About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1998 Texas Attorney General Reports and Opinions 1 (1998)

handle is hein.sag/sagtx0071 and id is 1 raw text is: office of the Attornep @eneral 6tate of Texas DAN MORALES ATTORNEY GENERAL January 9, 1998 The Honorable Steven C. Hilbig Letter Opinion No. 98-001 Bexar County Criminal District Attorney Bexar County Justice Center Re: Whether Tax Code section 312.402(d) 300 Dolorosa, Suite 5072 precludes a commissioners court from entering San Antonio, Texas 78205-3030 into a tax abatement agreement with a corporation in which a commissioners court member owns a very small percentage of shares (ID# 39608) Dear Mr. Hilbig: You ask whether Tax Code section 312.402(d) precludes a commissioners court from entering into a tax abatement agreement with a corporation in which a commissioners court member owns a very small percentage of shares.' Because we believe that the commissioners court member is not the property owner for purposes of the statute, we conclude that the section 312.402(d) prohibition does not apply. Subchapter C of Tax Code chapter 312 authorizes a commissioners court of a county to enter into a tax abatement agreement with the owner of taxable real property located in a reinvestment zone if the county commissioners court has designated the reinvestment zone according to certain statutory procedures. See Tax Code § 312.402(a). Under a tax abatement agreement, the county agrees to exempt from taxation a portion of the value of the property for a period not to exceed ten years on the condition that the owner make specific improvements or repairs to the property. See id. §§ 312.204, .402(a). Section 312.402(d), the statute at issue in your request, provides as follows: Property that is located in a reinvestment zone designated by a county under this subchapter and that is owned or leased by a member of the commissioners court may not be subject to a tax abatement agreement made under this section. You ask whether this provision precludes a commissioners court from entering into a tax abatement agreement with a corporation in which a commissioners court member 'You state that your office reviewed chapter 171 of the Local Government and has determined that the level of stock ownership did not trigger the provisions of that statute. See Local Gov't Code § 171.002(a) (defining substantial interest in a business entity that triggers disclosure and abstention requirements of Local Gov't Code § 171.004). For this reason, we conclude you are not seeking our opinion about situations in which a commissioners court member's interest in a corporation constitutes a substantial interest for purposes of chapter 171 and we do not address the relationship between that chapter and the Tax Code provision. We also note that there may be other statutes relevant to the type of situation you describe, about which you might wish to advise commissioners court members, that we do not address here. See, e.g., Penal Code § 39.06 (misuse of official information).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most