MARATHON AIR SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ERVIN A. HIGGS, AS PROPERTY APPRAISER OF MONROE COUNTY, 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.
Marathon Air Services challenged the ad valorem tax assessment on a building it constructed on leased airport property in Monroe County, claiming exemption as a governmental function lessee. The court affirmed the tax assessment, holding that the building was not exempt because it remained Marathon Air's property under the lease terms, not part of the leased land itself.
The building is not exempt from ad valorem taxation because it is not part of the leasehold interest. Section 196.199(2)(a) exempts only leasehold interests in property of political subdivisions when the lessee serves a governmental purpose. Since the lease expressly provided that the building remained Marathon Air's property until lease termination, the building is not part of the leased property and therefore not exempt.
[1] A leasehold interest in property owned by a political subdivision is exempt from ad valorem taxation only when the lessee serves a governmental, municipal, or public purp…
[2] A building owned by a lessee, which remains the property of the lessee during the lease term and only becomes the property of the lessor upon termination, is not consider…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Section 196.199(2)(a) grants an exemption of "[l]easehold interests in property '... of the state or any of its several political subdivisions ... from ad valorem taxation only when the lessee serves or performs a governmental, municipal, or public purpose or function, as defined in s. 196.012(6)."”
Establishes the statutory framework for tax exemption—exemption applies to the leasehold interest itself, not to property retained by the lessee
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMonroe County leased airport land to Marathon Air Services for fixed base operator services. Under the lease, Marathon Air constructed a building on t…
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 Challenge To Tax Assessment cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, Judge.
Marathon Air Services, Inc., appeals a trial court order which rejected its challenge to the assessment of ad valorem taxation on a building owned by Marathon. We affirm.
Monroe County owns the Marathon Airport in Marathon, Florida. The County leased airport land to Marathon Air to conduct fixed base operator services at the airport. Marathon Air pays rent to the County based on a formula specified in the lease. In the lease, Marathon Air agreed to build a building on the leased property from which Marathon Air would transact business. Under the lease, the fixed improvements erected by Marathon Air remain the property of Marathon Air during the lease term. Upon termination of the lease, the fixed improvements will become the property of the County.
After the building was constructed the appellee property appraiser placed the building on the tax roll and assessed ad valorem taxes on it. After exhausting administrative remedies Marathon Air brought suit to challenge the assessment. Marathon Air contended that as a fixed base operator, it performs a governmental function and that it enjoys exemption from ad valorem taxation pursuant to section 196.199(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). The trial court held that the building was not exempt and dismissed the action with prejudice.
We conclude that the trial court was correct.
Section 196.199(2)(a) grants an exemption of “[ljeasehold interests in property '... of the state or any of its several political subdivisions ... from ad valorem taxation only when the lessee serves or performs a governmental, municipal, or public purpose or function, as defined in s. 196.012(6).” Id. (footnote omitted).
For present purposes we assume, as did the trial court, that Marathon Air performs a governmental function. Even if that is so, Marathon Air’s building is not part of the leasehold. On the contrary, by the express terms of the lease, the building remains the property of Marathon Air until the conclusion of the lease period. Since the building is not part of the leased property, it is not exempt from ad valorem taxation under section 196.199(2)(a).
See Parker v. Hertz Corp., 544 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
Marathon Air relies on Bell v. Bryan, 505 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 513 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.1987), aff'd after remand, 519 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (judgment of dismissal in favor of lessee), but in that case the lease provided that title to any building erected on the demised premises by lessee would immediately vest in the County. For that reason, the Bell court held that the improvements became part of the leasehold when constructed. Here, the lease provided that title would remain in the lessee, as was true in Parker.
The trial court was entirely correct in denying the exemption. Because that determination is dispositive, we need not reach Marathon Air’s second point on appeal.*
Affirmed.
*
The trial court made an alternative ruling that the exemption was also barred by the final sentence of section 196.199(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1989).
The sentence states that "[n]othing in "this paragraph [ (2)(b) ] shall be deemed to exempt personal property, buildings, or other real property improvements owned by the lessee from ad valorem taxation.” (Emphasis added.) Marathon Air argues that paragraph (2)(b) applies only to nongovernmental leases and since the lease in question is a governmental lease, paragraph (2)(b) does not apply; thus the court improperly ruled that the last sentence of that paragraph barred Marathon Air’s exemption. The property appraiser argues that paragraph (2)(b) is a limitation on paragraph (2)(a), and that the last sentence of paragraph (2)(b) is therefore pertinent. For present purposes we have assumed arguendo that section 196.-199(2)(b) is inapplicable.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Page v. Fernandina Harbor Joint Venture, 608 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ille, 157 Fla. 546, 27 So. 2d 162 (1946); Parker v. Hertz Corporation, 544 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Hialeah, Inc. v. Dade County, 490 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) [rev. denied, 500 So. 2d 544 (Fla.1986)]; Marathon Air Services, Inc. v. Higgs, 575 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Having done so, the Court concludes that plaintiff has neither legal nor equitable title to the Improvements and that the City is the owner of the Improvements. The Court finds that there is only a lessor and lessee relationship…
-
Broward Cnty. v. Eller Drive Ltd. P'ship, 939 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ment property, are not exempt from ad valorem taxation. See 196.199(2)(b), Fla. Stat. Several cases have acknowledged the State’s authority to tax improvements upon real property separate from the land itself. See Marathon Air Servs., Inc. v. Higgs, 575 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (finding that a building constructed on county-owned land was subject to ad valorem taxation since the lease expressly provided that title to fixed improvements would remain in the lessee during the term of the lease); Parker v. H…
Authorities Cited
- Bell v. R.D. Bryan, 505 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Holloman v. Joella Finney Holloman, 544 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Alton B. Parker v. The HERTZ Corp., 544 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Bell v. Bryan, 519 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)