Tampa Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Walden
Decision Date | 19 December 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 69--58,COCA-COLA,69--58 |
Citation | 230 So.2d 52 |
Parties | TAMPABOTTLING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. R. R. (Bob) WALDEN, as Tax Assessor of Hillsborough County, Florida; Anthony Schleman, as Tax Collector of Hillsborough County, Florida; and Fred O. Dickinson, as Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
T. Terrell Sessums of Albritton, Sessums & Ryder, Tampa, for appellant.
Wm. Terrell Hodges of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellee R. R. (Bob) Walden.
Appellant Tampa Coca-Cola Bottling Company, a Florida Corporation, appeals to this Court from a final judgment entered by the Hillsborough County Circuit Court in a case wherein the company challenged an ad valorem tax assessment on its real property for the taxable year of 1967.
The issues were duly made up and after extensive taking of testimony and introduction of numerous exhibits, encompassing 7 volumes of the record, all taken before the able Chancellor personally, the Court entered a most lucid final judgment which finds ample support in the evidence adduced and which we felt we cannot improve upon. We therefore adopt the pertinent portions thereof, as follows:
'1. The Plaintiff is the owner of a certain irregularly shaped parcel of real property consisting of approximately 10.64 acres, together with the improvements thereon, situated in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, as more particularly described in the complaint. The property abuts Ybor Channel on the East; 13th Street on the West; and York Street on the North; and the improvements on the site consist primarily of a manufacturing plant wherein the Plaintiff formulates and bottles soft drinks and beverages.
2. For the year 1967, the Defendant Tax Assessor placed an assessed valuation upon the property in the total amount of $971,200.00 consisting of building or improvement value in the amount of $306,800.00 and land value in the amount of $664,400.00. The plaintiff duly exhausted its administrative remedies by protesting such assessment before the Board of County Commissioners sitting as a Board of Equalization, and upon the filing of this suit seeking a declaratory judgment invalidating such assessment. Plaintiff paid into the registry of the Court the sum of $20,361.34 being the amount of tax which the Plaintiff alleged to be the maximum amount legally due for 1967. Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this cause and of the parties hereto.
3. No issue was raised concerning the assessed value of Plaintiff's buildings or improvements in the amount of $306,800.00. The sole issue presented by the pleadings was the legality of the assessed value placed upon the Plaintiff's land in the amount of $664,400.00. The complaint alleged that the just value of such land was not more than $185,000.00, but during pretrial conference the Plaintiff contended that such land value should be $238,000.00 and the complaint was deemed amended to that extent.
4. Additionally, during the pre-trial conference, counsel for the Defendant Tax Assessor stipulated that a mathematical error had been made in computing the assessed valuation upon the land in the amount of $664,400.00, which error was attributable in part to the fact that the dimensions of the parcel as contained in the legal description given on Plaintiff's deed (and on the tax roll) are larger than the actual dimensions of the parcel as established by a survey which was admitted in evidence. The Tax Assessor accordingly contended that the correct assessment of the land should be $448,730.00; that such amount constitutes the just value of the land for 1967; and that the Plaintiff was not entitled to any relief other than a reduction in the land value to that amount.
5. The ultimate issue thus presented was whether the sum of $448,730.00 constitutes an excessive and illegal assessment upon Plaintiff's land for 1967.
6. The making of assessed valuations upon individual properties by the Tax Assessor for purposes of ad valorem taxation is an administrative act for which the assessor is politically responsible to the people of the county. This being so, and inasmuch as value is necessarily a matter of judgment and opinion, Tax Assessors are and always have been legally accorded a wide discretion in the valuation of property for tax purposes. Their good faith is presumed and their assessments when made in the manner provided by law are accepted as prima facie correct so that the same will not be disturbed by the courts unless there is a clear and positive showing of arbitrary action, or intentional discrimination resulting in such manifest and gross inequality as to amount to a fraud upon the taxpayer. Stated another way, the taxpayer's complaint and proof must make a complete case for equitable relief by excluding every reasonable hypothesis of a legal assessment against him. E.g., City of Tampa vs. Palmer, 89 Fla. 514, 105 So. 115 (1925); Harbond, Inc. vs. Anderson, 134 So.2d 816 (Fla.App.2d Dist.1961); Florida East Coast Railway Company vs. Green, 178 So.2d 355 (Fla.App.1st Dist.1965), and other authorities cited in those decisions.
7. The disputed assessment in the instant case was made by the Defendant Tax Assessor with the aid and assistance of Hunnicutt & Associates, Inc., as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Daniel v. Canterbury Towers, Inc.
...district courts of appeal. Exchange Realty Corp. v. Hillsborough County, 272 So.2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Tampa Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Walden, 230 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Harbond, Inc. v. Anderson, 134 So.2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961); Atlantic International Investment Corp. v. Turner,......
-
Muckenfuss v. Miller
...v. Wilton, Ltd., 305 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).10 § 197.012, Fla.Stat. (1981).11 Wilton, 305 So.2d 83; Tampa Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Walden, 230 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).12 Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(h), we can review the cost award although the notice of a......
-
Belden v. Twa Ltd. Partnership, 2D07-3217.
...method of calculating the refunds should be rejected because it was inconsistent with the method utilized in Tampa Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Walden, 230 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), and Muckenfuss v. Miller, 421 So.2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), for determining the amount of property tax defic......
-
Exchange Realty Corp. v. Hillsborough County, 71-86
...prejudicial or material error in matter of law, independent of the exercise of a discretion as to value.' In Tampa Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Walden, 230 So.2d 52 (Fla.App.1969), Judge Pierce of this Court so ably stated the law as 'The making of assessed valuations upon individual prope......