Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a dispute between Pinellas County and Pasco County in Florida. Pinellas County owns approximately 12,400 acres of real estate in neighboring Pasco County. Although Pinellas County once paid ad valorem taxes to Pasco County for the property, it now asserts that sovereign immunity relieves it of that obligation. Pinellas County filed a lawsuit against the Pasco County Property Appraiser, seeking a judgment declaring the property immune from ad valorem taxes and an injunction prohibiting future assessment and collection of such taxes.The trial court ruled in favor of Pinellas County, holding that as a political subdivision of the state, Pinellas County is entitled to sovereign immunity, which includes immunity from the ad valorem taxation of its properties, regardless of whether those properties are located within the boundaries of Pinellas County or in another county within the state of Florida. The Pasco County Property Appraiser appealed this decision.The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling. The district court noted that each county has statutory and constitutional authority to assess ad valorem taxes on “all property in the county.” The district court also rejected Pinellas County’s primary contention that its immunity from taxation extends beyond its own borders, noting that Pinellas County had not identified any supporting authority.The Supreme Court of Florida disagreed with Pinellas County's argument that its property in Pasco County was not taxable based on principles of sovereign immunity. The court held that although a county’s real property is immune from that county’s own efforts to assess ad valorem taxes, Pinellas County has not identified any authority recognizing an immunity from taxation of the county’s property located beyond its territorial boundaries. Therefore, the court concluded that sovereign immunity does not shield a county from the obligation of paying ad valorem taxes for property owned by that county but located outside its territorial boundaries. The court approved the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal. View "Pinellas County, Florida v. Joiner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court approved the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal invalidating the decision of a property appraiser assessing back taxes after discovering his purported clerical error in undervaluing and undertaxing a taxpayer's property, holding that the district court did not err.After discovering valuation errors, the property appraiser reassessed the taxpayer's property and sent her a bill for back taxes. The taxpayer brought this action to obtain aa judgment declaring the invalidity of the back-assessment. The trial court ruled against the taxpayer. The Second District reversed, concluding that the property had not "escaped taxation," which is a prerequisite for a property appraiser's authority to assess back taxes under Fla. Stat. 193.092(1). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 193.092(1) did not give the property appraiser authority to back-assess the taxpayer's property. View "Furst v. DeFrances" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court struck in its entirety an amendment to the Hillsborough County Charter adopted in an initiative election that approved a transportation surtax and directives for allocating the tax proceeds, holding that the spending directives were unconstitutional.The charter amendment at issue enacted a one percent transportation sales surtax and included various provisions governing the use and distribution of the tax's proceeds. Here, the Supreme Court reviewed the circuit court's judgment validating the Hillsborough County Commission's authorization of the issuance of bonds to be funded by a portion of the proceeds of the surtax. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court to the extent that it upheld the validity of any portion of the amendment, holding that core provisions of the amendment were inconsistent with the surtax statute and because the invalid provisions and the remaining provisions of the amendment form an interlocking plan, the amendment was unconstitutional in its entirety. View "Emerson v. Hillsborough County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court judgment denying validation of revenue bonds, holding that Halifax Hospital Medical Center, a special tax district, was not authorized to carry out the project for which it sought to issue the bonds.Halifax sought validation of bonds that it intended to issue for the purpose of financing the construction of a hospital outside the geographic boundaries established in the special act creating Halifax. The circuit court denied the complaint for bond validation on the grounds that Halifax lacked the authority operate a facility outside its geographical boundaries. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly denied the bond validation because neither Halifax's enabling act nor the Interlocal Act gave Halifax the authority to operate outside its geographic boundaries. View "Halifax Hospital Medical Center v. State" on Justia Law

For purposes of applying the municipal or public purposes tax exemption contained in Fla. Const. art. VII, section 3(a), a public marina owned and operated by a municipality is a traditional municipal function that carries a presumption of tax-exempt status.The owners of a private marina in Fort Pierce filed a complaint challenging the tax-exempt status of the Fort Pierce City Marina and the Fisherman’s Wharf Marina. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief on the basis that the property appraiser unconstitutionally granted ad valorem tax exemptions to the two marina properties owned and operated by the City of Fort Pierce and the Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency (the City). The trial court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs, determining that neither of the City marinas qualified for the constitutional tax exemption. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that municipal marinas are traditionally considered exempt from taxation. The Supreme Court approved the decision below, holding that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to rebut the presumption that the municipally-owned properties that were used exclusively by the City to provide traditional municipal functions were constitutionally exempt from ad valorem taxation. View "Treasure Coast Marina, LC v. City of Fort Pierce" on Justia Law

