1(1)(a) Property used to provide affordable housing to eligible persons as defined by s. 159.603 and natural persons or families meeting the extremely-low-income, very-low-income, low-income, or moderate-income limits specified in s. 420.0004, which is owned entirely by a nonprofit entity that is a corporation not for profit, qualified as charitable under s. 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and in compliance with Rev. Proc. 96-32, 1996-1 C.B. 717, is considered property owned by an exempt entity and used for a charitable purpose, and those portions of the affordable housing property that provide housing to natural persons or families classified as extremely low income, very low income, low income, or moderate income under s. 420.0004 are exempt from ad valorem taxation to the extent authorized under s. 196.196. All property identified in this subsection must comply with the criteria provided under s. 196.195 for determining exempt status and applied by property appraisers on an annual basis. The Legislature intends that any property owned by a limited liability company which is disregarded as an entity for federal income tax purposes pursuant to Treasury Regulation 301.7701-3(b)(1)(ii) be treated as owned by its sole member. If the sole member of the limited liability company that owns the property is also a limited liability company that is disregarded as an entity for federal income tax purposes pursuant to Treasury Regulation 301.7701-3(b)(1)(ii), the Legislature intends that the property be treated as owned by the sole member of the limited liability company that owns the limited liability company that owns the property. Units that are vacant and units that are occupied by natural persons or families whose income no longer meets the income limits of this subsection, but whose income met those income limits at the time they became tenants, shall be treated as portions of the affordable housing property exempt under this subsection if a recorded land use restriction agreement in favor of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or any other governmental or quasi-governmental jurisdiction requires that all residential units within the property be used in a manner that qualifies for the exemption under this subsection and if the units are being offered for rent.
2(b)1. Land that is owned entirely, or is leased from a housing finance authority pursuant to part IV of chapter 159, by a nonprofit entity that is a corporation not for profit, qualified as charitable under s. 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and in compliance with Rev. Proc. 96-32, 1996-1 C.B. 717, and is leased for a minimum of 99 years for the purpose of, and is predominantly used for, providing affordable housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely-low-income, very-low-income, low-income, or moderate-income limits specified in s. 420.0004 is exempt from ad valorem taxation.
2. Land leased pursuant to this paragraph that is assigned or subleased from a nonprofit entity to an extremely-low-income, very-low-income, low-income, or moderate-income person or persons as defined in s. 420.0004 for such person’s or persons’ own use as affordable housing is exempt from ad valorem taxation.
3. For purposes of this paragraph, land is predominantly used for qualifying purposes if the square footage of the improvements on the land used to provide qualifying housing is greater than 50 percent of the square footage of all improvements on the land.
4. This paragraph is repealed December 31, 2059.
(2)(a) Notwithstanding ss. 196.195 and 196.196, property in a multifamily project that meets the requirements of this subsection is considered property used for a charitable purpose and is exempt from ad valorem tax beginning with the January 1 assessment after the 15th completed year from the earliest of:
1. The effective date of the recorded agreement on those portions of the affordable housing property that provide housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely-low-income, very-low-income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004;
2. The first day of the first taxable year in which the property was placed in service as an affordable housing property that provides housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely-low-income, very-low-income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004; or
3. The date the property received a certificate of occupancy or a certificate of substantial completion, as applicable, allowing the property to be used as an affordable housing property that provides housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely-low-income, very-low-income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004.
(b) The multifamily project must:
1. Contain more than 70 units that are used to provide affordable housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely-low-income, very-low-income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004; and
2. Be subject to an agreement with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation recorded in the official records of the county in which the property is located to provide affordable housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely-low-income, very-low-income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004.
This exemption terminates if the property no longer serves extremely-low-income, very-low-income, or low-income persons pursuant to the recorded agreement.
(c) To receive the exemption under paragraph (a), a qualified applicant must submit an application to the county property appraiser by March 1.
(d) The property appraiser shall apply the exemption to those portions of the affordable housing property that provide housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely-low-income, very-low-income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004 before certifying the tax roll to the tax collector.
1. “Corporation” means the Florida Housing Finance Corporation.
2. “Newly constructed” means an improvement to real property which was substantially completed within 5 years before the date of an applicant’s first submission of a request for a certification notice pursuant to this subsection.
3. “Substantially completed” has the same meaning as in s. 192.042(1).
1(b) Notwithstanding ss. 196.195 and 196.196, portions of property in a multifamily project are considered property used for a charitable purpose and are eligible to receive an ad valorem property tax exemption if such portions meet all of the following conditions:
1. Provide affordable housing to natural persons or families meeting the income limitations provided in paragraph (d).
2.a. Are within a newly constructed multifamily project that contains more than 70 units dedicated to housing natural persons or families meeting the income limitations provided in paragraph (d); or
b. Are within a newly constructed multifamily project in an area of critical state concern, as designated by s. 380.0552 or chapter 28-36, Florida Administrative Code, which contains more than 10 units dedicated to housing natural persons or families meeting the income limitations provided in paragraph (d).
3. Are rented for an amount that does not exceed the amount as specified by the most recent multifamily rental programs income and rent limit chart posted by the corporation and derived from the Multifamily Tax Subsidy Projects Income Limits published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or 90 percent of the fair market value rent as determined by a rental market study meeting the requirements of paragraph (l), whichever is less.
1(c) If a unit that in the previous year received the exemption under this subsection and was occupied by a tenant is vacant on January 1, the vacant unit is eligible for the exemption if the use of the unit is restricted to providing affordable housing that would otherwise meet the requirements of this subsection and a reasonable effort is made to lease the unit to eligible persons or families.
a. Seventy-five percent of the assessed value of the units in multifamily projects that meet the requirements of this subsection and are used to house natural persons or families whose annual household income is greater than 80 percent but not more than 120 percent of the median annual adjusted gross income for households within the metropolitan statistical area or, if not within a metropolitan statistical area, within the county in which the person or family resides; and
b. From ad valorem property taxes the units in multifamily projects that meet the requirements of this subsection and are used to house natural persons or families whose annual household income does not exceed 80 percent of the median annual adjusted gross income for households within the metropolitan statistical area or, if not within a metropolitan statistical area, within the county in which the person or family resides.
2. When determining the value of a unit for purposes of applying an exemption pursuant to this paragraph, the property appraiser must include in such valuation the proportionate share of the residential common areas, including the land, fairly attributable to such unit.
1(e) To be eligible to receive an exemption under this subsection, a property owner must submit an application on a form prescribed by the department by March 1 for the exemption, accompanied by a certification notice from the corporation to the property appraiser. The property appraiser shall review the application and determine whether the applicant meets all of the requirements of this subsection and is entitled to an exemption. A property appraiser may request and review additional information necessary to make such determination. A property appraiser may grant an exemption only for a property for which the corporation has issued a certification notice and which the property appraiser determines is entitled to an exemption.
1(f) To receive a certification notice, a property owner must submit a request to the corporation on a form provided by the corporation which includes all of the following:
1. The most recently completed rental market study meeting the requirements of paragraph (l).
2. A list of the units for which the property owner seeks an exemption.
3. The rent amount received by the property owner for each unit for which the property owner seeks an exemption. If a unit is vacant and qualifies for an exemption under paragraph (c), the property owner must provide evidence of the published rent amount for each vacant unit.
4. A sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, from the applicant restricting the property for a period of not less than 3 years to housing persons or families who meet the income limitations under this subsection.
1(g) The corporation shall review the request for a certification notice and certify whether a property meets the criteria of paragraphs (b) and (c). A determination by the corporation regarding a request for a certification notice does not constitute a grant of an exemption pursuant to this subsection or final agency action pursuant to chapter 120.
1. If the corporation determines that the property meets the criteria, the corporation must send a certification notice to the property owner and the property appraiser.
2. If the corporation determines that the property does not meet the criteria, the corporation must notify the property owner and include the reasons for such determination.
1(h) The corporation shall post on its website the deadline to submit a request for a certification notice. The deadline must allow adequate time for a property owner to submit a timely application for exemption to the property appraiser.
