Reynolds Fasteners, Inc. v. Wright
Decision Date | 22 March 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 35466,35466 |
Parties | REYNOLDS FASTENERS, INC., a New York corporation, Petitioner, v. E. W. WRIGHT, as Tax Collector of Dade County, Florida, Sam L. Elcook, as Tax Assessor of Dade County, Florida, and Ray E. Green, as Comptroller of the State of Florida, Respondents. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Kenneth N. ReKant and George Gilbert, Miami Beach, for petitioner.
Thomas C. Britton, County Atty., and Stuart Simon, Asst. County Atty., for respondents.
This matter is before us on alleged conflict of the decision in this case in the District Court in 184 So.2d 699 with the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Hansen v. Port Everglades Steel Corporation, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 387.
In each of these cases, suit was instituted for a refund of personal property taxes paid under protest which taxes were levied on property immune from taxation pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 10, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution prohibiting states from levying taxes on imports and exports. The conflict arises from the holding in the Hansen case, supra, to the effect:
This comment referred to a 60-day limitation in F.S. § 192.21, F.S.A., in which to institute suits contesting the validity of assessments. The concern in both cases is over a refund of taxes paid and not a contest of an invalid assessment. In the case before us, the Third District held:
Applying this principle, the Court held F.S. § 95.08, F.S.A., was the limitation or non-claim that applied. 1 Since this suit was instituted in the Circuit Court more than 16 months after the payment of the taxes, and no effort was made to comply with F.S. § 95.08, F.S.A., within the required one year, petitioner was held to be barred from refund of his monies. Although the two cases direct their attention to different statutes, their ultimate conclusions are diametrically opposed; the one before us holding that the limitation in F.S. § 95.08, F.S.A., bars relief in refund claims; the other, that there is no limitation barring relief in refund claims involving void assessments.
Several cases are cited as authority for the above statement from the Third District opinion in this case. The only one relating to refund of taxes was State ex rel. Victor Chemical Works v. Gay, 1954 Fla., 74 So.2d 560, 46 A.L.R.2d 1340. There, this Court was concerned with a limitation or non-claim of one year in F.S. § 215.26, F.S.A., 2 for filing claims for refunds of monies paid for taxes levied and collected under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional. It had previously been held in State ex rel. Tampa Electric Company v. Gay, 1949 Fla., 40 So.2d 225, that the same limitation applied and the right her refund accrued at the time the tax was paid. Applying this rule, it determined in the Victor Chemical Works case, supra:
'The application for refund is required to be made within one year after the right to such refund shall have accrued and if no application has been made, the right to any refund shall be barred.
'In dealing with statutes such as that involved in this case it is essential that we bear in mind that unless there is some statute which authorizes a refund or the filing of a claim for refund, money cannot be refunded or recovered once it has been paid although levied under the authority of an unconstitutional statute.
'A refund is a matter of grace and if the statute of non-claim is not complied with, the statute becomes an effective bar in law and in equity.'
This statement is supported by a number of decisions in this state and conforms to the generally accepted law in this field. See also North Miami v. Seaway Corp., 1942, 151 Fla. 301, 9 So.2d 705; State ex rel. Butler's, Inc. v. Gay, 1946, 158 Fla. 164, 27 So.2d 937; State ex rel. Butler's, Inc. v. Gay, 1947, 158 Fla. 500, 29 So.2d 246; City of Orlando v. Gill, 1937, 128 Fla. 139, 174 So. 224; 51 Am.Jur. 1012, 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 631, p. 1263, 31 Fla.Jur. 531, § 651.
There are a number of these refund statutes applying to various tax payments and other refund claims. 3 This focuses attention on the necessity to comply with the provisions of these statutory provisions as exhausting administrative remedies. All of the above statutes provide that the claim must be filed with the state comptroller. As to the necessity to comply with these statutes, there is also conflict. In Florida Livestock Board v. Hygrade Food Products Corporation, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 535, in referring to F.S. § 215.26, F.S.A., it was held:
'Since Hygrade failed to exhaust its administrative remedy by filing an application for refund of the inspection fees paid by it pursuant to the provisions of and within the time required by the statute, its right to the relief prayed for in its complaint is barred.'
In Overstreet v. Frederick B. Cooper Co., Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 333, a contrary conclusion was expressed. We agree with the view expressed in the Florida Livestock Board v. Hygrade Food Products Corporation, supra.
The statutes here involved provide a full and adequate remedy avoiding the necessity of litigation if refund is granted by the comptroller and if not, contemplating use of all existing court remedies. In fact, the relief provided under these statutes is broader as they provide relief whether the tax was paid voluntarily or involuntarily. 4
Neither of the two cases as support for the quoted statement from the Hansen opinion, supra, has reference to refunds. Each involved actions to enjoin enforcement and collection of illegal or void taxes before payment was made. Neither is authority for the proposition that there is no limitation for this relief, but only that it is not essential to comply with the 30 and 60-day limitations and administrative remedies as a predicate to contesting illegal or void assessments. We feel the Hansen case reached an improper conclusion and the rationale of the District Court below in the instant case is proper in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Norwich, Dept. of Public Utilities v. Town of Lebanon
...distinction. 6 Yttrup Homes v. County of Sacramento, 73 Cal.App.3d 279, 282 n. 1, 140 Cal.Rptr. 680 (1977); cf. Reynolds Fasteners, Inc. v. Wright, 197 So.2d 295 (Fla.1967); see annot., 25 A.L.R.4th 186, Norwich points out that § 12-119 does not purport to be an exclusive remedy to correct ......
-
Department of Revenue v. Nemeth
...when the complaint or petition is filed"). 8. In this manner, we conform our decision to our holding in Reynolds Fasteners, Inc. v. Wright, 197 So.2d 295, 298 (Fla.1967), that "a taxpayer seeking refund of tangible personal property taxes illegally or improperly collected must proceed withi......
-
Coe v. ITT Community Development Corp., s. FF-398
...Steel Corp., 155 So.2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963) and Wright v. Reynolds Fasteners, Inc., 184 So.2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), modified, 197 So.2d 295 (Fla.1967); and when the assessment included exempt property, Walden v. University of Tampa, Inc., 304 So.2d 134 (Fla.2d DCA 1974), cert. den., 315......
-
Coca-Cola Co. v. Coble
...these statutes, it is not necessary to determine whether the tax was paid voluntarily or involuntarily. E. g., Reynolds Fasterners, Inc. v. Wright, 197 So.2d 295 (Fla.1967); Bank v. Board of Supervisors, 168 Iowa 501, 150 N.W. 704 (1915); Schlesinger v. State, 195 Wis. 366, 218 N.W. 440 (19......
-
Getting your fair share back: recovering money paid pursuant to unconstitutional taxes and fees.
...limitations when considering recovery from the state treasury. Thirteen years later, the court in Reynolds Fasteners, Inc. v. Wright, 197 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1967), added the following comment underscoring its ruling: "A refund is a matter of grace and if the statute of non-claim is not compli......