Dade County v. Atlantic Liquor Co.

• Decision Date: 02 December 1970
• Docket Number: No. 39769,39769
• Citation: 245 So.2d 229
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, et al., Petitioners and Cross-Respondents, v. ATLANTIC LIQUOR CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, Respondent and Cross-Petitioner.

Page 229

245 So.2d 229

DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, et al., Petitioners and Cross-Respondents, v. ATLANTIC LIQUOR CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, Respondent and Cross-Petitioner.

No. 39769.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 2, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 27, 1971.

Thomas C. Britton, County Atty., and Stuart Simon, Asst. County Atty., for petitioners and cross-respondents.

James E. Glass and Rosenberg, Rosenberg, Reisman & Glass, Miami, for respondent and cross-petitioner.

Aaron M. Kanner and Richard Kanner, Miami, for Southern Wine & Spirits.

Bayard E. Heath, of Ward, Ward, Strassley, Hiss & Heath, Miami, for Florida Beverage Corp.

Robert L. Floyd, of Frates, Fay Floyd & Pearson, Miami, for Distilled Spirits Wholesalers of Florida, Inc.

Sydney S. Traum, of Forrest, Friedman, Ruffner & Traum, Miami, for Hartley & Parker, Inc., amici curiae.

ROBERTS, Justice.

We have for review an ad valorem tax assessment question involving the taxable value of alcoholic beverages held by a wholesale liquor and wine distributor as stock in trade prior to sale. Atlantic Liquor Co., Inc., respondent and cross-petitioner here, initiated this litigation by contesting in Circuit Court, Dade County, the right of Dade taxing authorities to include in their assessment of Atlantic's personal property the face value of state and federal tax stamps affixed to bottles and other beverage containers held in inventory.

The Circuit Court entered a final judgment based upon stipulated pleadings, there being no factual issues in contest, which established the following taxing standards: (1) The intrinsic value of domestic alcoholic beverages without addition of any excise taxes is taxable for ad valorem purposes; (2) The amount of federal excise taxes on domestic alcoholic beverages in bond is not taxable; (3) The amount of federal excise taxes on domestic alcoholic beverages not in bond is taxable; (4) The amount of state excise taxes paid and represented by state stamps affixed to alcoholic beverages in bottls and containers is taxable; (5) The amount of state excise taxes already paid by the manufacturers or distributors on the basis of gallonage on domestic alcoholic beverages is taxable; and, (6) The amount of state excise taxes due on a gallonage basis but not yet paid by the manufacturer or distributor is not taxable.

Atlantic, contending that no affixed excise stamp value was properly includable as an assessable element of value, appealed this final judgment to the District Court of Appeal, Third District. Through a decision reported at 233 So.2d 851 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1970), the District Court affirmed as to the inclusion of the federal stamp value when the beverage was out of bond, but reversed as to the assessment of the state stamp value on any stamped beverage held in stock. This decision was certified as one 'passing upon a question of great public interest' under Article V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution, F.S.A., thereby vesting this Court with jurisdiction following petition by the litigants. The Dade taxing authorities, petitioners and cross-respondents here, assert that the Circuit Court's final judgment was correct in all respects; Atlantic, respondent and cross-petitioner, urges that the District Court erred by failing to reverse the entire final judgment. Several alcoholic beverage interests have filed briefs as amicus curiae favoring Atlantic's position. Through our opinion today, we agree with the taxing authorities and reinstate the final judgment as rendered by the Circuit Court below.

The taxing authorities included the face value of affixed state and federal tax stamps in their assessment of Atlantic's stock in trade in 1967 pursuant to directives contained in the Florida Tax Assessor's Guide compiled by the State Comptroller under authority of F.S. § 192.31, F.S.A. The edition of the Guide in effect in January, 1967, provided on page 105 that assessments of alcoholic beverages should include state and federal excise taxes that may be included in the purchase price because, 'Where property comes to the taxpayer burdened by taxes or duties previously paid, such taxes and duties become part of the valuation of such property (citations omitted).'

Atlantic challenges the procedure recommended by the Comptroller on grounds both broad and narrow. Taking the broad issues first, Atlantic contends that it has been deprived of due process and equal protection of the law. The due process issue stems from Atlantic's assertion that the tax stamps represent an excise which is exacted at the time of sale, the impost being based upon the transaction and not upon distillation or possession prior to sale; if this is so, then to levy an ad valorem tax upon the value of the stamp which is not assessable until affixed, and since the pertinent statutory provisions provide no precise time for affixing stamps save to say that it must be done prior to the time of sale, Atlantic alleges that it is discriminated against because it chooses to have the manufacturer place its stamps upon beverage merchandise prior to delivery by the manufacturer. Since Atlantic would be taxed for having stamped merchandise in stock, whereas another distributor might decide to withhold stamping until immediately prior to sale and thus evade being assessed for the value of the stamps, the assessing practice in question denies Atlantic equal protection under law.

These broad arguments are buttressed with several specific arguments, among them the following: (1) The Legislature intended that the beverage excises be considered as taxes upon the first sale, i.e., the distributor collects the taxes as part of the purchase price; (2) When the distributor pays the tax in advance of sale, it does so as merely a matter of administrative convenience; (3) F.S. § 561.47(1), F.S.A., allows the distributor to purchase stamps with a discount of two cents on the...