ELI WITT COMPANY, AS SUCCESSOR TO HAVATAMPA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, APPELLEE
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 court held that the administrative rule interpreting the cigarette tax discount statute was validly promulgated and a logical interpretation, remaining effective until superseded by subsequent legislation.
The Department of Business Regulation issued a rule allowing a cigarette tax discount per wholesale dealer, not per branch location. Eli Witt Company …
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 Rule Challenge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Department of Business Regulation promulgated Rule 7A-10.25, Florida Administrative Code for 1976, interpreting § 210.05(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1975). The rule resulted in the allowance of a 2.9% discount on tax collected by each wholesale cigarette dealer rather than a discount to each of the dealer’s branch locations as had been the customary practice.
Eli Witt Company brought a rule challenge to recover $64,000 in cigarette taxes paid under protest in 1976. The hearing officer determined that the rule was valid and recommended against a refund. In 1977 the Legislature enacted Chapter 77-421, Laws of Florida, which directed that the discount apply to each location; thus effectively nullifying the rule.
The final order of the Division of Administrative Hearings upholding the validity of Rule 7A-10.25 is affirmed. The rule is a logical interpretation of the statute, properly promulgated through the rule-making procedures of the agency. The rule remained viable until the effective date of Chapter 77-421, Laws of Florida, which did not have retroactive application.
We accordingly affirm.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur.