Tex. Codes » Tax Code · TITLE 1. PROPERTY TAX CODE · SUBTITLE A. GENERAL PROVISIONS · CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Texas Codes

Tex. Tax Code § 1.08 (2026)

Timeliness Of Action By Mail Or Common Or Contract Carrier

✓ laws through the 89th Legislature (2025)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 1.08. TIMELINESS OF ACTION BY MAIL OR COMMON OR CONTRACT CARRIER. When a property owner is required by this title to make a payment or to file or deliver a report, application, statement, or other document or paper by a specified due date, the property owner's action is timely if it is properly addressed with postage or handling charges prepaid and:

(1) it is sent by regular first-class mail and bears a post office cancellation mark of a date earlier than or on the specified due date and within the specified period;

(2) it is sent by common or contract carrier and bears a receipt mark indicating a date earlier than or on the specified due date and within the specified period; or

(3) it is sent by regular first-class mail or common or contract carrier and the property owner furnishes satisfactory proof that it was deposited in the mail or with the common or contract carrier on or before the specified due date and within the specified period.

Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 2220, ch. 841, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982.

Amended by:

Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 412 (S.B. 1652), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2005.

Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 779 (S.B. 1224), Sec. 1, eff. June 14, 2013.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd. v. Sullivan, 273 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd. v. Sullivan, 273 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008). · cites it 3× “Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 1.08 (Vernon 2008). The use of the word “and” indicates that a taxpayer must comply with both subsections (1) and (2) for its mailed payment to be timely.”
Rockdale Ind. Sch. v. Thorndale Ind. Sch., 681 S.W.2d 225 (Tex. App.—Austin 1984). “06 must be construed in conjunction with Tex.Tax.Code Ann. § 1.08 (1982) which provides that a property owner who mails a required document before a specified date has acted timely.”
Rockdale Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Thorndale Indep. Sch. Dist., 681 S.W.2d 225 (Tex. App.—Austin 1984). “06 must be construed in conjunction with Tex.Tax.Code Ann. § 1.08 (1982) which provides that a property owner who mails a required document before a specified date has acted timely.”
Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. 11490 Westheimer Road LLC (Royal Oaks Centre Off. Bldg.), No. 14-24-00293-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 26, 2024). “See TEX. TAX CODE § 1.08(3) (payment is timely if “the property owner furnishes satisfactory proof that it was deposited in the mail .”
Harris Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. LXMI Ashford Pointe Prop. Owner, LLC, No. 01-24-00501-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 19, 2026). “See TEX. TAX CODE § 1.08(3). The trial court therefore could not grant the plea to the jurisdiction.”
Jane Matyastik v. Cameron Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 03-91-00569-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 9, 1992). “Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 1.08 (West 1992). Matyastik's claim that she timely tendered the 1988 District and City taxes depends on her assertion that she properly addressed the envelopes and that the postal service made the mistake of delivering her tax checks to Brownsville, Texas.”
Tex. Tax Code § 1.08(3): 2 cases
Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. 11490 Westheimer Road LLC (Royal Oaks Centre Off. Bldg.), No. 14-24-00293-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 26, 2024). “See TEX. TAX CODE § 1.08(3) (payment is timely if “the property owner furnishes satisfactory proof that it was deposited in the mail .”
Harris Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. LXMI Ashford Pointe Prop. Owner, LLC, No. 01-24-00501-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 19, 2026). “See TEX. TAX CODE § 1.08(3). The trial court therefore could not grant the plea to the jurisdiction.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.