DELUXE PACKAGE HOUSE, INC.,
v.
J. M. LEE, AS STATE COMPTROLLER
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 reversed a lower court's decision, holding that the state comptroller could not impose a license tax on a liquor vendor for failing to sell meals and other restaurant items. The court found this requirement was an incident to the main business and not a basis for an additional tax.
No, the state comptroller cannot impose such a tax. The requirement to sell meals and other restaurant items is incidental to the main business and not a basis for an additional tax, especially when the license explicitly prohibits such sales.
“In the last cited case, Appellants were licensed to operate a retail liquor vending business under Classification 4, Section 5, of Chapter 16774, Acts of 1935, by which authority liquors are sold for consumption on the premises.”
Describes the factual background of a related case that informs the current decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was licensed to sell liquor in sealed containers for off-premises consumption, a business where food sales are not permitted. The state …
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.
The facts presented and the questions raised in this case are similar to those raised and urged in the case: of Henry Borrego and Tom Borrego v. Lee, as Comptroller, decided this date. There is this difference in the factual situation. In the last cited case, Appellants were licensed to operate a retail liquor vending business under Classification 4, Section 5, of Chapter 16774, Acts of 1935, by which authority liquors are sold for consumption on the premises.
Paragraph “f” of Section 10 of said Act requires that all such licensees prepare and offer for sale in connection with their liquor business meals and other articles custom*55arily sold in a restaurant. We held in the last cited case that this requirement being a mere incident to the main business and there being nothing in the Act to show that the store license was intended to be imposed for it, that under authority of Lee v. Cloverleaf, Inc., et al., decided December 22, 1937, there was no authority- to impose it.
In this case, Appellant is licensed under Classification 3 of Section 5, Chapter 16774, to operate a retail liquor business exclusively by means of sealed containers to be consumed off the premises and where foods or other articles are not sold. There is nothing in this state of facts that would change the rule as announced in Henry Borrego and Tom Borrego v. Lee, supra, so the judgment below is reversed on authority of that case.
Reversed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown and Ci-iapman, J. J., concur.
Buford, J., concurs specially.
(concurring specially).—I concur in the views expressed by Mr. Justice Terrell and the companion case. It must be borne in mind that a very large portion of the gross receipts on liquor sales is for federal and state taxes which taxes are thus passed on to the consumer and to this extent the dealer is in effect a tax collector. I doubt that one may be required to pay a tax on the amount of the tax thus passed on to the consumer.
Brown, J., concurs.
Buford, J.
(concurring specially).—I concur in the views expressed by Mr. Justice Terrell and the companion case. It must be borne in mind that a very large portion of the gross receipts on liquor sales is for federal and state taxes which taxes are thus passed on to the consumer and to this extent the dealer is in effect a tax collector. I doubt that one may be required to pay a tax on the amount of the tax thus passed on to the consumer. Brown, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lee v. Jacksonville Gas Co., 138 Fla. 890 (Fla. 1939)…red by State Law to be registered so long as a State license is required for such registration.” We have examined the following authorities cited by counsel 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. Smat…1 / 2