In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-05-00535-CV
............................

PETE DOMINGUEZ ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant
V.
COUNTY OF DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, CITY OF DALLAS,
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND,
DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
and PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT, Appellees
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 04-30945-T-E
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices O'Neill, FitzGerald, and Lang
Opinion By Justice FitzGerald

Pete Dominguez Enterprises, Inc. (“PDE”) appeals the trial
court's judgment in this suit for delinquent property taxes. The trial
court found PDE liable to the County of Dallas, the Dallas County Tax
Collector, the City of Dallas, the Dallas Independent School District,
the Dallas County School Equalization Fund, the Dallas County Community
College District, and the Parkland Hospital District (collectively, the
“Taxing Authorities”) for the unpaid taxes. For the reasons explained
below, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment in
favor of PDE.
Background
The Taxing Authorities' petition in this case alleged that PDE
owned the relevant property at the time suit was filed. The petition

also attached the Taxing Authorities' Delinquent Tax Statement, which,
under the name “Pete Dominguez,” set forth the amounts owed each of the
plaintiffs for the years involved. PDE answered with a general denial.
Trial was to the court. The Taxing Authorities offered a
certified copy of a document titled Property Tax Notice that contained
the same information as the Delinquent Tax Statement, except that the
amounts owed were updated through the month of trial. The Property Tax
Notice identified the owner of the property as “Pete Dominguez.” PDE
objected to this exhibit, stating: The suit is styled Pete Dominguez
Enterprises, Inc., this tax statement says Pete Dominguez, and it's at a
closed restaurant location.
The court overruled the objection, and the Taxing Authorities rested.
PDE put on no evidence, but re-asserted its objection to the tax
statement exhibit, stating “it's the wrong entity.” Counsel for the
Taxing Authorities responded: We believe that the defendant has been
properly served and has been served in the proper - has been named in
the lawsuit in the proper capacity.
The tax statements typically indicate the name of the party that the
taxpayer has directed us to send statements to, which oftentimes is not
the actual entity that has filed a charter with the Secretary of State.
We believe that the Pete Dominguez listed on the tax statement is the
same Pete Dominguez who's the principal of Pete Dominguez Enterprises,
Inc.
The trial court ruled in favor of the Taxing Authorities.
Evidence of Liability for Delinquent Taxes

PDE raises a single issue in this Court, arguing there was no
evidence that PDE owned any property against which taxes were assessed.
More specifically, PDE argues that the Taxing Authorities did not meet
their burden of proof on the issue of ownership. When, as in this case,
an appellant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support
a finding on which it did not have the burden of proof at trial, the
appellant must demonstrate on appeal that no evidence exists to support
the adverse finding. Mary Kay Inc. v. Woolf, 146 S.W.3d 813, 817 (Tex.
App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied). We view the evidence in a light
favorable to the verdict, crediting favorable evidence if reasonable
jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable
jurors could not. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 807 (Tex.
2005).
The tax code specifically addresses a taxing authority's
evidentiary burden in a suit to collect delinquent taxes: In a suit to
collect a delinquent tax, the taxing unit's current tax roll and
delinquent tax roll or certified copies of the entries showing the
property and the amount of the tax and penalties imposed and interest
accrued constitute prima facie evidence that each person charged with a
duty relating to the imposition of the tax has complied with all
requirements of law and that the amount of tax alleged to be delinquent
against the property and the amount of penalties and interest due on
that tax as listed are the correct amounts.
Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 33.47(a) (Vernon 2002). The supreme court has

concluded that introducing section 33.47(a) documentation establishes a
“prima facie case as to every material fact necessary to establish the
cause of action.” Davis v. City of Austin, 632 S.W.2d 331, 333 (Tex.
1982); see also Barnett v. County of Dallas, 175 S.W.3d 919, 923 (Tex.
App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.). Thus, when a taxing authority complies with
section 33.47, a rebuttable presumption arises in the taxing authority's
favor, including the presumption that the defendant owned the property
on January 1 of the relevant tax year. Estates of Elkins v. County of
Dallas, 146 S.W.3d 826, 829 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.).
The Taxing Authorities depend on this presumption. The only
evidence they offered at trial was a certified copy of entries from
their delinquent tax rolls showing the property, the amount of the tax
owed, penalties imposed, and interest accrued. The Taxing Authorities
posit that this evidence raised the section 33.47(a) presumption and
established their prima facie case.
PDE's complaint, however, implicates the threshold issue of the
identity of the defendant. PDE argues that the rebuttable presumption
envisioned by section 33.47(a) is based on the tax roll identification
of the entity against whom taxes were assessed. If the identity of the
entity named as owner of the property on that tax roll does not match
the identity of the defendant sued for non- payment, then no presumption
arises and no prima facie case is established by the taxing authority.
We agree with PDE. The evidentiary presumption envisioned by

section 33.47(a) is rooted in part in the reliability of taxing
authorities' processes and records. See, e.g., D & M Vacuum Serv., Inc.
v. Zavala County Appraisal Dist., 812 S.W.2d 435, 437-38 (Tex. App.-San
Antonio 1991, no writ) (outlining detailed administrative process that
precedes creation of a tax bill). No party has challenged the accuracy
of the information in the tax roll offered at trial. Thus, the only
evidence in the record indicates the delinquent taxes sought by the
Taxing Authorities are owed by “Pete Dominguez,” not PDE. The Taxing
Authorities offered no evidence that those two entities are factually or
legally equivalent.
Counsel for the Taxing Authorities offered assurances to the
trial court that “Pete Dominguez” was the principal of PDE and that the
correct defendant had been sued. These assurances are not evidence. In
the absence of evidence showing the defendant, PDE, owned the property
taxed in this case, no presumption of liability was triggered, and no
prima facie case for liability was established. We conclude reasonable
jurors would not credit the Taxing Authorities' evidence as probative
against PDE. See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 807. See Footnote 1
The evidence is, therefore, legally insufficient to support the judgment
against PDE. We decide PDE's single issue in its favor.
Conclusion
The Taxing Authorities introduced no evidence that PDE ever
owned the property at issue or owed taxes on the property at issue. We
reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment that the

Taxing Authorities take nothing on their claim against PDE.

KERRY P.
FITZGERALD
JUSTICE
-------------------
Footnote 1 We also conclude that, in the absence of a prima facie case
by the Taxing Authorities, PDE had no obligation to offer rebuttal
evidence.