Kuro, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 97-03021
| Decision Date | 15 May 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-03021,97-03021 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1209 KURO, INC., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
C. Samuel Whitehead, Sarasota, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James McAuley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Kuro, Inc., challenges a final order of the Department of Revenue (DOR), which assesses an additional documentary stamp tax of $4,207, collectively, on conveyances of eight unencumbered condominium units to Kuro. The final order concluded that stock issued by Kuro in exchange for the condominiums constituted consideration therefor and that, pursuant to the applicable statutes and rules, such consideration was equal to the fair market value of the condominiums, which was $618,000. The documentary stamp tax was thus based on that amount. We conclude that the assessment of the additional tax was error and reverse.
The condominiums involved herein were acquired by Kurt and Ronald Rabau, father and son, in 1991. In 1994, the Rabaus incorporated Kuro for the purpose of taking title to the condominium units, so as to avoid exposure to potential personal liability arising from the management of the eight rental units. After forming Kuro, the Rabaus transferred each of the condominiums to Kuro by warranty deed. Each deed recited nominal consideration of $10. Kuro thus paid the minimum documentary stamp tax on each transaction. Thereafter, DOR conducted an audit and determined that additional documentary stamp taxes were due. Kuro filed a protest, which culminated in a formal hearing before an administrative law judge. The administrative law judge found that a taxable exchange occurred and recommended the assessment of additional documentary stamp taxes. The DOR entered a final order, adopting the recommendations of the administrative law judge, and Kuro timely appealed.
Section 201.02(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that a purchaser of real estate is required to pay a documentary stamp tax of $.70 on each $100 of consideration paid for the property. Section 201.02(1) further provides:
For purposes of this section, consideration includes, but is not limited to, the money paid or agreed to be paid; the discharge of an obligation; and the amount of any mortgage, purchase money mortgage lien, or other encumbrance, whether or not the underlying indebtedness is assumed. If the consideration paid or given in exchange for real property or any interest therein includes property other than money, it is presumed that the consideration is equal to the fair market value of the real property or interest therein.
According to DOR rules promulgated pursuant to section 201.02(1), " '[p]roperty other than money' includes, but shall not be limited to, property that is corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal; everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate." Fla. Admin. Code R. 12B-4.012(2)(b). "A conveyance of realty to a corporation in exchange for shares of its capital stock, or as a contribution to the capital of a corporation, is subject to tax." Fla. Admin. Code R. 12B-4.013(7). Both of the foregoing rules reference the presumption set forth in section 201.02(1), that consideration for property other than money "is equal to the fair market value of the real property." Fla. Admin. Code R. 12B-4.012(2)(a); 12B-4.013(7).
Based on the evidence the parties stipulated to during the administrative proceeding, we conclude that Kuro was not a purchaser within the meaning of section 201.02(1) and, thus, no additional taxes were due. Section 201.02(1) applies to transfers of real estate for consideration to a "purchaser." In Florida Department of Revenue v. De Maria, 338 So.2d 838 (Fla.1976), the supreme court defined "purchaser" under the statute as "one who obtains or acquires property by paying an equivalent in money or other exchange in value." Id. at 840. In this instance, Kuro paid nothing for the transfer of the condominiums. The DOR argues that, under the statute and the rules, the stock issued by Kuro constituted consideration of property other than money, which was presumed to be equal to the fair market value of the condominiums. The presumption enunciated in the statute and the DOR rules, however, is a rebuttable presumption, which Kuro did in fact rebut in this instance.
The record shows that the conveyances here were for the benefit of the Rabaus, who were merely availing themselves of the advantages of incorporation. Though the transactions effected a change in the legal ownership of the property, the beneficial ownership of the land remained unchanged. These were thus mere book transactions and, otherwise, were not sales to a purchaser, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crescent Miami Center, LLC v. DEPT. OF REVENUE, STATE
...two equal shareholders to a corporation was not subject to the deed tax because there was no purchaser. See Kuro, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 713 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In Kuro, a father and son purchased condominium units, formed a corporation for the purpose of taking title t......
-
Crescent Miami Center v. Dept. of Revenue
...of Revenue, 857 So.2d 904 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in Kuro, Inc. v. State Department of Revenue, 713 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. FACTS Crescent Real Estate Funding IX, LP (Crescent Fundi......
-
S & A Prop. Inv. Servs. v. Garcia
...'purchaser.'") Taxpayer asserts that the transfer from the Andersons to Taxpayer is identical to the transfers in Crescent Miami Center and Kuro, Inc. where in each of those cases the courts concluded that the challenging taxpayer was not a "purchaser" under section 201.02(1). Crescent Miam......
-
Department of Revenue v. PMR Resorts, Inc., 2D02-5256.
...that PMR had no liability under the documentary stamp tax, the trial court relied—at PMR's urging—on Kuro, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 713 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), which held that no documentary stamp tax was due on the transfer of unencumbered condominium units to a corporation fr......
-
Crescent - did the Florida Supreme Court effectively repeal the documentary stamp tax on transfers of real estate?
...in Crescent based on a direct conflict with the Second District Court of Appeal's decision in Kuro, Inc. v. State Department of Revenue, 713 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), appeal dismissed, 728 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1998). The conflict resulted from each court's differing conclusions regarding ......
-
Kuro and Muben-Lamar in the eye of the beholder?
...no deed tax was due on the transfer of unencumbered real property to a controlled entity. Enter Kuro, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 713 So. 2d 1021 (2d DCA), appeal dismissed, 728 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1998). In Kuro, a father and son were equal owners of the stock of a corporation and were lik......