1(i) If the property appraiser determines that for any year during the immediately previous 10 years a person who was not entitled to an exemption under this subsection was granted such an exemption, the property appraiser must serve upon the owner a notice of intent to record in the public records of the county a notice of tax lien against any property owned by that person in the county, and that property must be identified in the notice of tax lien. Any property owned by the taxpayer and situated in this state is subject to the taxes exempted by the improper exemption, plus a penalty of 50 percent of the unpaid taxes for each year and interest at a rate of 15 percent per annum. If an exemption is improperly granted as a result of a clerical mistake or an omission by the property appraiser, the property owner improperly receiving the exemption may not be assessed a penalty or interest.
1(j) Units subject to an agreement with the corporation pursuant to chapter 420 recorded in the official records of the county in which the property is located to provide housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely-low-income, very-low-income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004 are not eligible for this exemption.
1(k) Property receiving an exemption pursuant to s. 196.1979 or units used as a transient public lodging establishment as defined in s. 509.013 are not eligible for this exemption.
1(l) A rental market study submitted as required by subparagraph (f)1. must identify the fair market value rent of each unit for which a property owner seeks an exemption. Only a certified general appraiser as defined in s. 475.611 may issue a rental market study. The certified general appraiser must be independent of the property owner who requests the rental market study. In preparing the rental market study, a certified general appraiser shall comply with the standards of professional practice pursuant to part II of chapter 475 and use comparable property within the same geographic area and of the same type as the property for which the exemption is sought. A rental market study must have been completed within 3 years before submission of the application.
1(m) The corporation may adopt rules to implement this section.
1(n) This subsection first applies to the 2024 tax roll and is repealed December 31, 2059.
(o)1. Beginning with the 2025 tax roll, a taxing authority may elect, upon adoption of an ordinance or resolution approved by a two-thirds vote of the governing body, not to exempt property under sub-subparagraph (d)1.a. located in a county specified pursuant to subparagraph 2., subject to the conditions of this paragraph.
2. A taxing authority must make a finding in the ordinance or resolution that the most recently published Shimberg Center for Housing Studies Annual Report, prepared pursuant to s. 420.6075, identifies that a county that is part of the jurisdiction of the taxing authority is within a metropolitan statistical area or region where the number of affordable and available units in the metropolitan statistical area or region is greater than the number of renter households in the metropolitan statistical area or region for the category entitled “0-120 percent AMI.”
3. An election made pursuant to this paragraph may apply only to the ad valorem property tax levies imposed within a county specified pursuant to subparagraph 2. by the taxing authority making the election.
4. The ordinance or resolution must take effect on the January 1 immediately succeeding adoption and shall expire on the second January 1 after the January 1 in which the ordinance or resolution takes effect. The ordinance or resolution may be renewed prior to its expiration pursuant to this paragraph.
5. The taxing authority proposing to make an election under this paragraph must advertise the ordinance or resolution or renewal thereof pursuant to the requirements of s. 50.011(1) prior to adoption.
6. The taxing authority must provide to the property appraiser the adopted ordinance or resolution or renewal thereof by the effective date of the ordinance or resolution or renewal thereof.
7. Notwithstanding an ordinance or resolution or renewal thereof adopted pursuant to this paragraph, property in a multifamily project that received an exemption pursuant to sub-subparagraph (d)1.a. before the adoption or renewal of such ordinance or resolution may continue to receive such exemption for each subsequent consecutive year that the same owner or each successive owner applies for and is granted the exemption.
(4)(a) Notwithstanding ss. 196.195 and 196.196, property in a multifamily project that meets the requirements of this subsection is considered property used for a charitable purpose and is exempt from ad valorem tax beginning with the January 1 assessment immediately succeeding the date the property was placed in service allowing the property to be used as an affordable housing property that provides housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely-low-income, very-low-income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004.
1. Be composed of an improvement to land where an improvement did not previously exist or the construction of a new improvement where an old improvement was removed, which was substantially completed within 2 years before the first submission of an application for exemption under this subsection. For purposes of this subsection, the term “substantially completed” has the same definition as in s. 192.042(1).
2. Contain more than 70 units that are used to provide affordable housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely-low-income, very-low-income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004.
