Texas Attorney General Opinion: WW-584 Page: 4 of 12
12 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Honorable Truett Latimer, page 4 (WW-58t)
collected for the general use of the State and does not
come into the State Treasury. It comes within the custody
of a State officer to be expended for the primary benefit
of a certain class. In these respects the "assessments"
provided for in House Bill 174 are like the "contributions"
held to be a tax in the Friedman case, supra.
The question of whether a particular charge or
burden hs a tax depends on its real nature, and if in its na-
tureit is a tax, it makes no difference that it be other-
wise labeled in the statute imposing such burden. County
of Harris v. Shepperd, 156 Tex. 18, 291 S.W.2d 721 (1956);
84 C.J.S. 34, Taxation, sec. 1.
In Texas Jurisprudence a tax is described in the
following terms:
"Broadly speaking, 'tax' embraces every
levy made by the government (or any subdi-
vision thereof) for public uses. But in a nar-
rower sense, the term connotes a charge
imposed in aid of revenue, . . ." 40 Tex.Jur.
11, Taxation, Sec. 2.
That the exaction of money authorized by House
Bill 174 from producers of peanuts is a levy made by the
government for what are ostensibly public uses is self-
evident. The exaction is plainly a charge imposed in aid
of revenue, as is seen from the case of H. Rouw Co. v.
Texas Citrus Commission, 151 Tex. 182, 247 .SW.2 231
7952), which is hereinafter considered in detail.
If the revenue derived from the charge is not
for a public or governmental purpose then the Legislature
has no authority to authorize the levy, the bill thereby
becoming unconstitutional on that ground alone. Fourteenth
Amendment, U.S. Const.; Tex. Const. Art. VIII, Sec. 3.
For present purposes only we assume that the exaction is
for a "public purpose" within the meaning of the foregoing
constitutional provisions.
Under the instant bill producers of peanuts sup-
posedly benefit from the money deducted from the sale of
their crop, but the public in general is also benefited and,
hence the benefits are merged. Any payment exacted at the
instance of the State as a contribution toward maintaining
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: WW-584, text, April 2, 1959; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth267196/m1/4/: accessed August 15, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.