Case Information
*1 tiorable Aw3rsw J:Hiokey
County Auditor
Viotoria county
Viotoria, T-6
Dear Sir: OpiaLoa x0.0-1709
Ret A66666iIIg for taxes buildings partly oompleted on J6!ms.ry first.
We are in fsmipt of your letter of Novsmb6r 16, 1939 in fiioh you requ~st.6n opinion of tkd.6 Dspar~~t asto.whefher or not bulldings partly oompi6tsd on the first day of Jsanaary 6hould beassessed for tax66 ~ovuring the apart of the Wilding that was oompleted*
Arti 7146 of the Reolssd Civil Statutes povid66 as follows: "All property, real, ~@6rsonal or II&~&, l xeopL suoh as my bs hsreiaafter 6xpmssly axmnpted, Is subjbot to bxation, and the 66616 shall be readarc sd 6ad list6d as herein presorlbed.6
Article 7146 of tImRevIsed Civil Statutes provides as follows, "Real property for the .purposs of tsxatiom shall be ooastrued~to inolude tht 16ad itself, wbtbr laid out in town lots or otherrim, and all lmild~s, &m1otur66 6x63. improvan~,or other fixbar of diatsoever kiadtherao!~,ud rll th6 rights 6nd privilsges ‘belonging or in a?@60 app6rbaiaiag themto. and all mines, minerals, quarries and fossils in aad under t&s sm~e.~
It is to 'be noted thatArtiol6 7146, supra, does not limit the defiai- tion of real property to iaolude only lands and buildings, I& also iaolndse stxuotures and 3mprov6m61ts or ofhsr fixtums of whatsom?r kind. There oaa be no doubt Iart, that 'this legislative definition of real props* is saffioi- ently broad to oomr asd inolude ths value of an improvmeat on land, which improvaneat is a partly oompletsd building.
We are unable to find q ease in Texas which direoly deoides this point. %wmr, the following quotation from the oa66 of Valdea V. City of Laredo, 29 S.W. (2d) 802, is ixterestlng:
"Appellant mats his OPSO primarily upon the contention that the building nas not in a oompletbd state on.January 1, 1917, 6nd that, under a custom of the city, inocmpleted improvmmts rem not taxable; that, umder suoh ou8- tan, the oity mu6 obligated to refund said taxes upon appellmt's petition
Hon.AndrsnJ~ Hiskey,Pags 2 (O-1709)
to the counoil. It is notnesessary +%I determine if the oily would or oould be bound to raaittaxes by mason of sny oustms established by .the oily 00u11- oil, for there is no uvideaoe in this oase of the exkteaoe of such oustom.s
Hbil6 ths SUE Aatoaio Court of Civil AppeUs la this ease doe6 not di- rE&~ p666 upon our poiat here, the Court's lpngruge iadiates th6t h6dths building keen partly oompleted as of Jsnuuy 1, if it nrs to bs tax exaqvt, it oould oaly be 60 by reason of a oustom Ost6bli6hed v the Citg Council of Laredo md not by opslrtioa of 16ws The Court r6fu66s to pm6 oa the validi- ty ofths adoption of su6h a oustom.
Ia as 0666 of E6to Real Estate Corporation v. Lmisi6.aa Tax Cos~~iasioa, 129 Southern 117, the Suprm6 Court of i,otisi6aa considered 6 ooatsaticol thaf 6a a-eat building ma not suh&ot totaxatioa as a part ofreal estate because the ssme m6 on* portly oompleted as of January 1. The Court over- rtisd the oOateatiOa 6ad St6tsd 6s fOllOn6t
"There is no reason why the iaoonplete lnaildiag should not hav6 been assesssd for taxes as a part of the real estate. The admission in the plaintiff*8 ps- tifioathot the Iuildiag ~6 one-fourth oompleted 6ad would be worth $90,000 whsa completed, with the altera6tive dmend for a reduotioa of the assessmeat to #13,500, if it should be held valid, w6s 6a admission thrt the iaoasplete building ~66 proper* of some vnlu6.s
A like aoateatioa -8 made to the Suprsme Court of Illinois laths case of hoplo ex x-01 YoDsnough, Ooun~ Cslleotor v. llvshfil Rield 6ad Cenpaay, 189 N. E. 005. fn holding a Iuildiag p6rtly oomplete to be subjaot to assess- ment fortaxes,the oourt stated as followar
"In Miohigatirand Wlilding Cnrp. v. Parrott, SSO Ill. 291, 199 N. E. 205, 209, the taxpqsr sought to evade paymsnt of taxes on a s6veatesm-stoqv building under coastruotioa on the ground that it was act under roof on April 1 of the taxpclylag year. It nas 6lleged+lmt it ma th6 pr6~iX0s Of the board ofasssss- or6 to omit such tisompl6ted btildiagi fras tisessmxit. M held that 'during the ys6r %&mea April 1, 1929, impmvansata wer6 plaoed CQ app6116at1s prop erty, and it therefore in 1929 beo6sm the duty of the bmrd of 66sessors to determine the faaomt, in its opinion, of sny ohsage in the value v rsasm of the Lnprovemexrbs thereon 6ndadd to the assessment aooordinglyss SApprodimPtely (22,000,OOO had lmaa expsnded on appell6nt's building prior to Apti 1. ItnO oocupbed &'tWWl+tSO tSaPntSdthiath0 'Sasuiag SirtgdSy6. It o6aaot be said that oa April 1 the luildiag 1p6 of ao value or th6t it did not add to the mark6t value of the lends The reoord ooaoluaively show6 thaf the improvemeat was as8e886ble."
It is the opinion of this Department, thsrsfcre, that land upoa whioh a building is partly ocsspleted oaths first day of Januasy is subject to be asses- sed for taxes at a valuation which iaaludes the partially oomplated StIUOtUmo TollI= W~t??Uly EGcRBcegw APPFWED DEC. 9, 1939 ATTORNEY GEIERAL OFT EXAS
/s/Gerald C. ]lana iTiDR1vgy GENERAL OF’EXAS By /a/ Billy Goldberg
APPMVED6 OPINION UUdKITTE2, SW2 CHAIRUS
ASsiStmt