Texas Codes

Tex. Tax Code § 112.053 (2026)

Taxpayer Suit: Parties; Issues

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 112.053. TAXPAYER SUIT: PARTIES; ISSUES. (a) A suit authorized by this subchapter must be brought against the public official charged with the duty of collecting the tax, the comptroller, and the attorney general.

(b) The issues to be determined in the suit are limited to those arising from the reasons expressed in the written protest as originally filed.

(c) A copy of the written protest as originally filed must be attached to the original petition filed by the person paying the tax with the court and to the copies of the original petition served on the comptroller, the attorney general, and the public official charged with the duty of collecting the tax.

(d) The attorney general shall represent the comptroller in a suit under this subchapter.

(e) A person may not intervene in a suit under this subchapter.

Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 1512, ch. 389, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 89, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1423, Sec. 19.05, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Amended by:

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 331 (H.B. 2080), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2021.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 34 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Cornyn v. Universe Life Ins. Co., 988 S.W.2d 376 (Tex. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cornyn v. Universe Life Ins. Co., 988 S.W.2d 376 (Tex. App. 1999). “See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 112.053 (a) (West Supp.”

Arch Petroleum, Inc. v. Sharp, 958 S.W.2d 475 (Tex. App. 1997). “16, together with the pro rata interest earned thereon as provided for in Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 112.060 (a) (West Supp.”

Lawrence Indus., Inc. v. Sharp, 890 S.W.2d 886 (Tex. App. 1995). “Tex.Tax Code Ann. § 112.053 (West 1992) (hereinafter “Tax Code”).”

Tgs-nopec Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 268 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. App. 2008). “” See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 112.053 (West 2008) (requiring the Comptroller and the Attorney General to be named as defendants in franchise tax protest suit).”

U.S. Concrete, Inc. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts, State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of Texas, 578 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “202(b), and any issues to be determined in its lawsuit “are limited to those arising from the reasons expressed in the written protest as originally filed,” Tex. Tax Code § 112.053(b); Tex. Gov’t Code § 403.”

Cirrus Expl. Co. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas, 427 S.W.3d 464 (Tex. App. 2014). “Both the Comptroller and the Attorney General were defendants in the suit, see Tex.Tax Code § 112.053 (requiring Comptroller and Attorney General to be named as defendants in tax protest suit), but because their interests in this litigation align, we will refer to them…”

Combs v. Texas Ent. Ass'n, Inc., 287 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. App. 2009). “” Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 112.053 (b) (West 2008).”

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas v. Autohaus LP, LLP (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “ix, 9 TEX. TAX CODE § 112.053 .................”

OGCI Training, Inc. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” See Tex. Tax Code § 112.053. To the extent OGCI’s issues do not “arise from the reasons expressed in [OGCI’s] written protest,” the district court is without jurisdiction to resolve those issues.”

Combs v. Texas Ent. Ass'n, Inc., 287 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. App. 2009). “" Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 112.053 (b) (West 2008).”

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas, & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of Texas v. J.D. Fields & Co., Inc. (Tex. App. 2020). “Fields sued the Comptroller and the Attorney General, see Tex. Tax Code § 112.053(a) (requiring that both officials be named as defendants in tax protest suit), and both moved for summary judgment.”

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas, & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas v. Black, Mann, & Graham, L.L.P. (Tex. App. 2022). “See Tex. Tax Code § 112.053(a). We refer to them collectively as the Comptroller.”

Show all 34 citing cases →

— Tex. Tax Code § 112.053(a) — 3 cases

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas v. Statewide Materials Transp., Ltd. (Tex. App. 2015).

— Tex. Tax Code § 112.053(b) — 3 cases

U.S. Concrete, Inc. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts, State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of Texas, 578 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. App. 2019). “202(b), and any issues to be determined in its lawsuit “are limited to those arising from the reasons expressed in the written protest as originally filed,” Tex. Tax Code § 112.053(b); Tex. Gov’t Code § 403.”

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas v. Autohaus LP, LLP (Tex. App. 2015). “ix, 9 TEX. TAX CODE § 112.053 .................”

OGCI Training, Inc. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Pub. Accounts of the State of Texas & Ken Paxton, Attorney Gen. of the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2017). “” See Tex. Tax Code § 112.053. To the extent OGCI’s issues do not “arise from the reasons expressed in [OGCI’s] written protest,” the district court is without jurisdiction to resolve those issues.”

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.