J. M. LEE, AS COMPTROLLER,
v.
HOLSUM-MIAMI CORPORATION, ET AL.
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court judgment rejecting the Comptroller's attempt to extend a chain store tax under Chapter 16848 (Acts of 1935) to hotels and bars. The court held that hotels are separately regulated and taxed under different statutes, and bars operated as hotel incidents fall under the comprehensive alcoholic beverage tax scheme, not the chain store tax.
The court held that the chain store tax does not extend to hotels or bars. Hotels are subject to a complete regulatory and tax scheme under separate statutes (Chapter 3353, Compiled General Laws of 1937, and Chapter 17062, Acts of 1935). Bars operated in connection with hotels fall within the comprehensive alcoholic beverage tax scheme of Chapter 16774 (Acts of 1935), not the chain store tax.
“We find nothing in Chapter 16848 that could be construed as extending its taxing provisions to hotels. Hotels as such have been repeatedly defined by the statutes of this State and the laws defining them have provided a complete scheme for their regulation and taxation.”
Establishes that the chain store tax statute does not apply to hotels, which are governed by separate comprehensive statutory schemes.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Comptroller sought to enforce the chain store tax provisions of Chapter 16848 (Acts of 1935) against defendants operating not only restaurants, ca…
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.
facts presented and the questions raised in this case are similar to those raised and urged in Lee, Comptroller, v. The Cloverleaf, Inc., et al., decided this date.
In addition to restaurants, cafes, cafeterias, lunch counters, and sandwich stands, it is' contended that some of the defendants in this case were operating hotels and bars that *441were amenable to the tax brought in question. The court below found as a matter of fact that the Comptroller had announced his intention to enforce the taxing provisions of Chapter 166848, Acts of 1935, against hotels and bars a's well as restaurants, cafes, cafeterias, lunch counters, and sandwich stands.
We find nothing in Chapter 16848 that could be construed as extending its taxing provisions to hotels. Hotels as such have been repeatedly defined by the statutes of this State and the laws defining them have provided a complete scheme for their regulation and taxation. Chapter 3353, Compiled General Laws of 1937, and Chapter 17062, Acts of 1935.
We find nothing in the bill of complaint with reference to bars except those operated in connection with the hotel, a large part of the patronage of which consists in dispensing drinks with the meals. Chapter 16774, Acts of 1935, provides a complete scheme for manufacturing, selling, and taxing alcoholic beverages of all kinds wherever sold. The tax imposed by this Act was considerable, it was imposed by the same Legislature that imposed the chain store tax and we find nothing in the Act laying the latter ,tax that would indicate a purpose to extend it to bars operated as an incident to the hotel.
All other questions raised are concluded by what we said in J. M. Lee, Comptroller, v. The Cloverleaf, Inc., et al., decided this date.
The judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Buford, J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lee v. The Nunnally Co., 141 Fla. 360 (Fla. 1940)…re Tax Act’ as ‘stores,’ particularly in so far as restaurants, cafeterias and cafes are concerned, in view of privilege tax imposed on them by prior statute (Acts 1933, Chap. 16042; Acts 1935, Chap. 16848).” And in Lee v. Holsum-Miami Corporation, 130 Fla. 440, 177 Sou. 724, we held: “Hotels with bars operated as an incident thereto from which a large part of the patronage of the hotel is secured by reason of the drinks dispensed with meals are not subject to a privilege tax under the Chain Store Tax Act…
-
Lee v. Jacksonville Gas Co., 138 Fla. 890 (Fla. 1939)…el for appellees, viz.: Borrego v. Lee, 132 Fla. 49, 180 So. 343; DeLuxe Package House v. Lee, 132 Fla. 54, 180 So. 345; Weiss v. Lee, 132 Fla. 56, 180 So. 345; Lee v. The Cloverleaf, Inc., 130 Fla. 435, 177 So. 722; Lee v. Holsum-Miami Corporation, 130 Fla. 440, 177 So. 724; Liggett Drug Store v. Lee, 126 Fla. 359, 171 So. 326; Toxaway Hotel Co. v. Smathers & Co., 216 U. S. 439, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 263, 54 L. Ed. 558. We do not think these authorities' throw much light on the question now before the Court. T…