The Communications Services Tax (CST) imposed a 6.8 percent tax rate on cable service and a 10.8 percent tax rate on satellite service. DIRECTV, Inc. and Echostar, LLC filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment holding the sales tax provision in the CST unconstitutional, a permanent injunction against enforcement of the provision, and a refund of taxes paid pursuant to the provision. The trial court found that the CST does not violate the Commerce Clause. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the CST is invalid because it favors communications that use local infrastructure and therefore has a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the CST is not discriminatory in either its purpose or its effect and therefore does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. View "Florida Department of Revenue v. DirecTV, Inc." on Justia Law

Relying on the reputations of Defendants, Plaintiffs, the owners of one of South Florida’s largest general contractors, initiated a custom adjustable rate debt structure (CARDS) transaction. The IRS later issued notices of deficiency disallowing tax deductions based on the CARDS transaction on Plaintiffs’ federal tax returns on the ground that the CARDS transaction lacked economic substance. The tax court upheld the notice of deficiency. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a diversity action against Defendants in a federal district court alleging several tax law claims. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the statute of limitations on Plaintiffs’ claims had run. Plaintiffs appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit certified a question of state law to the Supreme Court regarding whether Plaintiffs’ claims accrued at the time the IRS issued the notice of deficiency or when Plaintiffs’ underlying dispute with the IRS was concluded or final. The Supreme Court held that Taxpayers’ claims accrued at the time their action in the tax court became final, and that action became final ninety days after the tax court’s judgment, at the expiration of the time period for an appeal of that judgment. View "Kipnis v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank" on Justia Law

The First District held that Panama Commons’ right to due process was violated by applying the 2013 repeal of the ad valorem tax exemption under section 196.1978, Florida Statutes (2012), to the 2013 tax year. The court reversed and remanded, holding that applying the repeal to Panama Commons for the 2013 tax year does not violate due process. In this case, Panama Commons’ right to the tax exemption under section 196.1978 had not vested before the Legislature repealed the exemption for limited partnerships in 2013. View "Sowell v. Panama Commons L.P." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the Department's issuance of a proposed tax assessment on American Business, for taxes and interest on the company’s internet sales transactions. The tax assessment was issued by the Department to American Business pursuant to section 212.05(1)(l) of the Florida Statutes. The court concluded that section 212.05(l) does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause as applied to American Business’s internet sales of flowers, gift baskets, and other tangible personal property where all four prongs of the Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady test have been satisfied. The court further concluded that no due process violation is present on the facts of this case where American Business’s activities have a substantial nexus to Florida. Accordingly, the court quashed the Fourth District's decision to the extent that it holds that the assessment of sales tax on sales of flowers, gift baskets, and other items of tangible personal property ordered by out-of-state customers for out-of-state delivery violates the dormant Commerce Clause. View "Florida Dept. of Revenue v. American Business USA Corp." on Justia Law

The Florida Development Finance Corporation (FDFC), a corporate and political entity, filed a complaint in the circuit court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County seeking to determine the validity of a series of bonds proposed to be issued to finance qualifying improvements pursuant to the Property Assessed Clean Energy Act (PACE Act). After a hearing, the circuit court validated the PACE bonds. The Florida Bankers Association (FBA) and Robert Reynolds, a property owner in Leon County, appealed the bond validation. The Supreme court (1) dismissed the appeal brought by FBA, as FBA had no standing to appear in this appeal; and (2) affirmed the circuit court’s amended final judgment validating the FDFC special assessment revenue bonds but remanded with instructions to require FDFC to amend the bond documents as set forth in this opinion. View "Fla. Bankers Ass’n v. Fla. Dev. Fin. Corp." on Justia Law