OPINION
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
In Re Allcat Claims Service, LP (Tex. 2011)(Opinion by Johnson)
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
FULL TEXT OF OPINION [ forthcoming ] or go to Court's website following the docket number link
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS BELOW: Court of Appeals
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also see: Texas Causes of Action | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams
In re Allcat Claims Service, LP, No. 11-0589 (Tex. Nov. 28, 2011)(Opinion by Johnson)(constitutionality of
franchise tax)
EXCERPT FROM TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S OPINION
In this original proceeding Allcat Claims Service, L.P., a limited partnership, and one of its limited
partners seek an order directing the Comptroller to refund franchise taxes Allcat paid that were
attributable to partnership income allocated, but not distributed, to its natural-person partners. Allcat
claims it is entitled to a refund for two reasons. First, the tax facially violates Article VIII, Section 24 of
the Texas Constitution because it is a tax on the net incomes of its natural-person partners that was not
approved in a statewide referendum. Second, as applied by the Comptroller to Allcat and its partners,
the franchise tax violates Article VIII, Section 1(a) of the Constitution, which requires taxation to be
equal and uniform. We hold that: (1) the tax is not a tax imposed on the net incomes of the individual
partners, thus it does not facially violate Article VIII, Section 24; and (2) we do not have jurisdiction to
consider the equal and uniform challenge.
IN RE ALLCAT CLAIMS SERVICE, L.P. AND JOHN WEAKLY
The Court denies Allcat's requests for relief relating to its facial challenge because the Act does not violate Article VIII, Section 24
of the Constitution. The Court dismisses the as-applied challenge and attorney's fees claim for lack of jurisdiction. Justice Phil
Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice David
Medina, Justice Paul Green, and Justice Eva Guzman joined.
Justice Willett delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Lehrmann joined.
Link to Electronic Briefs: 11-0589 IN RE ALLCAT CLAIMS SERVICE, L.P.