A tax authority establishing its prima facie case in a tax delinquency suit enjoys a rebuttable presumption of law that the personalty in question has a tax situs within the taxing unit's jurisdiction. Whaley v. Nocona Independent School District, 339 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1960, writ ref'd). This presumption imposes upon the defendant taxpayer the burden of producing evidence sufficient to justify a finding that the tax situs of the property was outside the tax authority's jurisdiction.

A prima facie case of a county's claim can be made by the introduction of properly certified copies of its delinquent tax records. Duval County Ranch Co. v. State, 587 S.W.2d 436, 442 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.)cert. denied 449 U.S. 1077, 101 S.Ct. 856, 66 L.Ed.2d 800; Stratton v. Del Valle Independent School District, 547 S.W.2d 727, 728 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1977, no writ); Whaley v. Nocona Independent School District, 339 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1960, writ ref'd). Properly authenticated notices of tax liens may also be sufficient.

Dickinson's admission of its tax records raised a presumption that there was a valid levy and assessment of HLP's tax liability made by a legally constituted taxing authority and that all conditions precedent to the levy and assessment were performed. Whaley v. Nocona Independent School District, 339 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex.Civ.App. — Ft. Worth 1960, writ ref'd); Stratton v. Del Valle Independent School District, 547 S.W.2d 727, 728 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1977, no writ); Birdwell v. City of Boyd, Wise County, 233 S.W.2d 603, 605, 607 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1950, no writ). In Birdwell the court held a tax levy and assessment by city council were binding "although the. . . proceedings did not strictly adhere to the letter of the law."

In Stratton v. Del Valle Independent School District, 547 S.W.2d 727 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1977, no writ), the Court stated that "(b)y the admission of the certified copy of appellee's delinquent tax record, a presumption was raised that there was a valid levy and assessment of the taxes in issue made by a legally constituted taxing authority and that all conditions precedent to such assessment and levy had been performed." See Newton v. Highland Park Independent School District, 361 S.W.2d 916 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1962, no writ); Whaley v. Nocona Independent School District, 339 S.W.2d 265 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1960, writ ref'd). In Keystone Operating Co. v. Runge Independent School District, 558 S.W.2d 82 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1977, writ ref'd n. r. e.), this Court was confronted with a situation wherein the taxing agencies introduced into evidence the pertinent delinquent tax records and evidence to the effect that such taxes had not been paid. Under the provisions of Article 7326, we held that

By the admission of the certified copy of appellee's delinquent tax record, a presumption was raised that there was a valid levy and assessment of the taxes in issue made by a legally constituted taxing authority and that all conditions precedent to such assessment and levy had been performed. Whaley v. Nocona Independent School District, 339 S.W.2d 265 (Tex.Civ.App. 1960, writ ref'd), Newton v. Highland Park Independent School District, 361 S.W.2d 916 (Tex.Civ.App. 1962, no writ). There was evidence that appellee had assessed two tracts of land as one single tract.

The burden was then upon the taxpayer to offer a valid defense. State v. Whittenburg, 153 Tex. 205, 265 S.W.2d 569, 572 (1954); Whaley v. Nocona Independent School District, 339 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1960, writ ref'd). It is provided by statute that in a suit for collection of delinquent taxes there shall be no defenses except: 1) that the defendant was not the owner of the land at the time the suit was filed; or 2) that the taxes sued for have been paid; or 3) that the taxes are in excess of the limit allowed by law. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 7329 (1960).

The law is settled that appellees made out their prima facie case against appellant by introduction into evidence of the tax rolls and certified statements or copies of tax records pursuant to the authorities cited above. State v. Whittenburg, 153 Tex. 205, 265 S.W.2d 569, 572 (1954); Whaley v. Nocona Independent School District, 339 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex.Civ.App. 1960), writ ref.; City of Houston v. McCarthy, 371 S.W.2d 587, 588 (Tex.Civ.App. 1963), writ ref., n.r.e.; Victory v. State, 138 Tex. 285, 158 S.W.2d 760, 765 (1942). The prima facie case on behalf of Houston Independent School District was proven by the same records, because the provisions of the Charter of the City of Houston also apply to Houston Independent School District taxes.

The appellee made a prima facie case as to every material fact necessary to the establishment of the validity of the assessed valuations and its cause of action against the appellants. State v. Whittenburg, 153 Tex. 205, 265 S.W.2d 569 (1954); Whaley v. Nocona Independent School District, 339 S.W.2d 265 (Fort Worth Civ.App., 1960, error refused.) 'It is now well settled that the assessment of property for tax purposes is a quasi-judicial function of boards of equalization and that no attack on valuations fixed by such boards can or will be sustained in the absence of proof of fraud, want of jurisdiction, illegality, or the adoption of an arbitrary and fundamentally erroneous plan or scheme of valuation. * * * Moreover, when their official action is attacked it will be presumed that such boards discharged their duties * * * according to law and acted in good faith.

We agree with appellee that the affidavit of Norman Register and the certified copy of the delinquent tax roll attached thereto established a prima facie case for the recovery of the taxes, including the ownership by appellant of the property. Aycock v. City of Fort Worth, 371 S.W.2d 712 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Whaley v. Nocona Ind. School Dist., 339 S.W.2d 265 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth 1960, writ ref'd). We also agree with the principle, asserted in Radio Bidle Hour, Inc. v. Hurst-Euless Ind. School Dist., 341 S.W.2d 467, 468 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth 1960, writ ref'd n.r.e.), that "* * * the right to enjoy exemption from taxation can only be established by strict proof of the existence of all facts necessary to create the exemption."

State v. Whittenburg, 1954, 153 Tex. 205, 265 S.W.2d 569. Nevertheless, such a taxpayer is not deprived of the right to prevail if he can prove fraud, want of jurisdiction, illegality or the adoption of an arbitrary and fundamentally erroneous plan or scheme of taxation by the authority (generally, and including his property, — or specifically as applied to his property), provided he furthermore proves that thereby and by reason thereof, through the application of said plan or scheme he will be or was prejudiced and caused to suffer substantial injury. Whaley v. Nocona Independent School District, 1960 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth), 339 S.W.2d 265, error refused. Disregarding portions of the counter-affidavit, filed in opposition to the authority's motion for summary judgment, it is not to be doubted that the taxpayer did therein present in proper form his proof, available for introduction upon a trial on the merits, which proof met legal requirements which inhibited rendition of summary judgment against him.