City of St. Petersburg v. Florida Coastal Theatres
| Citation | 43 So.2d 525 |
| Parties | CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG et al. v. FLORIDA COASTAL THEATRES, Inc., et al. |
| Decision Date | 13 December 1949 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Lewis T. Wray, Harry I. Young, Frank D. McDevitt and Adrian S. Bacon, St. Petersburg, for appellants.
John D. Harris, Jr., St. Petersburg, Fred H. Kent, Clarence G. Ashby (of Adair, Kent, Ashby & McNatt), Lamar Sarra, Jacksonville, and Carroll R. Runyon (of Holland & Runyon), St. Petersburg, for appellees.
The complainants, theatre owners and operators, are resisting the payment of excise taxes imposed on them by defendant, City of St. Petersburg. On May 17, 1949, we denied certiorari. 40 So.2d 458. The instant appeal is from a final decree on bill and answer accompanied by a stipulation of facts. The bill of complaint prays for declaratory decree to determine, (1) the constitutional validity of Ordinance 1104-B, imposing the excise taxes complained of. (2) An order restraining the City, its agents and employees, from collecting said taxes. The final decree granted the relief prayed for and the City appealed.
The City urges five grounds to reverse the chancellor but we have reached the conclusion that his decree should be affirmed because (1) the City was devoid of power to impose excise taxes and (2) if the City had power to impose an excise tax the amount imposed is unreasonable, confiscatory and void. It becomes unnecessary to discuss the other questions raised.
The rule is settled in this state that delegated corporate powers to a municipality, particularly grants of power out of the usual range that result in a public burden, or touch the right to liberty or property or the common-law right of the citizen, must be strictly construed. Any fair or reasonable doubts should be resolved against the exercise of the power by the City. State ex rel. Worley v. Lewis, 55 Fla. 570, 46 So. 630; State ex rel. Triay v. Burr, 79 Fla 290, 84 So. 61; City of Pensacola v. Lawrence, 126 Fla. 830, 171 So. 793; City of Miami v. Kayfetz, 158 Fla. 758, 30 So.2d 521.
Section 5, Article IX of the Constitution, F.S.A., provides that the legislature may authorize cities and towns to impose taxes for municipal purposes and for no other purpose. Sec. 3(c) Chapter 15505, Special Acts of 1931 Charter of the City of St. Petersburg, authorizes the City 'to impose license taxes upon privileges, businesses, occupations and professions carried on the engaged in within the City; and the amount of such taxes shall not be dependent upon the general State revenue law.' Section 167.43, F.S.A., has a similar provision with reference to the imposition of license taxes on businesses and professions.
The term 'License taxes' has a well-settled connotation in legal terminology and has reference to a charge imposed for the privilege of engaging in a business or profession. Section 3(c), Chapter 15505, Acts of 1931, authorizing the City to impose a license tax, is the customary power granted to municipalities and has no provision extending that power to impose other taxes on similar subjects when deemed advisable by the City.
The act on which the ordinance in question in predicated clothes the city with nothing more than a general grant of power and under the cases last cited could not possibly be extended to a specific grant to impose an excise tax of the character described in the ordinance. The attributes of an excise tax of the kind complained of are materially different from the license tax named in the authorizing statute, and since the latter contains no words of general import extending the authority, we think the City was without power to impose the tax complained of.
The tax proposed by Ordinance 1104-B is a tax over and above the license tax authorized by the provisions of the City Charter and the Statutes heretofore quoted. It is out of the usual range of power conferred on the City and requires special legislative authorization. In other words, a specific grant of power to impose it. It certainly could not be comprehended in the authorization for a license tax. At the recent session of the legislature the City of St. Petersburg, as did many other cities, secured the passage of acts authorizing them to impose such a tax, but they were all vetoed by the Governor. It is pertinent to point out that the legislature of 1949, Chapter 26319, imposed a limited sales tax. It applies to theatre admissions of over 40 cents and was limited to three...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eugene Theatre Co. v. City of Eugene
...to bear out this contention. This will be made more apparent as we discuss some additional authorities. In City of St. Petersburg v. Florida Coastal Theatres, Fla., 43 So.2d 525, 527, there was involved an ordinance imposing a tax of ten per cent on gross admission to appellee's theaters, w......
-
Bessemer Theatres v. City of Bessemer
...a tax being a cloak for something else.' Appellant has cited various cases in support of its contention. In City of St. Petersburg v. Florida Coastal Theatres, Fla., 43 So.2d 525, the main point of the decision hinged on a construction of the statute as to whether it authorized such a licen......
-
Paramount-Gulf Theatres v. City of Pensacola
...power or grant by the Legislature. See City of Miami v. Kayfetz, 158 Fla. 758, 30 So.2d 521, and City of St. Petersburg v. Florida Coastal Theatres, Inc., Fla., 43 So.2d 525. The city of Pensacola here has no more power or authority to levy taxes on licenses or privileges than was granted t......
-
Olan Mills, Inc. v. Panama City
...amounted to an undue burden upon inter-state commerce are equally applicable to the Panama City ordinance. In the Tallahassee case (43 So.2d 525), with reference thereto, we said, 'Such a differential between a tax imposed upon the local photographers and that imposed upon the itinerant pho......