McCarty v. James

453 S.W.2d 220, 1970 Tex. App. LEXIS 2402
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 8, 1970
Docket11728
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 453 S.W.2d 220 (McCarty v. James) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McCarty v. James, 453 S.W.2d 220, 1970 Tex. App. LEXIS 2402 (Tex. Ct. App. 1970).

Opinion

HUGHES, Justice.

This suit is for a declaratory judgment. It was filed by W. A. McCarty, Jr., for the use and benefit of McCarty-Hull Cigar Company, Inc., of which he is president and general manager, and for the use and benefit of other interested wholesalers of tobacco products in the State of Texas. The defendant was Jesse James, Treasurer of the State of Texas, in his official capacity.

While numerous declarations of law are sought they all involve the constitutionality, vel non, of H.B. 1158, Acts 61st Leg.Reg. Sess., p. 1405 (1969) which amended Section (9), Article 7.08, Title 122A, Taxation-General, Texas R.C.S., 1925, V.A.T.S., as last amended by ch. 1, Acts, 56th Leg. 3rd Called Sess., 1959, to read as follows:

“(9) The State Treasurer shall require that payment in full for stamps or meter settings be made within fifteen (15)- days from the date the stamps or the set meter are received by the distributor. In each fiscal year, payment for stamps and meters received in August of that year shall be paid in full on or before August 31 no matter when purchased or received by the distributor during that month. Upon receipt of an order for stamps or the setting of a meter, the State Treasurer shall ship such stamps or set such meter in compliance with the order and transmit with the stamps or the meter a certified statement showing the amount due for said stamps or meter setting, and the distributor shall forward a remittance as payment in full of the amount certified as due by the State Treasurer within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the stamps or the set meter and the certified statement, or for stamps and meters received in August of each fiscal year in full on or before August 31 no matter when purchased or received by the distributor during that month. However, in order to secure the payments of the tax as provided in this Section, a distributor must file with the State Treasurer a surety bond, approved by the State
Treasurer and the Attorney General, with a corporate surety authorized to do business in this State, conditioned upon pay *222 ment in full for the stamps or meter settings within the time specified in this Section. The State Treasurer shall fix the amount of the bond, in an amount equal to one and one-half times the credit in stamps and/or meter settings requested by the distributor and approved by the State Treasurer for the purchase of stamps and/or meter settings during the succeeding month. Any distributor who fails to forward the proper remittance by the due date shall be notified by the State Treasurer within five (5) days after the due date to appear within five (5) days before the Treasurer to show cause why he should not be denied the privilege of ordering stamps as herein provided, and if such distributor shall fail to show good cause, the Treasurer is hereby authorized to discontinue the shipment of stamps or the setting of meters as provided in this Section and to enforce payment of the bond.”

In a non-jury trial, the trial court rendered judgment holding H.B. 1158 unconstitutional and denying appellant any relief.

The facts were stipulated. They are, in substance, that appellant, a licensed dealer in tobacco products, including cigarettes, acting pursuant to the provisions of H.B. 1158 demanded that the State Treasurer sell cigarette stamps to him and allow him fifteen days for payment, appellant offering to provide the bond required by the statute. The State Treasurer refused to comply with this demand on the sole ground that H.B. 1158 was unconstitutional.

The Treasurer contends that H.B. 1158 violates Sec. 50 of Art. Ill of the Constitution of Texas, Vernon’s Ann.St., which provides:

“Sec. 50. The Legislature shall have no power to give or to lend, or to authorize the giving or lending, of the credit of the State in aid of, or to any person, association or corporation, whether municipal or other, or to pledge the credit of the State in any manner whatsoever, for the payment of the liabilities, present or prospective, of any individual, association of individuals, municipal or other corporation whatsoever.”

We are of the opinion that H.B. 1158 does not violate Sec. 50 of Art. Ill of our Constitution for the reason that it is not an extension of credit to any one owing a debt to the State of Texas.

We copy below some sections of the Cigarette Law which are discussed in this opinion. 1

*223 The Treasurer argues that “A cigarette tax stamp, like a postage stamp, is itself valuable property. A postage stamp shows that a sender has paid for the service of having a letter or other postage item handled by the Post Office. The cigarette tax stamp is conclusive evidence that the tax due the State has been paid and satisfied. To permit a distributor to purchase such property evidencing the satisfaction of tax liability and pay for such at a future date would be an extension of credit by the State and thus in violation of Art. Ill, Section 50 of the Constitution of Texas.”

There are similarities between postage stamps and cigarette tax stamps. They are both stamps. A postage stamp, in addition to the characteristic given it by the Treasurer, may be purchased, sold, owned or possessed by anyone, except postal employees, without restriction. It frequently passes from hand to hand in commercial transactions as does money. On the other hand, a cigarette tax stamp is nothing more than a tax receipt. Whether this stamp is conclusive evidence of payment of the tax is a question not before us, but this is extremely doubtful. Cigarette stamps, while they may be stolen and unlawfully used, are not open to purchase and sale by everyone. They may only be sold by and purchased from the Treasurer or under his direction. Arts. 7.05, 7.29(3). The sale of stamps by the Treasurer shall, with some exceptions, be made only to a licensed distributor whose duty it is to affix the stamp to the cigarette package. Art. 7.08.

It is obvious that the scheme of the Cigarette Tax Law is not for the purpose of selling cigarette tax stamps but the aim of the law is to facilitate and safeguard the collection of taxes imposed on the use or disposal of cigarettes. Art. 7.02. The sale of such stamps is incidental to this purpose. It is not a commercial transaction in the same sense that the sale of postage stamps is.

We copy the following from the brief of the Treasurer:

“By the express provisions of Section 1, Article 7.02, Title 122A, Taxation-General, it is stated that the cigarette tax shall be paid as follows:
‘ * * * The said tax shall be paid only once by the person making the “first sale” in this state and shall become due and payable as soon as such cigarettes are subject to a first sale in Texas, it being intended to impose the tax as soon as such cigarettes are received by any person in Texas for the purpose of making the “first sale” of same. * * * ’
Section 2 of such Article 7.02 states:
‘Payment of such tax shall be evidenced by stamps purchased from the Treasurer and securely affixed to each individual package of cigarettes covering the tax thereon as imposed by this Chapter; * * * ’

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1982
Texas State Board of Public Accountancy v. Fulcher
515 S.W.2d 950 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Fleming Company v. McDonald
509 P.2d 1162 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1973)
Daywood v. Calvert
478 S.W.2d 152 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1971

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
453 S.W.2d 220, 1970 Tex. App. LEXIS 2402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarty-v-james-texapp-1970.