J. M. LEE, STATE COMPTROLLER,
v.
STATE EX REL. WALGREEN DRUG COMPANY
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 held that when a chain store operator expands operations and moves into a higher tax classification under the state's chain store license tax statute, the new stores must be licensed at the higher rate applicable to the new classification, even if opened mid-year. The court rejected the operator's argument for pro-rated licensing and found the statute unambiguous on this point.
When an operator moves into a higher classification, he is subject to the rate imposed for operating in the latter class. For the twelfth store opened in February after more than half the license year had expired, the operator should be permitted to pay on a pro-rated basis in equity, but the statute contains no provision for fractional licenses and therefore is controlling.
“when an operator moves from one class into another, he is subject to the rate imposed for operating in the latter class.”
Establishes the primary holding that changing classifications triggers the new class's tax rate
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalgreen Drug Company secured a Class 4 license on July 1, 1938, to operate ten stores at $200 per store. When the company opened an eleventh store in…
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.
On July 1, 1938, Appellee secured a license from appellant as provided by Class 4, Subdivision A, Section 4, Chapter 16848, Acts of 1935, to operate ten retail stores, the price exacted being $200 each store.
October 1, 1938, appellee opened an additional store, making eleven stores and bringing his business within’ Class 5, Subdivision A, Section 4 of the same Act. When the eleventh store was opened, appellee remitted to appellant the sum of $300.50, as license tax for operating said store. In February, 1939, appellee opened a twelfth store and applied to appellant for a half-year license remitting with his application the sum of $150.50 in payment thereof. In both the latter cases, appellant issued a permit to operate but refused to issue the license requested because of the alleged inadequacy of the amount remitted.
Alternative writ of mandamus was directed to appellant as respondent commanding him to issue the license on the basis requested or show cause why he refused to do so. A motion to quash the alternative writ was denied, peremptory writ was awarded and this writ of error was prosecuted.
The question for determination may be stated as follows: When the operator of a chain of stores secures a license under Class 4, Sublivision' A, Section 4, Chapter 16848, Acts of 1935, and later in' the license year opens two more stores, the effect of which is to move him into Class 5, Subdivision A, Section 4, of the same Act, should the license to operate the new stores be prorated under Class 5 or *536must he secure a new license for all his stores under that class ?
Chapter 16848, Acts of 1935, imposes a license tax for the privilege of engaging in the chain store business but the issuance of the license creates no contract right. The tax is graduated according to the number of stores operated. If an operator has not less than six n'or more than ten stores, he falls under Class 4, Subdivision A, of Section 4 of the Act, and pays a tax of $200 per store, while if he operates more than ten stores and not exceeding fifteen, he falls in Class 5, same subdivision; and pays a tax of $300 per store. The classification therefore governs the rate of taxation so we are driven to the conclusion that when an operator moves from one class into another, he is subject to the rate imposed for operating in the latter class.
Under Chapter 16848, Acts of 1936, the license year begins on July 1. When relator opened his twelfth store in February, more than half the license year had expired. He did not move into a different class and in equity should be permitted to pay his license for operating the twelfth store on’ the basis of one-half year, but Chapter 16848 makes no provision for fractional licenses as some other license laws do. It is the controlling law on the question and we are not authorized to change it.
Reversed.
Buford and Thomas, J. 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 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. Walgreen Drug Stores Co., 151 Fla. 648 (Fla. 1942)…of Dade County from proceeding with a sale of plaintiff’s property to enforce the payment of a tax sought to be enforced under the provisions of Chapter 16848, Acts of 1935, defendants appeal. In the case of Lee v. State ex rel. Walgreen Drug Co., 142 Fla. 534, 195 So. 166, the same tax involved which is the subject of this suit and in that case we said: “The question for determination may be stated as follows: When the operator of a chain of stores secures a license under Class 4, Subdivision A, Section…