Barnett Banks, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 98-4104.
| Decision Date | 10 August 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-4104.,98-4104. |
| Parties | BARNETT BANKS, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, an agency of the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David M. Wells, J. Riley Williams, and William W. Deem of McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, L.L.P., Jacksonville, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Jeffrey M. Dikman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.
This case involves a dispute over whether the Florida Department of Revenue ("Department") had the statutory authority to assess interest on additional state corporate income tax paid by appellant as a result of audit adjustments made in the amount of federal taxable income reported on its corporate income tax returns for the tax years 1986 through 1991. We conclude that the Department did not have the authority to assess interest under the circumstances of this case and reverse.
Appellant and a corporation known as First Florida Banks, Inc., which was later acquired by appellant through a corporate merger, timely filed federal and state corporate income tax returns for the tax years 1986 through 1991. At the time of their merger, both corporations were being audited by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") for the tax years in question. After the merger, appellant agreed with the IRS to make various upward adjustments to the amount of federal taxable income reported by the two corporations on their federal corporate income tax returns for the tax years in question.
Under Florida's Income Tax Code ("FITC"), the amount of state corporate income tax due from a corporation for a given year is based on the amount of taxable income that corporation had for federal income tax purposes for that year. See §§ 220.11, 220.12, & 220.13, Fla. Stat. (1997). If the amount of taxable income reported on a federal corporate income tax return is adjusted after the filing of the original federal return (for example, through a federal audit), the corporate taxpayer must notify the Department of the adjustment by filing an amended state corporate income tax return, known as a notification, reflecting the adjustment. See § 220.23(2), Fla. Stat. (1985). If any additional state corporate income tax is due as a result of a federal taxable income adjustment, the required adjustment notification must be filed and the amount of additional tax owed must be remitted no later than 60 days after the adjustment has been agreed to or finally determined for federal income tax purposes. See § 220.23(2)(a)3, Fla. Stat. (1985).
In this case, appellant timely notified the Department of the federal audit adjustments in its reported taxable income for the tax years in question and remitted with its adjustment notifications all additional state corporate income tax due as a result of the adjustments. The Department did not assess any penalties against appellant in connection with the payment of the additional tax, but did assess interest on the additional tax calculated from the due date of the original returns for each of the tax years in question. Appellant paid the interest under protest and initiated these administrative proceedings to obtain a refund of the interest.
The provision in the FITC governing the accrual of interest on state corporate income tax deficiencies states in pertinent part as follows:
If any amount of tax imposed by this chapter is not paid on or before the date, determined without regard to any extensions, prescribed for payment of such tax, interest shall be paid ... from such date to the date of payment.
See § 220.809, Fla. Stat. (1997) (emphasis added). There is only one provision in the FITC which prescribes the date for payment of taxes due and it reads in pertinent part as follows:
Every taxpayer required to file a return under this code or a notification under s. 220.23(2) shall, without assessment, notice, or demand, pay any tax due thereon to the department at the place fixed for filing ... on or before the date fixed for filing such return, determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return, or notification, pursuant to regulations prescribed by the department.
See § 220.31(1), Fla. Stat. (1997) (emphasis added). These statutes clearly and unambiguously designate the date prescribed for payment of a tax for purposes of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GEL Corp. v. Dept. of Environmental Protection
...a statute covering the same and other subjects in more general terms." McKendry, 641 So.2d at 46; see Barnett Banks, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 738 So.2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Hudson v. State, 711 So.2d 244, 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); see also State v. Raydo, 713 So.2d 996 To construe ......
-
Saunders v. Saunders
...subject area always controls over a statute covering the same or other subjects more generally); Barnett Banks, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 738 So.2d 502, 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Thus, unless a nondomiciliary testator expressly chooses Florida law to dispose of his or her Florida property, s......
-
Pandya v. Israel
...over the more general terms of section 125.01. See McKendry v. State, 641 So.2d 45, 46 (Fla. 1994); Barnett Banks, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 738 So.2d 502, 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Thus, any property sold by the county must "belong to" the county. See § 125.35(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997).......
-
Florida Mun. Power Agency v. Department of Rev., 1D99-3770.
...clearly requires that legislative intent be determined primarily from the language of the statute." Barnett Banks, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 738 So.2d 502, 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)(quoting S.R.G. Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 365 So.2d 687, 689 (Fla.1978)). The department's interpreta......
-
Chase v. Walgreen Company: expanding employee protection against employer retaliation in workers' compensation law.
...STAT. ch. 440 (1999). [12] See Great Am. Indem. Co. v. Williams, 85 So. 2d 619 (1956). [13] Barnett Banks, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 738 So. 2d 502, 504 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1999) (quoting Department of Revenue v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 431 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. [14] Se......