PHILIP C. OWEN, CHARTERED, A FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 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 tax statutes imposing penalties must be strictly construed against the taxing authority, and any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer.
Appellant was assessed penalties for failing to file emergency excise tax (EET) returns for two years when no tax was owed. The trial court upheld the…
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 Strict Construction Of Tax Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a judgment on the pleadings upholding an assessment of penalties against appellant for failure to file emergency excise tax (EET) returns for two years during which appellant owed no EET. We agree with appellee that Sections 221.04(1), 220.22(1), 214.40(2), and 214.40(4), Florida Statutes, could be read in pari materia as having required appellant to file annual EET returns, regardless of the fact that appellant owed no such tax for the two years.
Statutes imposing taxes and penalties, however, must be strictly construed against the taxing authority, and any ambiguity in the provisions of a tax statute must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. See Mikos v. Ringling Brothers, Barnun and Bailey Combined Shows, Inc., 497 So. 2d 630, 632 (Fla.1986); Florida Hi-Lift v. Department of Revenue, 571 So. 2d 1364, 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Florida S & L Services, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 443 So. 2d 120, 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Appellant should not have had to read four different subsections from three different chapters in pari materia to determine whether it would be liable for penalties for failure to file EET returns for years during which no EET was owed.1
The final judgment appealed from is reversed, and this cause is remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., dissents without written opinion.
. Appellee has not directed our attention to any Florida Administrative Code provision which would be of assistance to the taxpayer in reconciling the above-referenced statutes. We are aware, however, that Section 214.40 was amended and renumbered by Chapter 91-112, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1991, for inclusion in Section 220.801, Florida Statutes.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Bell, 606 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ire a finding of fault.12 For this reason, in addition to the other basis of section 440.20 inapplicability, the penalty award should be reversed. In all other respects, I concur in the opinion. . Philip C. Owen, Chartered v. Department of Revenue, 597 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Gardinier, Inc. v. Department of Pollution Control, 300 So. 2d 75, 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Turner v. Department of Professional Regulation, 591 So. 2d 1136, 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). . 70 C.J.S. Penalties § 2 at 107 (1992). .…
-
Verizon Bus. Purchasing, LLC v. State, 164 So. 3d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…enactment. Id. Statutes imposing taxes and penalties must be strictly construed against the taxing authority and any ambiguity in the provision of a tax statute must be resolved in the taxpayer’s favor. Philip C. Owen, Chartered v. Dep’t of Revenue, 597 So. 2d 380, 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). As we explained, section 95.091(3)(a)l.b., Florida Statutes (2010), provides that the Department may “determine and assess the amount of any tax, penalty, or interest due under any tax enumerated in s. 72.011” “within 3 ye…
-
Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists v. Tucker, 652 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…employment compensation tax. Taxing statutes should be construed strictly against the taxing authority. Mikos v. Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc., 497 So. 2d 630, 632 (Fla.1986); Philip C. Owen, Chartered v. Department of Revenue, 597 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Florida Hi-Lift v. Department of Revenue, 571 So. 2d 1364, 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Instead, the majority has spurned accepted principles in order to impose a tax the statutes do not. I respectfully dissent. . While different…
Authorities Cited
- Mikos v. Ringling BROS.-BARNUM & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc., 497 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1986)
- Perez v. State, 443 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Florida Hi-Lift v. Dep't OF Revenue, 571 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)