DADE COUNTY ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF POLICE, A NON-PROFIT FLORIDA 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 Supreme Court affirmed that the American Federation of Police, a fraternal institution, qualified for tax exemption under Fla. Stat. § 196.191(3) because the statute's inclusion of fraternal purposes was constitutional under Article VII, Section 3(a) of the Florida Constitution.
A fraternal institution qualifies for property tax exemption under Fla. Stat. § 196.191(3) when the statute exempts properties of fraternal institutions, and such exemption is constitutional.
[1] A statute exempting fraternal institution property from taxation is constitutional under Article VII, Section 3(a) of the Florida Constitution.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDade County taxing authorities sought to assess the American Federation of Police, a non-profit fraternal corporation, for ad valorem and tangible per…
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 Tangible Personal Property Taxation cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant taxing authorities contended in a Dade County Circuit Court declaratory judgment proceeding that the appellee fraternal institution was subject to assessment in 1971 for ad valorem and tangible personal property tax purposes. The ap-pellee institution resisted the assessment, claiming that it qualified for exemption from taxation under Fla.Stat. § 196.191 (3) (1969), F.S.A., a statute exempting from taxation certain properties of “educational, literary, benevolent, fraternal, chari-ble and scientific institutions”, depending on their use. In response, the taxing authorities contended that the statute in question was without constitutional validity because Article VII, Section 3(a) of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., did not recognize “fraternal purposes” as being exempt.
We concur in the judgment of the Circuit Court that the statute was constitutional, and further that the appellee was in compliance with it in 1971. In passing, we note that “fraternal” has been deleted from the current wording of the statute; see Fla.Stat. § 196.012(1), F.S.A.
The judgment directly appealed from is hereby affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., and DREW, J. (Retired), concur.
DEKLE, J., dissents with opinion.
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent on the ground that appellee did not as a matter of law factually meet the requirements for exemption under Fla.Stat. § 196.191(3) (1969), F.S.A.
I would remand and direct that the contested property tax be paid by appellee under the factual situation then existing.
DEKLE, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent on the ground that appellee did not as a matter of law factually meet the requirements for exemption under Fla.Stat. § 196.191(3) (1969), F.S.A. I would remand and direct that the contested property tax be paid by appellee under the factual situation then existing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Fed'n of Police, Inc. v. TAX Assessor, 39 Fla. Supp. 61 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1973)…igious, charitable, or governmental use. See §196.012 (1). All reference to “fraternal” use of property as being an exempt purpose has been deleted from the current wording of the statute. See Dade County v. American Federation of Police, Fla. 1972, 268 So. 2d 372. Plaintiff has failed to use its property either “exclusively” or “predominantly” for exempt purposes, as required by the statute. The statute defines “exclusive use of property” as property that is being used 100 percent for exempt purposes. See §…