# Harris County Appraisal District & Harris County Appraisal Review Board v. JW Charter, Inc. > Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · March 27, 2003 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2836480 ## Case - **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) - **Decided:** March 27, 2003 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2836480 ## Opinion text Opinion issued March 27, 2003 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-02-00063-CV HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD, Appellants V. JW CHARTER, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 334th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2000-29970 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants, the Harris County Appraisal District (the District) and the Harris County Appraisal Review Board (the Board), challenge a judgment rendered in favor of appellee, JW Charter, Inc. (JW Charter), ordering the District to correct the appraisal rolls to take into account interstate allocation for two aircraft owned by JW Charter. We address whether (1) a taxpayer must provide the District with information establishing entitlement to allocation at the time of rendition and (2) a prior year’s appraisal roll may be corrected under section 25.25(c)(3) of the Tax Code. We reverse the judgment and render judgment that JW Charter take nothing by way of its suit. Facts The facts are undisputed. JW Charter owned two aircraft located in Harris County, with taxable situs in Texas. JW Charter owned a King Air aircraft that it leased to Aero Jet, Inc. for one year, beginning March 30, 1993, and month-to-month thereafter. JW Charter also owned a Cessna Citation aircraft, which it acquired in March 1995, but did not lease until May 1996, when it leased it to Appollo Aviation, Inc. (Apollo). Appollo agreed to operate under an agreement with P-K Charter, Inc., which holds an Air Carrier Certification issued by the United States Department of Transportation. JW Charter did not render the two aircraft for any of the tax years in dispute, and it did not provide the District with any information showing its entitlement to allocation prior to having filed the motions to correct. On December 30, 1999, JW Charter timely filed a motion under Tax Code section 25.25(c)(3), seeking allocation to correct an error for tax year 1995. See Tex. Tax Code Ann . § 25.25(c)(3) (Vernon 2001). On January 2, 2001, JW Charter filed similar motions seeking allocation for tax years 1996 and 1997. JW Charter sought the allocation applicable to commercial aircraft under section 21.05 of the Tax Code. See id. § 21.05 (Vernon 2001). The Board denied JW Charter’s motion for tax year 1995. The Board refused to hear evidence on the motion for the tax year 1996 because the motion was not timely filed and refused to hear evidence on the motion for tax year 1997 because the 1997 taxes were not timely paid. JW Charter sought judicial review. The parties submitted the case to the trial court on an agreed statement of facts. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of JW Charter, ordering the District to reduce the value of the aircraft in the appraisal rolls from $689,000 to $28,900 for tax year 1995, from $1,425,000 to $45,630 for tax year 1996, and from $1,493,000 to $74,140 for tax year 1997. Standard of Review The case was tried on an agreed statement of facts pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 263. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 263. A case submitted under Rule 263 is similar to a special verdict; it is a request by the parties for judgment in accordance with the applicable law. See id. ; see also Chiles v. Chubb Lloyds Ins. Co. , 858 S.W.2d 633, 634 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). There are no presumptions in favor of the judgment because the trial court had no factual issues to resolve. 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 v. Hardie , 978 S.W.2d 203, 206 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, pet. denied). Interstate Allocation In their first issue, the District and the Board contend that JW Charter had to show entitlement to interstate allocation for the aircraft at the time of rendition, but neither rendered the aircraft nor submitted allocation documentation when rendition was due. In their second issue, the District and the Board contend that, absent such a showing, JW Charter may not correct a prior year’s appraisal roll under section 25.25(c)(3) of the Tax Code. A. Showing Entitlement to Allocation at Time of Rendition This Court today decided the first issue in Harris County Appraisal District v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp. , No. 01-01-01103-CV, slip op. at 10 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 13, 2003, no pet. h.), in which we held that a taxpayer must provide information showing entitlement to allocation at the time of rendition to be entitled to allocation under the Tax Code. Consequently, we sustain the District and the Board’s first issue. B. Correcting Appraisal Roll under Section 25.25(c)(3) This Court today decided the second issue in Texas Gas Transmission Corp. , No. 01-01-01103-CV, slip op. at 21, in which we held that the appraisal roll may not be corrected for interstate allocation under section 25.25(c)(3). Consequently, we sustain the District and the Board’s second issue. Conclusion We reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment that JW Charter take nothing by way of its suit . Tim Taft Justice Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Taft, and Jennings. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2836480. Public record. Not legal advice.