STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES E. BROCK, RUEL L. BRADLEY, JR., RALPH GIMEL, BILL BOND, JR., MARY ANN RICHARDSON, GEORGE D. GABEL, JR., AND JACK B. HEALAND, JR., AS TRUSTEES OF THE FLORIDA HOTEL-MOTEL SELF INSURERS FUND, APPELLEES
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 State of Florida appeals a summary judgment awarding tax refunds and post-judgment interest to trustees of the Florida Hotel-Motel Self Insurers Fund, challenging the Department of Revenue's tax assessment interpretation. The court affirms the refund and post-judgment interest award, holding that the Fund was entitled to a salary credit under Florida Statutes that reduced their premium tax obligation.
The Fund is entitled to the salary credit in calculating their premium tax obligation and is entitled to a refund of the overpayment. Additionally, the Fund is entitled to post-judgment interest on the refund amount because this is a final money judgment.
[1] A self-insurers fund is entitled to a salary credit when calculating its premium tax obligation.
[2] A final money judgment for a tax refund includes entitlement to post-judgment interest.
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“appellees are entitled to the salary credit and to a refund of the overpayment of tax resulting from calculating their tax obligation without accounting for that credit”
Establishes the core holding that the Fund is entitled to apply the salary credit and receive a refund
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Revenue assessed a premium tax on the Florida Hotel-Motel Self Insurers Fund under section 624.509, Florida Statutes (1989), calcula…
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 Post-Judgment Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
The State of Florida appeals a final summary judgment ruling that appel-lees/plaintiffs below were entitled to a tax refund with interest. The dispute over the tax assessment was based upon the Department of Revenue’s interpretation that section 440.57(7), Florida Statutes (1989), obligated the Florida Hotel-Motel Self Insurers Fund to pay the premium tax in section 624.509, Florida Statutes (1989), without entitlement to the salary credit provided in section 624.509(5). For the reasons expressed in our opinion in State of Florida, Dep’t of Revenue v. Central Dade Malpractice Trust Fund, 673 So. 2d 899, released on this date, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that appel-lees are entitled to the salary credit and to a refund of the overpayment of tax resulting from calculating their tax obligation without accounting for that credit.
We also affirm the trial court’s conclusion that appellees are entitled to post-judgment interest on that amount. Unlike the circumstance in Kuhnlein v. Department of Revenue, 662 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1995), this is a final money judgment, and therefore there is now an entitlement to post-judgment interest. In that ease the Florida Supreme Court expressly ruled that there is no entitlement to prejudgment interest on a tax refund, but did not hold that there cannot be post-judgment interest on a tax refund. Instead, the court stated that it was affirming the denial of post-judgment interest because there was not yet a final money judgment, and relinquished jurisdiction to the circuit court for entry of a final order. See also Dryden v. Madison County, Florida, 672 So. 2d 840, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We affirm appellees’ entitlement to post-judgment interest. See Palm Beach County v. Town of Palm Beach, 579 So. 2d 719 (Fla.1991).
AFFIRMED.
ZEHMER, C.J., and BARFIELD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spring Lake Improvement Dist. v. Tyrrell, 814 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ffected landowners. Prejudgment Interest The case of Kuhnlein v. Department of Revenue, 662 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1995), holds that there is no entitlement to prejudgment interest in an action to recover a tax refund. See also Dep’t of Revenue v. Brock, 673 So. 2d 902, 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse that por [*1081] tion of the final judgment awarding prejudgment interest. As in Brock, we note that although there is no entitlement to an award of prejudgment interest, because there is now a final…
-
Kuhnlein v. Dep't OF Revenue, 689 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1997)…eld from the taxpayer. We decide the issue in this ease by again noting that there is not a final money judgment. Therefore, section 55.03, Florida Statutes, does not apply in this case. We distinguish this case from Department of Revenue v. Brock, 673 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 682 So. 2d 1099 (Fla.1996); and Palm Beach County v. Town of Palm Beach, 579 So. 2d 719 (Fla.1991), based on the fact that there were final money judgments in those cases. In this case, we find the reasoning of Mailm…
Authorities Cited
- Kuhnlein v. Dep't OF Revenue, 662 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1995)
- Palm Beach Cnty. v. Town OF Palm Beach, 579 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1991)
- Quinton Dryden v. Madison Cnty., 672 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- State v. Cent. Dade Malpractice Tr. Fund, 673 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)