Silver Springs Shores, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Revenue, GG-455
Decision Date | 25 May 1978 |
Docket Number | No. GG-455,GG-455 |
Citation | 366 So.2d 1182 |
Parties | SILVER SPRINGS SHORES, INC., Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Willard Ayres of Ayres, Cluster, Curry & McCall, Ocala, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Harold F. X. Purnell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Silver Springs Shores, Inc. seeks review of a Department of Revenue order upholding the validity of Rule 12A-4.13(22) 1 as a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority following a Section 120.56 proceeding. The evidence adduced at the hearing revealed that Silver Springs Shores, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amrep Corporation, primarily engaged in developing a large subdivision in Marion County. Amrep Construction Company, Inc. is also a wholly owned subsidiary of Amrep which, among other things, contracts to build homes for purchasers of lots in Silver Springs Shores. Another subsidiary, Holiday Shores Tours, Inc., seeks prospective purchasers of lots owned by Silver Springs Shores and encourages them to contract with Amrep Construction to have their homes built on the lots purchased in Silver Springs Shores. The typical transaction shows that once Holiday Shores Tours, Inc. has secured the intended purchaser, Amrep Construction Company makes arrangements for the conveyancing of the lot, the financing of the mortgage and the constructing of the home. Later Amrep Construction, Inc. and the purchaser execute a building agreement which provides for the purchase both of the home and the lot. Later, Amrep Construction, Inc. forwards a warranty deed initiation request to Silver Springs Shores, Inc. asking Silver Springs to issue a warranty deed to the purchaser. The warranty deed describes only the value of the lot without improvements and both documentary stamp taxes and surtaxes are placed upon the deed for the consideration paid only for the lot. Later at the closing, the buyer pays the total purchase price including both the price of the lot and home to Amrep Construction, Inc.
After numerous transactions were closed in the above manner, DOR filed a notice of a proposed assessment seeking to assess documentary stamp taxes, surtaxes, penalties and interest in the total amount of $13,002.10 against Silver Springs Shores, Inc. During the administrative hearing, Silver Springs conceded that the transactions were package deals within the meaning of the rule but challenged the rule as not being validly authorized by the Florida Documentary Stamp Tax statutes, specifically Section 201.02, empowering a documentary stamp tax of $.30 on each $100 of consideration on deeds and other documents, and Section 201.021(1) permitting a documentary surtax on such documents at the rate of $.55 per $500 of the consideration paid.
It is difficult for us to perceive the rule is facially invalid since it provides the determinative factor as to whether the tax applied is the intention of the parties. The statement is clearly consistent with the law relating to delivery of deeds, which states that the intention of the parties, particularly the grantor, is an essential and controlling element of the delivery of the deed. Smith v. Owens, 91 Fla. 995, 108 So. 891 (1926). The applicable stamp tax statutes generally follow the language of the corresponding federal revenue tax statute, 26 U.S.C. § 4361 (now repealed). Florida courts have usually given the same construction to Florida taxing statutes as is placed upon corresponding federal statutes by federal courts. Gay v. Inter-County Telephone and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Department of Revenue v. Silver Springs Shores, Inc.
...in Department of Revenue v. Young American Builders, 358 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) and Silver Springs Shores, Inc. v. Florida Department of Revenue, 366 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The decisions have been certified to this court as passing on a question of great public interest. Th......