ADAMS JEWERLY COMPANY ET AL.,
v.
CITY OF TAMPA
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.
This case, a companion to Bently-Gray Dry Goods Co. v. City of Tampa, involves a license tax on retailers. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decree based on the same legal principles applied in the Bently-Gray case, which concerned wholesalers.
Yes, the legal principles involved in taxing retailers are substantially the same as those involved in taxing wholesalers, and the tax is permissible.
“The only difference in these cases is that the Bently-Gray Dry Goods Company case involved the license tax required to be paid by wholesalers while this case involves a license tax required to be paid by retailers.”
This quote highlights the factual distinction between the two companion cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Adams Jewelry Company and other retailers were challenging a license tax imposed by the City of Tampa. This case is factually similar to a prior c…
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.
This is a companion case to that of Bently-Gray Dry Goods Co. et al., v. City of Tampa, Florida, etc., opinion and judgment in which case was entered at this term of the Court.
The only difference in these cases is that the Bently-Gray Dry Goods Company case involved the license tax required to be paid by wholesalers while this case involves a license tax required to be paid by retailers. The difference is in factual conditions, but the • principles of law involved are substantially the same. Therefore, on authority of our opinion and judgment in the Bentley-Gray Dry Goods Company case, supra, the decree appealed from in this case is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687 Compiled General Laws of 1927 and Rule 21A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Tampa v. Birdsong Motors, Inc., 261 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)…ng ordinance on wholesale merchants in Tampa, both measured in part by the amount of gross sales made the previous year by the merchant, were expressly upheld by this Court in 1939 against a variety of challenges. Adams Jewelry Co. v. City of Tampa, 137 Fla. 657, 189 So. 29 (1939); Bentley-Gray Dry Goods, Co. v. City of Tampa, 137 Fla. 641, 188 So. 758 (1939). This Court specifically held that the basis for measurement of the Tampa tax is a proper one for a license tax. The “gross receipts” feature of a tax…