JAR CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
W. WIRT CULBERTSON, TAX ASSESSOR OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA ET AL., 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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision denying a taxpayer's claim for agricultural property tax exemption. The court held that strict compliance with statutory filing deadlines is required to receive such a special tax benefit.
No, a taxpayer is not entitled to the agricultural property tax exemption if they fail to strictly comply with all statutory conditions, including the April 1st filing deadline.
[1] A taxpayer seeking an exemption from normal property assessment rates must strictly comply with all statutory conditions to receive special treatment.
[2] Failure to file a timely return notifying county officials of the intent to claim agricultural use benefits under the "green belt law" precludes entitlement to the exempt…
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“Requiring a return containing a notice of intention to claim lands as agricultural in order to claim benefits of Fla.Stat.1967, § 193.201, F.S.A. by April 1st of each year, per Fla.Stat.1967, § 193.12, F.S.A., is not an unreasonable construction of the statutes.”
This quote establishes the court's view on the reasonableness of the statutory filing requirement.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe taxpayer, JAR CORPORATION, sought an exemption from normal property tax assessment under Florida's "green belt law." The taxpayer failed to notify…
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 appellant a taxpayer, sought an exemption from the normal rate of assessment on his real property, pursuant to the provisions of F.S.1967, § 193.201, F.S.A., known as the “green belt law”, subsequent to April 1st of the taxing year. Without the taxpayer notifying the County officials by proper return that he desired to receive the benefits of the statute, the property was assessed on the tax rolls of the County in accordance with the applicable principles of assessment, and no contention was made in the trial court that as assessed there was any error in the valuation placed thereon. It was the taxpayer’s position in the trial court and in this court that it was entitled to the benefits of the exemption statute, notwithstanding its admitted failure to file the return of agricultural use by April 1st of the taxing year. The trial court entered a summary judgment denying any relief to the taxpayer. We affirm.
The taxpayer sought an exception from the full valuation assessment, which is accorded to those engaged in bona fide agricultural purposes, pursuant to F. S.1967, § 193.201, F.S.A. The burden was on the taxpayer to show entitlement to the special exception exemption [Harper v. England, 124 Fla. 296, 168 So. 403, Green v. Pederson, Fla.1957, 99 So.2d 292; Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the United States of America, Miami Lodge No. 948 v. Dade County, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 605; Stiles v. Brown, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 672; 31 Fla.Jur., Taxation, § 144; 23 F.L.P., Taxtion, § 115], Requiring a return containing a notice of intention to claim lands as agricultural in order to claim benefits of Fla.Stat.1967, § 193.201, F.S.A. by April 1st of each year, per Fla.Stat.1967, § 193.12, F.S.A., is not an unreasonable construction of the statutes. And, we hold that in order for a taxpayer to receive a benefit different in kind from other taxpayers it is necessary for him to strictly comply with all conditions which would be necessary to entitle him to the special treatment.
Therefore, the summary judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robbins v. Yusem, 559 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…tated: “[I]n order for a taxpayer to receive a benefit different in kind from other taxpayers, it is necessary for him to strictly comply with all conditions which would be necessary to entitle him to the special treatment.” Jar Corp. v. Culbertson, 246 So. 2d 144, 145 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 249 So. 2d 690 (Fla.1971). Where, as here, the use of the property for commercial agriculture was prohibited by law and therefore was not in “good faith” as required by the Greenbelt Law, the Property Appraiser’s d…
-
Lauderdale v. Blake, 351 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…atutory provision and the facts in the appeals sub judice, we agree with the trial court that appellants’ requests for agricultural classification of their property for ad valorem tax purposes were properly denied. See Jar Corporation v. Culbertson, 246 So. 2d 144 (Fla.3d DCA 1971); and Haines v. St. Petersburg Methodist Home, Inc., 173 So. 2d 176 (Fla.2d DCA 1965). Further, we have considered the other points raised on appeal and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the summary final judgments…
-
Daniel v. Lynn, 393 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…a Statutes (1979)), is a prerequisite to obtaining agricultural assessment for the year in question. Doyle v. Askew, 341 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Blake v. R.M.S. Holding Corp., 341 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Jar Corporation v. Culbertson, 246 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Thus, appellee’s failure to timely apply for agricultural classification for the tax year 1977 by filing a return by March 1 of that year waived agricultural classification for 1977. We find nothing inconsistent with this hold…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harper v. England, 124 Fla. 296 (Fla. 1936)
- Green v. Pederson, 99 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1957)
- Stiles v. Brown, 177 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- D & G, Inc. v. Pac. Indem. Co., 166 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Benevolent & Protective Order OF Elks OF the United States OF Am. v. Dade Cnty., 166 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)