AM FI INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
JACK KINNEY, ZEARL LANCASTER, MARVIN G. BECK, CHARLES DEESE AND KENNETH KELSON, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA AND ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA: 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 that two special acts providing for repayment to Santa Rosa Island leaseholders of ad valorem taxes paid during 1972-1974 violated the state constitution by providing an indirect tax exemption and impermissible refund of lawfully paid taxes.
The special acts violate Article VII, Section 32 and Article III, Section 11(a)(8) of the Florida Constitution and are invalid. All property used for private purposes must bear its just share of the tax burden for local government and education, with only constitutionally enumerated exceptions permitted.
[1] Special acts providing for the repayment of ad valorem taxes to leaseholders on private property violate the Florida Constitution by creating an indirect tax exemption no…
[2] The Florida Constitution requires that all property used for private purposes bear its just share of the tax burden for local government and education, absent specific co…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the Florida Constitution requires that all property used for private purposes bear its just share of the tax burden for the support of local government and education, with certain exceptions specifically enumerated in the constitution”
Establishes the fundamental constitutional principle that private property must share the tax burden except for specific enumerated exceptions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChapters 76-368 and 76-371 of the Florida Special Acts authorized Escambia County to repay leaseholders on Santa Rosa Island an amount equal to all ad…
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 Special Law cases and more on FLexlaw
HATCHETT, Justice.
Chapters 76-368 and 76-371, Laws of Florida, Special Acts, provide for repayment by the county to leaseholders on Santa Rosa Island an amount equal to all ad valorem taxes, for county and school purposes paid by them on their possessory interests from 1972 through 1974.1 The trial court found that these acts violated the state constitution, and granted final summary judgment for appellees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution (1968). We affirm the trial court’s order holding these special acts to be unconstitutional on the grounds that they provide for an indirect exemption from ad valorem taxes not authorized by our state constitution and provide for refund to leaseholders of ad valorem taxes lawfully paid during 1972, 1973, and 1974.
Recently, in Archer v. Marshall, 355 So. 2d 781 (Fla.1978), we determined that a similar special act was unconstitutional because it unlawfully provided for an indirect exemption from ad valorem taxes for certain leaseholders on Santa Rosa Island. There, we also concurred in the trial court’s conclusion that the legislative determination which found the county to have been unjustly enriched in an amount equal to the ad valorem taxes paid by island leaseholders had no reasonable foundation in fact. The act held unconstitutional in Archer in volved á reduction in future rental payments for leaseholders in amounts equal to ad valorem taxes paid by them during the previous year. The special acts involved in this case involve retroactive payment of tax monies paid or owing by Santa Rosa Island leaseholders for 1972 through 1974. The trial court recognized that this court had previously held in Straughn v. Camp, 293 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1974) that the Santa Rosa Island leasehold interests were not performing or serving a public purpose. The trial court further determined that the overall effect of these two special acts is to relieve the Island leaseholders from ad valorem tax burdens for these previous years. We agree with the trial court that the Florida Constitution requires that all property used for private purposes bear its just share of the tax burden for the support of local government and education, with certain exceptions specifically enumerated in the constitution.
Accordingly, for these reasons and the reasons set forth at length in Archer, we affirm the trial court’s order and hold Chapters 76-368 and 76-371, Laws of Florida, Special Acts, violate Article VII, Section 32 and Article III, Section 11(a)(8),3 Florida Constitution (1968), and are invalid.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. . In addition, the county is directed by these acts to reimburse all penalties and interest incurred for late payment of these taxes.
. Article VII, Section 3. Taxes; exemptions.—
(a) All property owned by a municipality and used exclusively by it for municipal or public purposes shall be exempt from taxation. A municipality, owning property outside the municipality, may be required by general law to make payment to the taxing unit in which the property is located. Such portions of property as are used predominantly for educational, literary, scientific, religious or charitable purposes may be exempted by general law from taxation.
(b) There shall be exempt from taxation, cumulatively, to every head of a family residing in this state, household goods and personal effects to the value fixed by general law, not less than one thousand dollars, and to every widow or person who is blind or totally and permanently disabled, property to the value fixed by general law not less than five hundred dollars.
. Article III, Section 11(a)(8) provides:
(a) There shall be no special law or general law of local application pertaining to:
(8) refund of money legally paid or remission of fines, penalties or forfeitures.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Ervin Higgs, 468 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…n 3 of the Florida Constitution by providing an exemption from ad valorem taxation. Unlike the special acts invalidated by the Florida Supreme Court in Archer v. Marshall, 355 So. 2d 781 (Fla. [*377] 1978) and Am Fi Investment Corporation v. Kinney, 360 So. 2d 415 (Fla.1978), chapter 80-368 does not exempt leasehold interests in government property from taxation, but instead imposes an ad valorem intangible personal property tax on them. No exemption is created by the fact that such interests are taxed at the…
-
Lewis Y. and Betty T. Ward v. Brown, 919 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…ecial Act 76-361’s constitutionality reached our supreme court, however, the court “h[e]ld [*468] that Chapter 76-361 ... violates Article VII, Section 3, Florida Constitution (1968), and is invalid.” Id. at 785. See also Am Fi Inv. Corp. v. Kinney, 360 So. 2d 415, 415 (Fla.1978) (invalidating two “similar special act[s]” because they also were intended to “provide for an indirect exemption from ad valorem taxes not authorized by our state constitution and provide for refund to leaseholders of ad valorem taxe…
-
Accardo v. Brown, 63 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…he special act was unconstitutional because it provided for an indirect exemption from ad valorem taxes that was not authorized by the Florida Constitution. See Archer v. Marshall, 355 So. 2d 781, 781 (Fla.1978); see also Am Fi Inv. Corp. v. Kinney, 360 So. 2d 415, 415-16 (Fla.1978). In 1980, the Legislature enacted section 196.199(2)(b), Florida Statutes, which provides in part that a “leasehold or other interest shall be taxed only as intangible personal property ... if rental payments are due in considera…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Straughn v. Lindley M. Camp, 293 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1974)
- Archer v. Seymour J. Marshall, 355 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1978)