E. W. WRIGHT, AS TAX COLLECTOR OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAM L. ELCOOK, AS TAX ASSESSOR OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND RAY E. GREEN, AS COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
REYNOLDS FASTENERS, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, 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.
Florida tax collectors and state comptroller appealed a trial court decree ordering return of tangible personal property taxes paid under protest by Reynolds Fasteners. The court reversed, holding that while the property was constitutionally immune from taxation as imports, the taxpayer's claim was barred by failure to comply with Florida's one-year statute of non-claim for claims against counties.
The court held that although the property was constitutionally immune from taxation, the taxpayer's claim for refund was barred by failure to comply with Florida's one-year statute of non-claim for claims against counties. Filing exemption forms is not necessary when property is constitutionally immune from taxation, but the statutory deadline for presenting claims cannot be waived.
“It is conceded that at no time did the plaintiff file the necessary exemption forms, pursuant to § 200.15, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. However, the appellee urges that this was not necessary as the property was immune from taxation, and we agree in accordance with the opinion of the Second District Court of Appeal in Hansen v. Port Everglades Steel Corporation”
Establishes that constitutional immunity from taxation may not require compliance with exemption filing procedures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReynolds Fasteners paid tangible personal property taxes under protest to the Dade County tax collector. All parties agreed the property involved was …
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 Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal, the appellants seek review of a summary final decree upholding the right of the plaintiff in the trial court to secure the return of certain tangible personal property taxes, paid under protest to the appellant tax collector.
All parties agree that the property involved in this cause was immune from taxation as being imports in their original containers, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Constitution. See: Brown v. State of Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L.Ed. 678; Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 632, 639, 18 L.Ed. 904; Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 89 L.Ed. 1252; Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 534, 79 S.Ct. 383, 3 L.Ed.2d 490; Art. I, § 10, Cl. 2, United States Constitution. It is conceded that at no time did the plaintiff file the necessary exemption forms, pursuant to § 200.15, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. However, the appellee urges that this was not necessary as the property was immune from taxation, and we agree in accordance with the opinion of the Second District Court of Appeal in Hansen v. Port Everglades Steel Corporation, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 387. The appellants contend that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by failure to comply with § 95.08, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.1 The appellee urges that the case of the second district, L. O. Hansen v. Port Everglades Steel Corporation, supra, requires an affirmance, but we find it not to be controlling on this point, as § 95.08, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., does not appear to have been considered by that court.
In view of the nature of public revenues and for stability in budget planning, there should be some cut-off date when claims for taxes paid under protest may be returned. This would be in accordance with prior rulings of appellate courts in this State, wherein they have denied recovery for return of taxes when there has been no compliance with the provisions of a non-claim statute. See: Whitehurst v. Hernando County, 91 Fla. 509, 107 So. 627; Kahl v. Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 522; State ex rel. Victor Chemical Works v. Gay, Fla. 1954, 74 So.2d 560. In the latter case, the Supreme Court of Florida said the following:
* * * * * *
“[1] F.S. Section 216.26, F.S.A., is not strictly speaking, a statute of limitations but is more in the nature of a statute of non-claim. The application for refund is required to be made within one year after the right to such refund shall have accrued and if no application has been made, the right to any refund shall be barred.
“[2] In dealing with statutes such as that involved in this case it is essential that we bear in mind that unless there is some statute which authorizes a refund or the filing of a claim for refund, money cannot be refunded or recovered once it has been paid although levied under the authority of an unconstitutional statute. 51 Am.Jur., Taxation, Sec. 1167. ‘The recovery of illegally exacted taxes is solely a matter of governmental grace. In the absence of an authoritative statute, taxes voluntarily, although erroneously, paid cannot be voluntarily refunded, although there may be justice in the claim. * * * Sometimes conditions are annexed to the right to a refund which must be complied with, such as the making of the claim within a specified time. It seems that *701defects in the form of sufficiency of the claim may be waived, but the statutory requirement that the claim be filed in the prescribed time may not be waived.’ 51 Am.Jur., Taxation, Sec. 1179.”
******
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the summary final decree here under review is hereby reversed with directions to dismiss the cause.
Reversed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reynolds Fasteners, Inc. v. Wright, 197 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1967)…McMULLEN, Circuit Judge. This matter is before us on alleged conflict of the decision in this case in the District Court in 184 So. 2d 699 with the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Hansen v. Port Everglades Steel Corporation, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 387. In each of these cases, suit was instituted for a refund of personal property taxes paid under protest which taxe…
-
COE v. ITT Cmty. Dev. Corp., 349 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…Ray, 172 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); when the assessment attempted to tax imports contrary to the United States Constitution, [*657] Hansen v. Port Everglades Steel Corp., 155 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963) and Wright v. Reynolds Fasteners, Inc., 184 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), modified, 197 So. 2d 295 (Fla.1967); and when the assessment included exempt property, Walden v. University of Tampa, Inc., 304 So. 2d 134 (Fla.2d DCA 1974), cert. den., 315 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1975). We do not conceive that ITT’s…
-
Wright v. Reynolds Fasteners, Inc., 198 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on March 22, 1966 (184 So. 2d 699) reversing the summary final decree of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, with directions to dismiss the cause; and Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed…
Authorities Cited
- Brown and Others, 12 Wheat. 419 (U.S. 1827)
- Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (U.S. 1945)
- Hamilton Co. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 632 (U.S. 1867)
- State Ex rel. Victor Chem. Works v. GAY, 74 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1954)
- Hansen v. Port Everglades Steel Corp., 155 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Whitehurst v. Hernando Cnty., 91 Fla. 509 (Fla. 1926)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1959)
- Turnipseed v. Turnipseed, 162 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Kahl v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Dade Cnty., 162 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)