U.S. v. Associated Developers of Florida, Inc., s. NN-307
| Decision Date | 15 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | NN-253,Nos. NN-307,s. NN-307 |
| Citation | 400 So.2d 17 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. ASSOCIATED DEVELOPERS OF FLORIDA, INC. and Auto-Owners Insurance Company, Appellees. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of Florida, Appellant, v. ASSOCIATED DEVELOPERS OF FLORIDA, INC. and Auto-Owners Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nicholas P. Geeker, U. S. Atty., Tallahassee, M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gilbert E. Andrews, Karl Schmeidler, and Mary L. Jennings, Attys., Tax Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant United States of America.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., William D. Townsend, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant Dept. of Revenue, State of Florida.
David T. Johnson, Jr. of Clark, Partington & Hart, Pensacola, for appellee Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
The United States of America (United States) and the State of Florida (State) appeal a final judgment absolving the surety, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, from liability for the receiver's failure to pay certain tax monies to each government. We reverse.
Several plaintiffs holding mortgages on country club property filed a petition for the appointment of a receiver to continue the business. The trial court granted the petition, effective June 25, 1975, and appointed Frank Mize Jr., receiver of the financially troubled club. The receiver was ordered to "attempt" to keep the property in a good state of repair and "pay taxes and assessments on said property, such payments to be made from the profits or proceeds collected or from amounts which plaintiffs (those who petitioned for the receivership) may invest in advance to protect the premises." The receiver's bond, provided by the surety, read in part:
THE CONDITION OF THIS BOND is that if Frank W. Mize, Jr. shall pay all costs that result from Frank W. Mize, Jr.'s failure to faithfully perform his duties as Receiver, then this bond is void; otherwise, it remains in force.
On May 2, 1977, the receivership was terminated effective February 15, 1977. The United States filed claims against the surety for certain taxes accruing during the receivership: federal withholding of income, social security (Federal Insurance Contributions Act or FICA), and unemployment (Federal Unemployment Tax Act or FUTA). Similarly the State claimed it was entitled to sales tax monies. The trial court ruled that Mize performed his duties in good faith with ordinary care and held neither Mize nor his surety liable for the claims. The evidence clearly supports the finding that Mize operated the business in good faith in an effort to save the business.
First, we agree with the State's assertion that sales tax monies are state funds from the moment of collection; and therefore, the receiver was obligated to pay these monies to the state before he used them to pay other indebtedness. A receiver has the statutory duty to collect and remit sales tax. §§ 212.02(1), 212.06, Fla.Stat. (1977). Here, Mize collected sales tax from purchasers but deposited the funds in a general account, ultimately spending the money on other indebtedness to continue the business. Nonetheless, the taxes became state funds from the moment of collection. § 212.15(1). The sales tax is in the nature of a privilege tax to do business. §§ 212.05, 212.07(1). Although the business operated at a loss, the receiver was obligated by law to account for these trust funds collected by the receiver in the course of continuing the business. We disagree with the surety's argument that it is relieved of liability because Mize exercised good faith. If a receiver fails to perform his lawful duties, then the loss occasioned by the breach of duty is covered by the receiver's faithful performance bond. See generally State v. Stewart, 272 Cal.App.2d 345, 77 Cal.Rptr. 418, 422-423 (1969); In the Matter of Jack Lopez Wholesale Shirt Laundry, Inc., 435 F.Supp. 1031, 1033, 1035 (E.D.Pa.1977). Further, the court order appointing Mize and delineating his duties did nothing to relieve the receiver of his lawful obligations. In determining the amount of the surety's liability, the receiver should be credited for the sales tax payments he made for taxes accruing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Revenue v. Rudd
...section 212.15(4), Florida Statutes, except "for the amount of tax collected or otherwise due and not remitted"; (2) U.S. v. Assoc. Dev., 400 So.2d 17 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), establishes that "tax funds are State funds from the moment of collection"; therefore (3) "the funds predicating the is......
-
Wind Point Partners VII-A, L.P. v. Hoya Corp.
...mere surplusage. Taxes can be payable even if a state does not send a demand for payment (see e.g. United States v. Associated Developers of Fla., Inc., 400 So.2d 17, 18 [Fla.App. 1980] ; Pierce v. Pacini, 127 Ill App 2d 1, 8, 261 N.E.2d 515, 518 [1970] ; Central Credit Union v. Comptroller......
-
Garcia–lopez v. Affordable Plumbing/Vinings Ins. Co.
...report and withhold taxes from wages paid to employees. See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. §§ 3402(a), 3403 (2008); United States v. Assoc. Developers of Fla., Inc., 400 So.2d 17, 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Proof that wages have been reported for federal income tax purposes by the employee or the employer t......