State Ex Rel. Lane Drug Stores, Inc. v. Simpson
Decision Date | 26 November 1935 |
Citation | 122 Fla. 582,166 So. 227 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. LANE DRUG STORES, Inc. v. SIMPSON, Tax Collector.[*] |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Original proceeding by the State, on the relation of the Lane Drug Stores, Incorporated, against Clyde H. Simpson, as Tax Collector of Duval County, for mandamus.
Alternative writ held insufficient on demurrer.
Judgment affirmed and opinion readopted on rehearing 166 So. 262.
Thos. B. Adams, Henry P. Adair, John M. McNatt, and Knight, Adair, Cooper & Osborne, all of Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., H. E. Carter and J. V. Keen, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Henry C. Tillman, of Tampa, for respondent.
This proceeding in mandamus is one of a number of cases pending in this court, all of which attack the validity of chapter 16848, Laws of Florida 1935, and which is commonly known as the 'Chain Store Tax Act,' also as 'Senate Bill No. 724,' which last reference will hereinafter be used for the sake of convenience.
Also because of the necessity for frequent reference threto as a discussion of the case progresses, it is considered well to copy here the following portions of the act, to wit:
'Subdivision A.
'Class 1.--Upon one store, the flat of sum of $10.00.
'Class 2.--Upon chains of more than one but not more than three stores, the flat sum of $50.00 for each said store.
'Class 3.--Upon chains of more than three but not more than six stores, the flat sum of $100.00 for each said store.
'Class 4.--Upon chains of more than six but not more than ten stores, the flat sum of $200.00 for each said store.
'Class 5.--Upon chains of more than ten but not more than fifteen stores, the flat sum of $300.00 for each said store.
'Class 6.--Upon chains of more than fifteen stores the flat sum of $400.00 for each said store.
'Subdivision B.
'Class 1.--Upon one store, also an amount equal to one-half of one per cent of the gross receipts from all sales as defined in this Act.
'Class 2.--Upon chains of more than one but not more than three stores, also an amount equal to one per cent of the gross receipts from all sales as defined in this Act.
'Class 3.--Upon chains of more than three but not more than six stores, also an amount equal to two per cent of the gross receipts from all sales as defined in this Act.
'Class 4.--Upon chains of more than six but not more than ten stores, also an amount equal to three per cent of the gross receipts from all sales as defined in this Act.
'Class 5.--Upon chains of more than ten but not more than fifteen stores, also an amount equal to four per cent of the gross receipts from all sales as defined in this Act.
'Class 6.--Upon chains of more than fifteen stores, also an amount equal to five per cent of the gross receipts from all sales as defined in this Act.
'The tax imposed under Subdivision B of this section shall be calculated upon the gross receipts of the total number of stores in each respective chain concerned at the rate prescribed in the applicable 'class' bracket of the foregoing schedules.
'If the tax in Subdivision B of this section be, for any reason, held invalid and inoperative, then the taxes in each of the six classes of stores enumerated in Subdivision A of this Section shall be twice the amount set forth in said Schedule A, in lieu of the rates therein prescribed. * * *.
'(a) In case of credit and time sales the amount thereof shall be included in the gross receipts for the month in which payments are received by the person, without any deduction therefrom on account of the cost of the property sold, the cost of the materials used, labor or service cost, interest paid, losses or other expense whatsoever.
'(b) If the amount due by any person as the tax imposed by this Act is not paid on or before the date prescribed for its payment, there shall be collected, as a part of the tax, interest upon said unpaid amounts, at the rate of two per centum (2%) per month from the date prescribed for its payment until it is paid.
'(c) It shall be the duty of every person required to make a report and pay any tax under this Act, to keep and preserve suitable records of the gross proceeds of sales taxable under this Act, and such other books of account as may be necessary to determine the amount of tax due hereunder; and it shall be the duty of every person to keep and preserve, for a period of two years, all invoices and other records of goods, wares or merchandise purchased for resale; and all such books, invoices and other records shall be open to examination, at any time, by the Comptroller or any one of his duly authorized agents.
'(d) Any permit holder may take credit on any tax payable for the privilege of doing business under Section 4 of this Act on tax due under subdivision A or in the months of August or September, 1935, due under subdivision B for the proportional unexpired portion of the amount paid for any license heretofore obtained by him under the provisions of Chapter 16071, aforesaid. * * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carlton v. Grimes
... ... cities and towns of the state in the ratio of their ... respective populations ... State ... ex rel. Lane Drug Stores v. Simpson, 122 [237 Iowa 922] ... ...
-
Volusia County Kennel Club v. Haggard
...applied the holdings of the United States Supreme Court in the Stewart and Valentine cases in the cases of State ex rel. Lane Drug Stores v. Simpson, 122 Fla. 582, 166 So. 227; State ex rel. Adams v. Lee, 122 Fla. 639, 166 So. 249; Chavers v. Harrell, 122 Fla. 669, 166 So. 261. In the case ......
-
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. State
...the various officers of the assembly would be parties, cannot be countenanced by any court." See also State ex rel. Lane Drug Stores v. Simpson, 122 Fla. 582, 166 So. 227 (1935). In Earnest v. Sargent, 20 N.M. 427, 433, 150 P. 1018, 1019-20 (1915), the court refused to allow testimony to co......
-
City of Tampa v. Birdsong Motors, Inc.
...sales, although in the guise of a privilege tax, is nonetheless a sales tax. It does not so read to me. In State ex rel. Lane Drug Stores v. Simpson, 122 Fla. 582, 166 So. 227 (1935), in a special concurring opinion, Justice Davis noted that the privilege tax imposed by the City of '. . . w......