SKFW MANAGEMENT CORP. v. Department of Revenue
Decision Date | 12 March 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 5D04-524.,5D04-524. |
Citation | 867 So.2d 1232 |
Parties | SKFW MANAGEMENT CORP., etc., et al., Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Eric J. Stockel, Esq. and Allen H. Libow, Esq, Libow & Muskat L.L.P., Boca Raton, for Petitioners.
No Appearance for Respondent.
SKFW Management Corporation and Royal Palace Hotel Associates seek a writ of prohibition or certiorari in their challenge to the assessment of certain sales and use taxes. The trial court denied their motion for alternative security arrangements, and determined that petitioners were not entitled to a waiver of the bond posting requirement of section 72.011, Florida Statutes. Because we conclude that neither prohibition nor certiorari is an appropriate remedy, we deny the petition.
The facts, as set forth in the trial court's order, are as follows:
Plaintiffs filed suit against the Florida Department of Revenue ("Department") challenging the assessment of sales and use taxes. On April 5, 2000, Plaintiffs requested that the Department waive the bond posting requirements enumerated in section 72.011, Florida Statutes. Plaintiffs argued that according to their financial statements, they clearly had the financial resources to satisfy any possible judgment in favor of the Department. Plaintiffs' request was denied on April 18, 2003.
The Department, on the other hand, argues that Plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence to establish that they are financially stable enough to allow the Department to grant a bond waiver. The Department also argues that Plaintiffs have submitted nothing thus far that will assure that it will be made whole at the end of the litigation. It claims that Plaintiffs did not present any testimony from a corporate executive, accountant or financial officer to verify their financial resources and, in fact, did not present any evidence at the hearing. Furthermore, the Department argues that any statutory lien it has on Plaintiffs' property does not guarantee it will be made whole. It states that based on the lack of evidence in the record, it is unaware of who actually owns the property and of who may have a prior secured interest in the property.
Moreover, the Department argues that it has been willing to accept other forms of alternative security from Plaintiffs, such as an irrevocable letter of credit issued by a bank naming the Department as beneficiary, or a guarantee by a financially stable entity. Plaintiffs had the opportunity to provide such documentation prior to, and at, the hearing, but have continually failed to do so.
The court then found that plaintiffs "failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial viability to warrant a waiver under section 72.011." Petitioners now seek review of the circuit court's order.
Petitioners request that this court grant a writ of prohibition restraining the circuit court from requiring them to post a bond or make any other financial security arrangement in favor of respondent when, according to them, section 72.011 is "silent as to whether any security arrangement is required when a taxpayer files, and is denied, a refund of tax concurrently with its challenge to an assessment on the very same tax issue as the one...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Madison v. State
... ... important, for trial courts to consider case management when ruling on motions for continuances, neither the needs ... ...
- Trocola v. State
-
Symons v. Symons
...or prevent the enforcement of orders already entered. See Sparkman v. McClure, 498 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1986); SKFW Mgmt. Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue, 867 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). A writ of prohibition should not be issued unless the reviewing court determines that: (1) the lower tribunal i......
-
Symons v. Symons, No. 3D08-2207 (Fla. App. 3/11/2009)
...or prevent the enforcement of orders already entered. See Sparkman v. McClure, 498 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1986); SKFW Mgmt. Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue, 867 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). A writ of prohibition should not be issued unless the reviewing court determines that: (1) the lower tribunal......