Belk-James, Inc. v. Nuzum, BELK-JAME
| Decision Date | 09 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 50881,BELK-JAME,INC,50881 |
| Citation | 358 So.2d 174 |
| Parties | , a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Charles A. NUZUM, Director, Division of Beverage, Department of Business Regulation, State of Florida, Beer Industry of Florida, Inc., and Adoph Coors Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Joseph C. Jacobs and Robert J. Angerer of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Charles T. Tunnicliff, Charles T. Collett and Dennis E. LaRosa, Staff Attys., Tallahassee, for Charles A. Nuzum.
Lee L. Willis, II and James D. Beasley of Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor, Tallahassee, for Beer Industry of Florida, Inc.
Earle D. Bellamy, II of Bradley, Campbell & Carney, Golden, Colo., for Adolph Coors Co., intervenor-appellee.
Belk-James, Inc., a distributor who contracted to purchase Coors beer in South Carolina and sell it in Florida, challenges the constitutionality of Section 563.06(1), principally on the ground that it violates the due process clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions 1 in that the statutory requirements of imprinting "Florida" on all container tops, and of permitting manufacturers alone to submit applications for approval, are unreasonable regulations not related to any legitimate state interest. This challenge to the statute is opposed by the agency charged with beverage administration (the Division of Beverage of the Department of Business Regulation), by Adolph Coors Company, which manufacturers Coors beer, and by the Beer Industry of Florida, Inc. 2
All the parties agree that the proper standard by which we must evaluate the Legislature's exercise of the police power in the area of economic regulation is whether the means utilized bear a rational or reasonable relationship to a legitimate state objective. See Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., 348 U.S. 483, 75 S.Ct. 461, 99 L.Ed. 563 (1955); Castlewood International Corp. v. Wynne, 294 So.2d 321 (Fla.1974). The dispute between Belk-James and the Division centers on the putative relationship between the statute's regulatory scheme and two asserted justifications for its validity the collection of revenue for the state in the form of malt liquor taxes, and the goal of ensuring that only wholesome beer, as opposed to stale or unwholesome beer, is brought into the state for sale or resale. 3 Each of the statutory justifications is discussed separately. 4
The Division argues that the perishable nature of malt beverages demands that beer be shipped directly to Florida in order to ensure freshness, and that both of the requirements in Section 563.06(1) reasonably advance this objective. Belk-James disputes any logical connection between the word "Florida" on the container top and the wholesomeness of the product inside, inasmuch as the stamp is imprinted by the manufacturer without limitations against the imprinting of several states' names on the crown or lid. The Division meets this contention by suggesting that the labelling requirement is all that is needed to induce commercial self-policing, since manufacturers would find it commercially infeasible to do what Belk-James suggests they might.
We have to agree with the Division that the Legislature may regulate by commercial self-compulsion, and that in this case it might reasonably have relied on the motivations of beer manufacturers to preserve the freshness of their own product. By directing that only manufacturers may imprint containers, the Legislature might reasonably have provided the regulatory impetus to achieve quality control, based on a subsidiary assumption that others in the beer distribution chain are not as keenly motivated as the manufacturer to ensure the freshness of any particular product. 5
The collection of excise taxes on malt beverages under Section 563.05, Florida Statutes (1975), is a substantial source of state revenue. In its fiscal year 1975-76, the State of Florida collected more than $76,000,000 in beer excise taxes. It is appropriate that the Legislature provide reliable methods of tax enforcement. Cf. Dominion Land & Title Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 320 So.2d 815 (Fla.1975). Tax collection for malt beverages is achieved by so-called "depletion" control, whereby the tax is computed by reference to the number of taxable malt liquor containers withdrawn from the warehouses of distributors for delivery to retailers. The requisite tax is paid by distributors to the Division on a monthly basis, accompanied by suitable reports, and is periodically verified by audits and inspections.
Belk-James basically argues that since the state neither places nor supervises the placement of "Florida" designations on beer containers, it cannot know which malt beverage containers have been taxed. The Division argues that Section 563.06(1) is one facet of an integrated statutory scheme for regulating and taxing beer sales, and that the Legislature might reasonably have concluded that malt beverage containers marked by the manufacturer with an approved "Florida" designation are more likely to follow closely monitored channels of distribution, from which the tax is collected. To evaluate these competing claims we must examine the total regulatory scheme to see if it reasonably assures distribution only within regulated channels.
The Florida Beverage Law begins by establishing qualifications and procedures for the licensure of all persons in the chain of distribution. 6 It then makes it unlawful to sell malt products without strict adherence to the terms of a license, providing significant penalties for non-compliance. 7 Beer manufacturers who ship their product into Florida for sale or resale, aside from being required to affix a pre-approved "Florida" designation, are required to submit detailed reports on the amount of beer shipped into the state. 8 Moreover, those who may transport beer into Florida for sale or resale, and those who may receive beer shipments from outside the state, are rigidly controlled 9 and also subject to strict reporting requirements. 10
The Division argues that it can ascertain and control taxability on the basis of documents received from licensees, and that the regulatory scheme provides a stringent set of controls by which it can enforce compliance with the beer excise tax laws. The Division also notes that it performs field audits on distributors, bonded warehouses, and retailers, and in this respect monitors the presence or absence of "Florida" designations on beer container tops. 11 These audits thus provide a viable means for the detection of beer which enters the Florida market through unregulated, illegal channels.
We are satisfied that the requirements of Section 563.06(1) bear a sufficient relationship to revenue collection to withstand the due process attack. The arguments advanced by Belk-James, which essentially question whether the best means of regulation has been chosen, can be seen as directed more to the wisdom of the legislation than to its asserted rationality. This inquiry, of course, is inappropriate for our judicial function. Holley v. Adams, 238 So.2d 401 (Fla.1970).
Since we begin with a presumption that acts of the Legislature are constitutional, 12 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Ins. v. Dade County Consumer Advocate's Office
...regulation has been chosen are directed more to the wisdom of the legislation than to its asserted irrationality." Belk-James, Inc. v. Nuzum, 358 So.2d 174, 177 (Fla.1978). "It is not the function of this Court to determine the wisdom of legislation or to pass on its efficacy as a solution ......
-
Silvio Membreno & Fla. Ass'n of Vendors, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
...is whether the means utilized bear a rational or reasonable relationship to a legitimate state objective." Belk–James, Inc. v. Nuzum, 358 So.2d 174, 175 (Fla.1978).Similarly, in an opinion authored for the majority by Justice Lewis, the Florida Supreme Court expressly quoted and approved a ......
-
Jones v. Gray & Sons
...it is valid if the "means utilized bear a rational or reasonable relationship to a legitimate state objective," Belk-James, Inc. v. Nuzum, 358 So.2d 174, 175 (Fla.1978); and a court may not substitute its judgment as to the wisdom and policy of the law for that of the legislative body, Holl......
-
Coca-Cola Co., Food Division, Polk County v. State, Dept. of Citrus
...public safety, health, morals, and general welfare." Stadnik v. Shell's City, Inc., 140 So.2d 871, 874 (Fla.1962). In Belk-James, Inc. v. Nuzum, 358 So.2d 174 (Fla.1978), the question was whether a requirement that all taxable malt beverages sold in Florida have the word "Florida" imprinted......