aaaeaeed for taxation, and the taxes paid in the oounty rlbere altwit- sd, but the Leglalature may, by a tvo-thlrda vote, authorire the payment of taxer of aon- residents of oouatlea to be made at th4 office of the Comptroller of Pub110 haoouata. And 611 lands and other property not rendered for tPurt1w.s by the ovn4r theraof akmll b4 l anea a- ed at lta i%lr value by the proper offlaer."
Artlole 7153 or the Revised Civil Statutes pro- tides as f’ollovar
aAll property, real 8nd personal, eraopt mah as la required to be listed and ara~aeed ahall be listed and 488488ed in othervise, the oounty vhepe it la eltuated~ and all per- aanal property, aubjaat to taxation and tom- porarlly removed from the State or aounty, shall be listed and a8eaaed in tha aoaaty of the residence of the ornor thereof, or la the aounty vhere the prinalp41 ofti4e of au4h ovner la altuPtsd.*
The road bullbing egulmeent you refer to la alaaa- 4d as tPngible peraonal property.
T h e g ewral rule as to th e l ltw of taxation of the Glpra4 court tsngfblo pereunal property v48 stated of Tame in the oaae of Qreat Southern s4 Ia4uP4n44 oam- %
~~v;,City of Austin, 243 le.W.,778. The aourt raid ar
“Under the ocnmon law, 'rabllla aeauuntur p4raomm~ a vell-eatablbliahed mxlm, and personal property of every d444tiption ne taxable only at ths dmlaile of its ovaer, reg~dleaa of its a4tu4l laaatian. This la atlll the baa14 priaalple upan vhl.oh the tuta- tlon of personal property rests. . . .
I) It is true that the aatu4.l aitua of cer&&'alaaasa of vlalble arid twkble
Honorable L. P. Heard, page 3
personal property, as vell as intangible pro- perty having d.mllar charaateriatlbr, as, for example, money, Rtate and munloipal bonds, circulating bank notes, and shares of stock in private oorporatlone, may have a altua for taxation vhere they are permanently kept, aepcrrate and apart from the domiaile of the ouner. . . ."
The rule of lav applloable in Texaa.la, therefore, that tangible personal property la taxable in the oounty of the dorialle of the omer unless the property has acqalred a permanent fixed l ltua of its ovn separate an8 apart from that of the aountg of the ovwr~a domialle. %ere temporary abaenae fror the oounty of the ovner~a domlalle does not give trngible personal property a taxable altw in another oouat and remwe It from taxation in awh eountf of the ovwr a domlalle. This vaa pointed out by the Port Worth Court of Ulvll Appeals in the wee of City of Fort Worth v. Southland ffreyhound Lines, 62 8.W. 954, In that aaae the City of Fort Worth attempted to tax the motor bwaea of tbe Southland OrayYzound Llaea, Ino ., a aorporatlm vhoae ple4e of domlolle and prinolprl pl8ee of bualneaa Bexar County, Texas. The aourt held that the footi that the busses operat- ed tempomrlly through the City of Fort Worth did not render then ubjeot to ttuatlon in Tnrrant County. The fast th+t the buaaea operated temporavAly~Ln a number of oouutlea them in auab a eategory that they vere taxable only plawd in Hexar County, Texw, the aountp of the oo~poratlon~a domialle. The reason for thiu yam beoauae the busses as
tangible personal property had aoqulred no t-able altua in any other aounty.
Boxever, in a ease vbere tamgible personal property does roqilire a permanent situ8 in a aounty other than the ooltsty of the ovner*a domlalle in relation to the tax year in qwation such property la taxable ia the county vhero the sake is actually located. The Court of Cioil Appeals of Texas Ln the oaae of Clampitt v. Johnson, 42 S.Y. 866, atat- ed as follova:
"It 18 quite certain from the testimony in this oaae that appelleea moved their oattle *4 Honorable L. P. Heard, page 4
TV? Sterling county intending to pasture them there until the following spring. The drought ln Runnele county had 80 seriously affected the range as rendered it neceeeary for them to proaure a range elecwhere. The cattle were moved in November, and it is a matter of cram- mon knowledge that new grass does not spring up and grow to any considerable extant in this etate ln the months of November, December, Jpnuary, and February. Hence we aa that it is reasonably certain that appel &es’ pur- p;o; ?h~ to keep the cattle in Sterling County
x tL;x thcg plaacd them there until the following spring, and this purpose vaa oarrled out, as shown by the agreed facts; and vhlle live atouk may be in a partlaular county un- der such alrcumatan~er as vi11 not render them aubjeot to taxation In said county, as, for tietanae, while being driven through the oounty, or held there temporarily for the purpose of sale or trade, still we are aat- isfled that the aattle referred to in this ease were situated in Sterling c?ounty on the 1st say of January, 1894, within the meaning of the tas laws, and were therefore subject to taxation In said oounty.'
The test in each case vaa eat out by the &?lveaton Court of Civil Ap eala in the oaae of City of Galveston v. Haden, 214 S.W. 7 6. g The Court stated aa follower
"The law seems to be well settled In Texas ttlat tha proper place to tax peXYVJna1 property le the resideme of the ovner, pro- vided it has not aoqtired a altua for purpoaes of taxation elsewhere, in whloh inatanae It la to be taxed where situated. ConIltltution of Texas, wt. 8, I 11; R.3. arta. 7510 and 7514~ City of Austin v. Xnauranoe Co., 21X S.W. 482.
Indeed, the oaoea oLted in the foregoing Oon- cluaione so hold, partioularly the ouffey Case, with reference to such phyeloal property as is here involved, and both litigants appear to proceed upon the assumption that such is *5 Eonorable L. P. Heard, page
the rule, differing only aa to vhether thlo property van shovn to have a tltua where lo- cated. The question, then, u9on thin feature of the aase turna in thir court, on vhether or not the evidence lrufflclent to support the trial court’s fX.ndlng that the 9ro9ertg aa to vhiah any reeorery SOF taxbe war denied had in fast acquired a rltus outside of the alty of GRlveeton, vhere it8 ovnec realded.’
By way of appliaatlon of the above authorltlee to .the situation you present, the iact that the road equlplnent VW out of Bell County on the lrt day of January, ir not a fast vhbh ln ItrelP 9reventr the property froaa being tarablo in Bell County. If the road build- eqUlgment has been ltua- ted in another oounty on a permanent baela In relation to the taring year In question then the r~ae vould be taxable In the eouuty vhere actually rituated and not’in Bell County. Siovevor, i? ouch road equIpkent, a8 Ir the ordinary same, la wed and awed from one oounty to snothor to vork on partlouler jobs, aad rwh equl9ment never auqulrer OZI aotual ritur in any county other than the ovner’r domiaile, then uuder the lava of thir Nate it Is ow 09lnlon the same vould be taxable in Bell aounty .
We trust that the foregoing fully awvers your ln- W-Y.
Yours very truly Al'T~.BY OBT@i$AL of TEXAS