DAYTONA BEACH RACING AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DISTRICT, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
VOLUSIA COUNTY, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld rejection of a tax exemption claim by International Speedway Corporation, holding that a subsequent legislature can repeal prior tax exemption statutes and that the U.S. Constitution's Contract Clause does not limit the taxing power.
The court held that both issues are resolved against the appellants. The legislature has the unquestioned authority to repeal prior tax exemption statutes, and the U.S. Constitution's Contract Clause does not prevent a subsequent legislature from repealing tax exemption statutes.
[1] A subsequent legislature has the authority to repeal prior tax exemption statutes, as the legislature cannot bind its successors regarding the exercise of the taxing powe…
[2] A prior judicial decision involving the same parties and issues is controlling in a subsequent case concerning a different tax year.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The legislature cannot bind its successors with respect to the exercise of the taxing power; a subsequent legislature has the unquestioned authority to repeal prior tax exemption statutes.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that the taxing power cannot be limited by prior legislation, resolving the core constitutional issue in the case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceInternational Speedway Corporation operates the Daytona International Speedway on land leased from the Daytona Beach Racing and Recreational Facilitie…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tax Exemption cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYD, Justice.
This cause is before us by virtue of a certification by the District Court of Appeal, First District, that its decision herein passed upon a question of great public interest.1
International Speedway Corporation operates the Daytona International Speedway on land leased from the Daytona Beach Racing and Recreational Facilities District. The corporation and the district appealed the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Volusia County, which rejected their claim of exemption for the corporation’s leasehold from ad valorem taxation. On appeal to the district court, the issues were whether exemption should be allowed under section 196.199(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1975), and whether the repeal2 of the tax exemption granted to the district in 19553 is an impairment of the obligation of contract in violation of the United States Constitution.4
Both issues are resolved against the position taken by the appellants by the decision of this court in Volusia County v. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities District, 341 So. 2d 498 (Fla.1976). The case involved the same parties and the same issues but pertained to ad valorem taxes for an earlier year. The district court in the instant case acknowledged that the earlier decision was controlling but certified the question of whether the constitutional issue should be reconsidered in light of United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 1505, 52 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977).
We have examined the decision in United States Trust and find it to be completely inapplicable to the issue in the case at bar. The legislature cannot bind its successors with respect to the exercise of the taxing power; a subsequent legislature has the unquestioned authority to repeal prior tax exemption statutes. See, e. g., Hord v. Askew, 359 So. 2d 455 (Fla.) (per curiam), appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. 302, 58 L.Ed.2d 314 (1978); Straughn v. Camp, 293 So. 2d 689 (Fla.), appeal dismissed, 419 U.S. 891, 95 S.Ct. 168, 42 L.Ed.2d 135 (1974).
The decision of the district court of appeal is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and OVERTON, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.
. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist. v. Volusia County, 355 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
. Ch. 73-647, Laws of Fla. . Ch. 31343, § 13, Laws of Fla. (1955).
. “No State shall . . . pass any . . Law Impairing the Obligation of Contracts . . . .” U.S.Const. art. I, § 10.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mayme Bondu v. Ruben Gurvich, M.D., 473 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…of action when suit was begun,” Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. Sentinel Star Co., 316 So. 2d 607, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also Daytona Beach Racing and Recreational Facilities Dist. v. Volusia County, 355 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), aff'd, 372 So. 2d 419 (Fla.1979), the motion for leave to amend was correctly denied. . Even if the trial court’s dismissal of Counts VIII and IX were deemed to be a determination that the hospital owed no duty to Bondu to maintain and furnish records, the issues posed…
-
Inter-Active Servs., Inc. v. Heathrow Master Ass'n, Inc., 809 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…If the rules required an unmatured claim to be filed as a compulsory counterclaim, then rule 1.170(e) would be unnecessary. See also Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist. v. Volusia County, 355 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), aff'd, 372 So. 2d 419 (Fla.1979) (recognizing that it is not the function of an amendment to a pleading to cover subsequently accruing rights). Accord Orlando Sports Stadium, [*905] Inc. v. Sentinel Star Co., 316 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). REVERSED and REMANDED. T…
-
Jacksonville Elec. Auth. v. Dep't OF Revenue, 486 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…w. Because it is beyond the constitutional power of one legislature to bind another, the statutory provision could serve no anticipatory purpose to block future exemptions. Daytona Beach Racing and Recreational Facilities District v. Volusia County, 372 So. 2d 419 (Fla.1979); Straughn v. Camp, 293 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1974). Section 212.051 thus remains a law without a purpose. We hold that section 212.051, Florida Statutes (1969), is not a bar to exemption from sales tax of pollution control equipment mandated b…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- United States Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. NEW Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1977)
- Straughn v. Lindley M. Camp, 293 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1974)
- Merrill Lynch v. Byrne, 341 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1976)
- Volusia Cnty. v. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist., 341 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1976)
- Hord v. Askew, 439 U.S. 922 (U.S. 1978)
- W. Oil & Gas Assn. v. Alaska, 439 U.S. 922 (U.S. 1978)
- Kanapaux v. Ellisor, 419 U.S. 891 (U.S. 1974)
- S. Haulers, Inc. v. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 419 U.S. 891 (U.S. 1974)
- Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist. & Int'l Speedway Corp. v. Volusia Cnty., 355 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Alvis E. Adkins v. State, 359 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1978)