Tex. Codes » Tax Code · TITLE 1. PROPERTY TAX CODE · SUBTITLE F. REMEDIES · CHAPTER 42. JUDICIAL REVIEW
Texas Codes

Tex. Tax Code § 42.08 (2026)

Forfeiture Of Remedy For Nonpayment Of Taxes

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

Sec. 42.08. FORFEITURE OF REMEDY FOR NONPAYMENT OF TAXES. (a) The pendency of an appeal as provided by this chapter does not affect the delinquency date for the taxes on the property subject to the appeal. However, that delinquency date applies only to the amount of taxes required to be paid under Subsection (b). If the property owner complies with Subsection (b), the delinquency date for any additional amount of taxes due on the property is determined by Section 42.42(c), and that additional amount is not delinquent before that date.

(b) Except as provided in Subsection (d), a property owner who appeals as provided by this chapter must pay taxes on the property subject to the appeal in the amount required by this subsection before the delinquency date or the property owner forfeits the right to proceed to a final determination of the appeal. The amount of taxes the property owner must pay on the property before the delinquency date to comply with this subsection is the lesser of:

(1) the amount of taxes due on the portion of the taxable value of the property that is not in dispute;

(2) the amount of taxes due on the property under the order from which the appeal is taken; or

(3) the amount of taxes imposed on the property in the preceding tax year.

(b-1) This subsection applies only to an appeal in which the property owner elects to pay the amount of taxes described by Subsection (b)(1). The appeal filed by the property owner must be accompanied by a statement in writing of the amount of taxes the property owner proposes to pay. The failure to provide the statement required by this subsection is not a jurisdictional error.

(c) A property owner that pays an amount of taxes greater than that required by Subsection (b) does not forfeit the property owner's right to a final determination of the appeal by making the payment. The property owner may pay an additional amount of taxes at any time. If the property owner files a timely appeal under this chapter, taxes paid on the property are considered paid under protest, even if paid before the appeal is filed. If the taxes are subject to the split-payment option provided by Section 31.03, the property owner may comply with Subsection (b) of this section by paying one-half of the amount otherwise required to be paid under that subsection before December 1 or, if applicable, the date provided by Section 31.03(a-1) and paying the remaining one-half of that amount before July 1 of the following year.

(d) After filing an oath of inability to pay the taxes at issue, a party may be excused from the requirement of prepayment of tax as a prerequisite to appeal if the court, after notice and hearing, finds that such prepayment would constitute an unreasonable restraint on the party's right of access to the courts. On the motion of a party and after the movant's compliance with Subsection (e), the court shall hold a hearing to review and determine compliance with this section, and the reviewing court may set such terms and conditions on any grant of relief as may be reasonably required by the circumstances. If the court determines that the property owner has not substantially complied with this section, the court shall dismiss the pending action. If the court determines that the property owner has substantially but not fully complied with this section, the court shall dismiss the pending action unless the property owner fully complies with the court's determination within 30 days of the determination.

(e) Not later than the 45th day before the date of a hearing to review and determine compliance with this section, the movant must mail notice of the hearing by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the collector for each taxing unit that imposes taxes on the property.

(f) Regardless of whether the collector for the taxing unit receives a notice under Subsection (e), a taxing unit that imposes taxes on the property may intervene in an appeal under this chapter and participate in the proceedings for the limited purpose of determining whether the property owner has complied with this section. The taxing unit is entitled to process for witnesses and evidence and to be heard by the court.

Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 2310, ch. 841, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5049, ch. 910, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 29, 1983; Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 195, Sec. 1, eff. May 24, 1985; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 796, Sec. 43, eff. June 15, 1989; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 579, Sec. 12, eff. Jan. 1, 1996; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 203, Sec. 1, eff. May 21, 1997.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1033 (H.B. 1680), Sec. 2, eff. June 15, 2007.

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 530 (S.B. 1359), Sec. 1, eff. June 19, 2009.

Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1259 (H.B. 585), Sec. 24, eff. June 14, 2013.

Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 252 (H.B. 2742), Sec. 3, eff. January 1, 2026.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 74 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: J. C. Evans Constr. Co. v. Travis Cent. Appraisal Dist., 4 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
J. C. Evans Constr. Co. v. Travis Cent. Appraisal Dist., 4 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999). · cites it 10× “1 See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.08 (b) (West Supp.”
U. Lawrence Boze' & Assocs., P.C. v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 368 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011). · cites it 3× “Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.08 (b); J.C. Evans, 4 S.”
Jackson Hotel Corp. v. Wichita Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 980 S.W.2d 879 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998). · cites it 7× “08 and thus preserved its right to appeal. Id. On March 6, 1997, the trial court entered an order denying Jaekson’s motion to determine substantial compliance and granting the District’s motion to dismiss.”
Michael M. Carter v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist. & the Appraisal Review Bd. of Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 409 S.W.3d 26 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013). · cites it 7× “” 4 Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.08 (d); see U. Lawrence Boze’, 368 S.”
Carrollton-Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. JPD, Inc., 168 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005). · cites it 6× “See TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 42.08. JPD cannot now complain that the consequences of its failure to follow the procedures available, as opposed to the absence of procedures, creates an unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process.”
Galveston Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Valero Refining - Texas L.P., 463 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015). · cites it 8× “See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.08 (b)(2). B. The trial court rejects GCAD’s jurisdictional challenges Prior to trial, GCAD filed a plea to the jurisdiction asking the trial court to dismiss Valero’s appeal for failure to state the amount of taxes it proposes to pay, which GCAD…”
Hegar v. EBS Solutions, Inc., 549 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Austin 2018). · cites it 2× “Laws 3591 , 3604 (current version at Tex. Tax Code § 42.08(b) ). In addition, like the amendment to section 112.”
Welling v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 429 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014). · cites it 7× “” Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.08 (b) (West Supp.”
Cent. Appraisal Dist. of Rockwall Cnty. v. Lall, 924 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1996). · cites it 3× “Tex. Tax Code § 42.08. The respondent taxpayers contend that this statute, by conditioning the right to judicial review on pay *689 ment of a portion of the assessed taxes, violates the open courts provision of the Texas Constitution.”
Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Bradford Realty, Ltd., 919 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994). · cites it 5× “See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.08 (Vernon 1992).”
Lawler v. Tarrant Appraisal Dist., 855 S.W.2d 269 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1993). · cites it 3× “See Tex.Tax Code Ann. § 42.08 (Vernon 1992). Appellant’s lawsuit was dismissed.”
Ferguson v. Chillicothe Indep. Sch. Dist., 798 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1990). · cites it 4× “See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.08 (Vernon Supp. 1990).”
Show all 74 citing cases →
Tex. Tax Code § 42.08(a): 4 cases
Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. World Houston, Inc., 905 S.W.2d 594 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995).
Jeffrey Andrew Munn v. Smith Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 12-17-00094-CV (Tex. App.—Tyler Apr. 4, 2018).
Sundial Owner's Ass'n v. Nueces Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 13-20-00149-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 22, 2021).
Sundial Owner's Ass'n v. Nueces Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 13-20-00149-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Sept. 9, 2021).
Tex. Tax Code § 42.08(b): 27 cases
Hegar v. EBS Solutions, Inc., 549 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Austin 2018). “Laws 3591 , 3604 (current version at Tex. Tax Code § 42.08(b) ). In addition, like the amendment to section 112.”
First Bank of Deer Park v. Harris Cnty., 804 S.W.2d 588 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991).
Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. McLennan Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 927 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996).
Indus. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Ward Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 296 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009).
Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Consol. Capital Props. IV, 795 S.W.2d 39 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1990).
Tex. Tax Code § 42.08(b)(1): 6 cases
Lawler v. Tarrant Appraisal Dist., 855 S.W.2d 269 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1993). “See Tex.Tax Code Ann. § 42.08 (Vernon 1992). Appellant’s lawsuit was dismissed.”
Grimes Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. James Scott Harvey, Jr., 573 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019).
Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Herrin, 924 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. 1996).
Chockalingam S. Palaniappan v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 01-11-00344-CV, 2013 WL 6857983 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 31, 2013).
Sundial Owner's Ass'n v. Nueces Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 13-20-00149-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Sept. 9, 2021).
Tex. Tax Code § 42.08(c): 4 cases
Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Dallas Cty. App. Dist., 732 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987).
Dallas Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Seven Inv. Co., 813 S.W.2d 197 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991).
Harston v. Kendall Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 773 S.W.2d 815 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1989).
Missouri Pac. R.R. v. Dallas Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 732 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987).
Tex. Tax Code § 42.08(d): 18 cases
Hegar v. EBS Solutions, Inc., 549 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Austin 2018). “Laws 3591 , 3604 (current version at Tex. Tax Code § 42.08(b) ). In addition, like the amendment to section 112.”
U. Lawrence Boze' & Assocs., P.C. v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 368 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011). “Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.08 (b); J.C. Evans, 4 S.”
Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Bradford Realty, Ltd., 919 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994). “See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.08 (Vernon 1992).”
Cent. Appraisal Dist. of Rockwall Cnty. v. Lall, 924 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1996). “Tex. Tax Code § 42.08. The respondent taxpayers contend that this statute, by conditioning the right to judicial review on pay *689 ment of a portion of the assessed taxes, violates the open courts provision of the Texas Constitution.”
Lawler v. Tarrant Appraisal Dist., 855 S.W.2d 269 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1993). “See Tex.Tax Code Ann. § 42.08 (Vernon 1992). Appellant’s lawsuit was dismissed.”
Tex. Tax Code § 42.08(e): 3 cases
James Craig Guetersloh v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 14-10-00155-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 23, 2011).
William J. Sonne v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 01-12-00749-CV, 2014 WL 2933227 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 26, 2014).
Chockalingam S. Palaniappan v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 01-11-00344-CV, 2013 WL 6857983 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 31, 2013).
Tex. Tax Code § 42.08(f): 1 case
Eldon Rodriguez v. City of El Paso, No. 08-23-00004-CV (Tex. App.—El Paso Sept. 28, 2023).
Tex. Tax Code § 42.08(h): 1 case
Jackson Hotel Corp. v. Wichita Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 980 S.W.2d 879 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998). “08 and thus preserved its right to appeal. Id. On March 6, 1997, the trial court entered an order denying Jaekson’s motion to determine substantial compliance and granting the District’s motion to dismiss.”
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.