Afro-american Indus. & Benefit Ass'n v. State

• Decision Date: 28 January 1911
• Citation: 54 So. 383,61 Fla. 85
• Parties: AFRO-AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL & BENEFIT ASS'N OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

54 So. 383

61 Fla. 85

AFRO-AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL & BENEFIT ASS'N OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

January 28, 1911

Error to Circuit Court, Leon County; John W. Malone, Judge.

Action by the State against the Afro-American Industrial & Benefit Association of the United States of America. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Under the provisions of section 1 and 5 of article 9 of the state Constitution, only two classes of taxes can be levied in this state, an ad valorem tax and a tax on licenses.

Chapter 5459 of the Laws of 1905, defining and regulating 'sick and funeral benefit insurance' is not repealed by chapter 5597 of the Acts of 1907, and the two chapters must be construed together. The taxes provided for in each chapter were intended as license taxes, and are properly so held. The provisions of each chapter must be complied with, and a compliance with the requirements of chapter 5459, and the payment of all the license taxes imposed by section 7 thereof, do not constitute a defense to an action at law brought by the state to recover 2 per cent. of the gross amount of receipts of premiums from policy holders in this state, imposed by subdivision B of section 8 of chapter 5597 upon companies or associations doing business under chapter 5459.

There is no express limitation upon the power of the Legislature for levying a tax on licenses; but such power should not be so exercised as to deprive any person of property without due process of law, or so as to deny to any person the equal protection of the laws.

COUNSEL Raney & Oven, J. W. Archibald, and D. H. Doig for plaintiff in error.

Park Trammell, Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

SHACKLEFORD J.

The state of Florida brought an action against the plaintiff in error by which it was sought to recover the sum of $1,024.78 which was alleged to have become due and payable to the state, on the 1st day of January, 1909, as 'a privilege or license tax of 2 per cent. of the gross amount of receipts received from its policy holders in this state for the year 1908.' To the declaration the defendant filed six pleas the first and fourth of which were, respectively, 'that it never was indebted as alleged,' and 'that the plaintiff ought not to have its action aforesaid against it because it has fully paid all legal obligations due by it to the state of Florida under and by the terms of the laws of the state of Florida under which it is transacting its business.' A demurrer was interposed and sustained to the other pleas, as was also true of the seventh, eighth, and ninth pleas, which were filed by leave of the court. Errors are assigned upon the sustaining of the respective demurrers to these several pleas, but we deem it unnecessary to set forth either the pleas or the grounds of the demurrers. The plaintiff joined issue upon the first and fourth pleas, which we have copied above, and the cause was submitted to the court for trial and disposition upon the following agreed statement of facts:

'The following facts are agreed upon and submitted to the court for its decision in the trial of the above cause, which it is hereby agreed will be submitted upon the statement of facts hereunder to the court without a jury.

'That the defendant is a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of Florida.

'That the defendant was during the year 1908, and has since been, doing a sick and funeral benefit insurance business under the provisions, and within the meaning of chapter 5459, Acts of 1905, and that the said company has done no other class or kind of business.

'That the gross premium receipts of said defendant company during the year 1908, from policy holders in the state of Florida, amounted to $51,239.45, which amount of premiums was received from policies issued under the provisions of chapter 5459 aforesaid defining sick and funeral benefit insurance, and which policies insured the holders thereof against sickness, and provided for funeral benefits, and provided for no other or further indemnity to the holders thereof.

'That the said defendant has not paid to the state of Florida 2 per cent. of the gross amount of receipts from its policy holders in the state of Florida during the year 1908, which premium receipts amounted to $51,239.45.

'That the said defendant on the 1st day of October, 1907, and again on the 1st day of October, 1908, paid to the State Treasurer of the state of Florida the tax of $100 provided for in section 7 of chapter 5459, and a tax of $2 upon each of its local agents, and a tax on each of its traveling agents of $10, AS PROVIDED AND REQUIRED IN SAID Section of said chapter of said acts, and has paid the fee of $5 for each annual statement filed, to wit, January 1, 1908, January 1, 1909, and January 1, 1910.

'That no valuation, appraisement, or assessment of the gross premium receipts of the defendant company has been made by the state of Florida, or any of its officers or agents, or any assessor of taxes in this or any other county of this state, except in so far as the provisions of schedule B of section 8 of chapter 5597, and the provisions of chapter 5459, of the Laws of the State of Florida, may of their own operation impose a license or privilege tax upon the said defendant company or corporation, and no levy of a property tax on such gross premium receipts has been made by the state of Florida. That prior to the institution of this suit W. V. Knott, State Treasurer of the state of Florida, in his official capacity, demanded of the defendant the payment of 2 per cent. of the said gross premium receipts, which said demand was refused by the defendant, and that, with the exception of the said demand made by the State Treasurer of the state of Florida, there has been no other demand made upon the defendant.'

No other evidence was adduced, and the court found in favor of the plaintiff, and rendered final judgment against the defendant for the sum of $1,024.78, damages, together with costs. The defendant has brought this judgment here for review, and has assigned 12 errors, but it is unnecessary to discuss them in detail. In fact, the attorneys for the defendant have not so treated them, but have the following statement in their brief:

'It appears to us that the whole case hinges upon two questions--the right of the state Legislature to levy the tax as it has attempted to levy it, and, if it has such right, what construction shall be placed upon chapter 5459, Acts of 1905, and subdivision B, § 8, c. 5597, Acts of 1907, when construed together for the purpose of ascertaining what tax the company is legally due the state thereunder.'

The defendant contends that, under the provisions of sections 1 and 5 of article 9 of the state Constitution, only two classes of taxes can be levied in this state, an ad valorem tax and a tax on licenses. The correctness of this contention may be conceded. We might concede the correctness of the further contention of the defendant that 'in laying an ad valorem tax, a valuation of the property of each person or corporation liable to be taxed is an absolute necessity. In no other way can the amount to be paid by each taxpayer be ascertained. A valid assessment is therefore indispensable.' See 27 Amer. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 660, cited by the defendant. But, conceding this, we fail to see its applicability to the instant case, since the tax in question is not an ad valorem tax. In so holding we again find ourselves in full accord with the...