Zuckerman-Vernon Corp. v. State Dept. of Revenue
| Decision Date | 17 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. BB--492,ZUCKERMAN-VERNON,BB--492 |
| Citation | 339 So.2d 685 |
| Parties | CORP., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Burton Young, North Miami Beach, and William L. Rogers, Miami, of Snyder Young, Stern, Barrett & Tannenbaum, P. A., North Miami Beach, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Harold F. X. Purnell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Zuckerman-Vernon Corp. has petitioned for review of the Department's assessment of documentary stamp taxes in the amount of $55,649.70 and a penalty in the same amount for petitioner's failure to affix documentary stamps to a deed from Bayshore 21, Inc., to petitioner and its joint venturer, Marvin Glick. Secs. 120.68, 201.02, F.S.1975. Petitioner insists that the conveyance from Bayshore to the joint venturers on August 27, 1973, was but part of the same transaction in which Bayshore acquired the property August 23, 1973, as trustee for the joint venturers. Documentary stamps in the appropriate amount were affixed to the earlier deed.
Petitioner urges that the joint venturers provided Bayshore all the cash required for its acquisition of the property, personally guaranteed Bayshore's mortgage notes and intended that Bayshore should hold only a paper title for the brief period necessary to arrange Bayshore's financing on the strength of the guarantors' credit. The joint venture agreement dated August 23, to which Bayshore was not a party, recited that Bayshore 'has taken title' as trustee. The hearing officer noted that interest rates at the time were higher than those which could lawfully be contracted for by an individual.
The hearing officer found as facts that Bayshore contracted to buy in its corporate name, not as trustee or in another representative capacity, placed $500,000.00 earnest money in escrow when executing the purchase and sale agreement, and took title in its own name, not as trustee. The hearing officer found it was Bayshore's funds, borrowed or otherwise, which made the purchase possible and found no evidence of an express trust relationship between Bayshore and the joint venturers. She further found no evidence that Glick provided Bayshore with cash to secure the purchase and sale agreement or, if he did, that he did so as petitioner's joint venturer rather than as Bayshore's principal.
To overcome these findings, petitioner relies on the retrospective recitation in the joint venture agreement, on joint venture records showing receipts and disbursements on and after August 23 and on unsworn statements made by counsel interpreting the mute documents. The transaction was colorably like that involved in River Park Joint Venture, 315076 v. Dickinson, 303 So.2d 654 (Fla.App.1st, 1974), cert. den. 315 So.2d 195 (Fla.1975)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, Dept. of Revenue v. Zuckerman-Vernon Corp.
...of consolidated petitions for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported at 339 So.2d 685. In Case No. 50,907, petitioner, Department of Revenue, alleges the district court's decision to be in conflict with Dominion Land and Title Corpo......
-
Win-San Bldg. Corp. v. State, Dept. of Revenue, WIN-SAN
...of petitioner's belief the stamp tax was not applicable to this transaction, petitioner relied on Zuckerman-Vernon Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 339 So.2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), where, for certain circumstances therein involved that court held the full penalty was inequitable, and mater......