Dan's Big & Tall Shop Inc. v. County of Dallas

If the taxes due exceed the value of the property, the tax liability of the purchaser extends only to the point or limit of the value of the property. But the purchaser is liable for the total amount of taxes imposed (plus penalties and interest) up to that limit. The court will not read into the statute any pro rata limitation on this statutory liability.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Dan’s Big & Tall Shop Inc. purchased the assets of two Tall E Ho stores, one in Dallas and one in Houston, on Aug. 25, 2000. Dan’s did not, however withhold any amount of the purchase price for payment of the ad valorem taxes. Shortly after the purchase, Dan’s filed an assumed-name certificate stating that it would be conducting business in Dallas under the Tall E Ho name at the same address, which it did. Dan’s did not pay ad valorem taxes on the personal property for the 2000 and 2001 tax years, so the Dallas County taxing authorities sued to collect the delinquent taxes. Though there was some conflicting evidence over whether and when Dan’s notified the taxing authorities that ownership had changed, the trial court nonetheless ruled that Dan’s had actual notice of both the appraised value of the property and the tax statements for the property. The taxing authorities delivered the tax bills to Dan’s correct business address under Dan’s assumed name, Tall E Ho. Dan’s now appeals. HOLDING:Affirmed. Examining the Tax Code provision for the specific obligations imposed on a business purchaser, the court notes that a purchaser is supposed to withhold “an amount sufficient to pay all of the taxes imposed on the personal property of the business.” The court rejects Dan’s argument that the word “extent” used in the provision means it is liable only for a proportionate amount of the taxes. Instead, the court observes that the statute also says that the purchaser who fails to withhold the statutorily mandated amount is liable for that amount. “Extent” means the point or limit up to which something extends, the court explains. That is, if the taxes due exceed the value of the property, the tax liability of the purchaser extends only to the point or limit of the value of the property. But the purchaser is liable for the total amount of taxes imposed (plus penalties and interest) up to that limit. The court then addresses Dan’s argument that it did not receive due process, because the statute does not give an opportunity to be heard before the taxation becomes final. The court notes that the Tax Code requires a taxpayer to receive notice when the appraised value is higher than in the preceding year, and that this has been found to satisfy due process concerns. The court answers the question of whether Dan’s received notice of the increased assessment affirmatively. First of all, Dan’s argument that it owes only a pro rata share of the taxes for 2000 clearly acknowledges its obligation to pay ad valorem taxes as the new owner of Tall E Ho. Given that obligation, when Dan’s received mail from the appraisal district at its business address, and the addressee included the business name Tall E Ho, Dan’s had an obligation to determine the appraisal district’s purpose in sending the mail. Furthermore, Dan’s had an obligation to render the property according to the statue. No such finding was made by the trial court. To the extent notice delivered to Dan’s business address was inexact, the fault was Dan’s, not the appraisal district’s. Thus, the question of a hearing based on failure to receive notice and the related question of Dan’s due process rights are not implicated by this record. Even if the court decided that Dan’s did not receive adequate notice of an increased appraisal, there still would not be a due process violation because to obtain a hearing on its failure to receive notice and a final determination of its protest, a property owner must perform two conditions before the date the taxes become delinquent: 1. file a notice of the protest, and 2. pay the lesser of (a) the taxes due or (b) the undisputed portion of the taxes due. Dan’s did neither. OPINION:Kerry P. FitzGerald, J.; Morris, Moseley and FitzGerald, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Trending Stories

 

Featured Product

Global Briefing

A weekly, curated selection of our international content from around the globe, across the business of law, in-house, regulatory, technology and more, with expert insights from our senior editors.

Learn More

More from ALM

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Privacy Policy

About Us / Contact Us / Site Map / Advertise With Us/ Customer Service / Terms of Service/ FAQ / Privacy Policy

Publications

Law Topics

Rankings

More

Law.com

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.