Florida Growers Coop Transport v. Department of Revenue, P--261
| Decision Date | 15 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. P--261,P--261 |
| Citation | 273 So.2d 142 |
| Parties | FLORIDA GROWERS COOP TRANSPORT, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Maxwell W. Wells, Jr., of Maguire, voorhis & Wells, Orlando, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arthur C. Fulmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The plaintiff in an action for a refund of sales taxes has appealed from an adverse final judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Leon County.
The sole question presented for our determination in this appeal is whether rental charges for motor vehicles used to transport property in interstate commerce is exempt from sales taxes when paid by a carrier which is exempt from certification by the Interstate Commerce Commission pursuant to Sec. 303(b)(5) of the Interstate Commerce Act.
The plaintiff, Florida Growers Coop Transport, is organized under Chapter 620, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., as an agricultural cooperative marketing association, formed for the purpose of engaging in cooperative activities in connection with the producing, marketing, or selling of agricultural products. The association was also formed for the purpose of creating a trucking company as a cooperative to provide transportation service for its members and the general public as authorized by Sec. 303(b)(5) and subdivision (6) of the Interstate Commerce Act. The plaintiff does not have a certificate or permit issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission authorizing it to engage in any 'for hire' transportation business by motor vehicle in interstate commerce.
The statutory provisions pertinent in our consideration of the above question are as follows:
Section 212.08, subdivision (9), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides:
The legislative intent in Chapter 212 is thus expressed in Sec. 212.081, subdivision (3)(a):
'It is further declared to be the legislative intent that the tax levied by this chapter and imposed by this section is not a tax on motor vehicles as property but a tax on the privilege to sell, to rent, to use or to store for use in this state motor vehicles; . . .'
However, in an attempt to interpret or implement the above-quoted Sec. 212.08, subdivision (9) the Florida Revenue Commission has promulgated the following rules, as set forth in Chapter 318--1.64:
'(6) Proration is allowed on vehicles licensed by a governmental agency as common carriers to transport or move either passengers or property across state lines or in foreign commerce. . . .
'(9) Trucking Companies engaged in transporting fruits, vegetables, seafood or livestock from Florida to other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, Dept. of Ins. v. Insurance Services Office, VV-367
...1291, 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); DeThorne v. Beck, 280 So.2d 448, 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); and Florida Growers Coop Transport v. Department of Revenue, 273 So.2d 142, 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). The next statute cited in the rule provides more guidance. Section 626.9611, Florida Statutes (1979)......
-
Solimena v. State, Dept. of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering
...legislative authorization for combining the absolute insurer rule with the medication rule. See Florida Growers Coop Transport v. Department of Revenue, 273 So.2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 279 So.2d 33 (Fla.1973); Lewis v. Florida State Board of Health, 143 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1......
-
Martin Luther King Economic Development Corp. v. Department of Community Affairs, 86-2462
...1984). Sections 9B-14.0081 and 9B-14.009 constitute an impermissible amendment to the statute. See Florida Growers Coop Transport v. Department of Revenue, 273 So.2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 279 So.2d 33 The second point challenges a ruling which borders on the absurd. Appellant wa......
-
Tri-State Systems v. Department of Transp.
...Association, 463 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Roth v. State, 378 So.2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Florida Grocers Coop Transport v. Department of Revenue, 273 So.2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).4 With refreshing candor the inspector conceded the material facts to have been substantially the same......