Case Information
*1 4% OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GRNRRAL OF TRXAR AUSTIN
maorablo Char1.y l,dchart
stat. Trsasurer
mlstlB* Tex8a
Dbar sir;
hl8,1940 yourubmlt d, the r&doc; ~tur- erte4 bt thr County Clark 8 rullBg rroa roll l Note Stb r@s be roqulrrb OB ho grantee amme a pm- bte4nrssI ruoh pm-exlstiag in- lng sroure4 by a llea on rhioh state Wote stamps were not aid *hen It raw ills4 ror feoor4, bsoaum t ti l lien was In retor of .an lnstrumentnllt~ of the Podoral dorernumnt that was oxen@ of suoh tax"i' from the paymat *2 Eonorablo
m our opinion No. O-132& it was held that en
asaumptlon and pronlso to pa7 b7 the vendee In n deed of a pro-etirtlng l&m In4rbtodaem not therotoforo stamped wuld be subject to tho oxolae stamp tax levied by Artloio 70470, Vbrnoah maotatod ClrIl Statutes, upon the theory that UQOLI the as tlon b7 the vendee in a deed o? a o- ezilstlng debt or ob lgatlon o? the mnd+n, equity Imp1 p" es ""p
a lien to sooure the ptIr?ormaBoo o? the assumption. the holding a? the oltod o~lnlon *ould 30 think
be ontlroly epplloablo to the Instant question despltm the faot that the or&&al fadebtedaor8, payment o# vhloh 18 aesuamd In the doe4 lnv&lved, vns not aubjeot, upon reoorda- tion to tbo exolno starap tar levied by Article 70470, v.A.C.S., booause the lnetrment etidonoIng suoh Indebtedness ran In iavor of M idstrumentrllty o? th,e FOderal Government vhloh enjoyed and odmltto4 Imnunlty ?rou state taxation. T&e equitable lien obl&atIon oroated by the oxeoutlon o? tbe deed in question, aontalning the express assumption oxid prom- ise to pap doe8 not run Ia istor o? this lnstruzmntallty a? the Federai Government, but rather In iarm o? the Vendor In the Instrument, ~a private IndIvIdual, sub oot in all tb 8 to the tar laws of Texas. Iionoe, the exe so tax In quos on i % aocrue6 In cotieotlon rlth the reoordlng OS the deed oon- taIn* the assumption agreement, but ltsazount 1s dotemIned and measured by the-amount o? the pro-exlatlng lndsbtedness. The ?acrt that suoh pro-exI6ting Indebtedness, or rather the instrument ovidenolng saam, was not 6ubJootto this tar, does not, ln our oplnlon, destroy the applloatlon o? Opinion No.
O-1328 to thla question.
we aooordlngly answer your question In the arrlr- UT oonrenIono~ and lnionnatlon a
matlvo and onolose for COPY Ot OUT OpinlOA BO. r to In the above -1320, ro?orrod dli?loU6SLOn.
Yours vex-y truly tWl'O~ESEY C333iUL OF TXxS APPROVEDMY 2, 1940
,
ATTORNEY GENEHAL 03 i’iX4S