Harris County Appraisal District v. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp.

Opinion issued January 22, 2004 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-02-00911-CV ____________ HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellant V. TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPELINE CORP., Appellee On Appeal from the 333rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2000-10589 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD), appeals from the trial court’s judgment ordering HCAD to correct the tax appraisal rolls for three previous tax years to take into account interstate allocation for aircraft owned by appellee, Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and render judgment that Transcontinental take nothing by way of its suit. Facts The parties submitted the case based on stipulated facts. Transcontinental is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Houston. Transcontinental owned various aircraft that it maintained in hangar space at Bush Intercontinental and Hobby airports. The aircraft had a taxable situs in Texas from 1995-98 but were used nationwide. Transcontinental rendered its airplanes for taxation for tax years 1995-98. HCAD appraised the aircraft without allocating value for use outside the state of Texas. Initially, Transcontinental did not request allocation of the value of the aircraft, but later timely filed motions pursuant to Tax Code section 25.25(c)(3) to amend the appraisal rolls for tax years 1995 through 1998 to include an allocation offset. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 25.25(c)(3) (Vernon 2002). After the appraisal review board denied the motions, Transcontinental sought judicial review in the district court. Following a bench trial held upon an agreed statement of facts, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Transcontinental and ordered HCAD to amend the appraisal rolls from tax years 1995 through 1997 to take into account non-Texas use in appraising the value of Transcontinental’s aircraft. The trial court denied relief for tax year 1998. Correction of Appraisal Rolls In its sole point of error, HCAD argues that the trial court erred in rendering judgment for Transcontinental and ordering that the 1995-97 appraisal rolls be corrected to reflect interstate allocation for Transcontinental’s aircraft. Standard of Review The case was tried pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 263. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 263. A case submitted under rule 263, like a special verdict, is a request by the parties for judgment in accordance with the applicable law. See Chiles v. Chubb Lloyds Ins. Co., 858 S.W.2d 633, 634 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). There are no presumed findings in favor of the judgment because the trial court had no factual issues to resolve. See Stewart v. Hardie, 978 S.W.2d 203, 206 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied). The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court correctly applied the law to the agreed facts. Harris County Appraisal Dist. v. Transamerica Container Leasing Inc., 920 S.W.2d 678, 680 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied). Because the issue is purely a question of law, our review is de novo. Stewart, 978 S.W.2d at 206. Controlling Case Law This Court recently held that a prior year’s appraisal roll could not be corrected pursuant to section 25.25(c)(3) to reflect previously unrequested interstate allocation of property. Harris County Appraisal Dist. v. Tex. Gas Transmission Corp., 105 S.W.3d 88, 98-99 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. filed). In its brief, Transcontinental asks that we reconsider arguments addressed in previous opinions that (1) Tax Code section 21.03 was not declared constitutional by the Texas Supreme Court until 1998; (2) we relied on inapplicable cases; (3) the Legislative history of section 25.25(c)(3) and the fact that the Legislature did not overrule our holding in Himont U.S.A. Inc. v. Harris County Appraisal District, 904 S.W.2d 740, 744 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ) by statutory amendment show a legislative intent contrary to Texas Gas Transmission; (4)we should rely on an Attorney General’s opinion that discussed Himont’s now-overruled holding; and (5) several policy and fairness arguments support its interpretation of section 25.25(c)(3). Each of these arguments has been explicitly rejected by this Court. See Harris County Appraisal Dist. v. Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co., No. 01-02-00282-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 8, 2004, no pet. h.); Harris County Appraisal Dist. v. Trunkline Gas Co., No. 01-02-00289-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 8, 2004, no pet. h.). Accordingly, for the reasons set out in Texas Gas Transmission and its progeny, we sustain HCAD’s sole point of error. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment that Transcontinental take nothing by way of its suit. Evelyn V. Keyes Justice Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Bland.