3. Be subject to a land use restriction agreement with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, or a housing finance authority pursuant to part IV of chapter 159, recorded in the official records of the county in which the property is located that requires that the property be used for 99 years to provide affordable housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely-low-income, very-low-income, low-income, or moderate-income limits specified in s. 420.0004. The agreement must include a provision for a penalty for ceasing to provide affordable housing under the agreement before the end of the agreement term that is equal to 100 percent of the total amount financed by the corporation, or a housing finance authority pursuant to part IV of chapter 159, multiplied by each year remaining in the agreement. The agreement may be terminated or modified without penalty if the exemption under this subsection is repealed.
The property is no longer eligible for this exemption if the property no longer serves extremely-low-income, very-low-income, or low-income persons pursuant to the recorded agreement.
(c) To be eligible to receive the exemption under this subsection, the property owner must submit an application to the property appraiser by March 1. The property appraiser shall review the application and determine whether the applicant meets all of the requirements of this subsection and is entitled to an exemption. A property appraiser may request and review additional information necessary to make such determination.
(d)1. The property appraiser shall apply the exemption to those portions of the affordable housing property that provide housing to natural persons or families meeting the extremely-low-income, very-low-income, or low-income limits specified in s. 420.0004 before certifying the tax roll to the tax collector.
2. When determining the value of the portion of property used to provide affordable housing for purposes of applying an exemption pursuant to this subsection, the property appraiser must include in such valuation the proportionate share of the residential common areas, including the land, fairly attributable to such portion of property.
(e) If the property appraiser determines that for any year a person who was not entitled to an exemption under this subsection was granted such an exemption, the property appraiser must serve upon the owner a notice of intent to record in the public records of the county a notice of tax lien against any property owned by that person in the county, and that property must be identified in the notice of tax lien. Any property owned by the taxpayer and situated in this state is subject to the taxes exempted by the improper exemption, plus a penalty of 50 percent of the unpaid taxes for each year and interest at a rate of 15 percent per annum. If an exemption is improperly granted as a result of a clerical mistake or an omission by the property appraiser, the property owner improperly receiving the exemption may not be assessed a penalty or interest.
(f) Property receiving an exemption pursuant to subsection (3) or s. 196.1979 is not eligible for this exemption.
(g) This subsection first applies to the 2026 tax roll.
“(1) The Department of Revenue is authorized, and all conditions are deemed met, to adopt emergency rules under s. 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, for the purpose of implementing provisions related to the Live Local Program created by this act. Notwithstanding any other law, emergency rules adopted under this section are effective for 6 months after adoption and may be renewed during the pendency of procedures to adopt permanent rules addressing the subject of the emergency rules.
“(2) This section expires July 1, 2026.”
2Note.—Section 17, ch. 2025-208, provides that “[t]he amendments made by this act to s. 196.1978(1)(b) and (4)(b), Florida Statutes, first apply to the 2026 tax roll.”
Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 902115
...The LURA required that, by June 1, 2000, 20% of the units would be occupied by very low income tenants and an additional 55% by low income tenants. *684 The remaining 25% were available for rent to the general public. In February 2000, Pier Club applied for an affordable housing exemption from ad valorem taxation pursuant to section 196.1978, Florida Statutes (2000)....
...Count I was styled a "statutory cause of action to contest the denial of ad valorem tax exemption." Count II sought a declaration that the property appraiser was in violation of section 196.193(5) for failing to either grant or deny the exemption by July 1st and that Pier Club was, in fact, entitled to the section 196.1978 exemption. The property appraiser took the position that the 2000 amendments to section 196.1978 were unconstitutional as they had been enacted in violation of the single subject rule....
...The parties were unable to agree, however, on the tax exempt status of those units that were vacant on January 1, 2000, and this issue was reserved for trial. Pier Club took the position that if a unit was previously occupied by a low or very low income tenant but vacant on January 1st, it was nonetheless entitled to section 196.1978's exemption....
...cannot agree. General Principles Regarding Ad Valorem Taxation Before addressing the specifics of the trial court's ruling and the arguments raised, it is helpful to set forth some general principles regarding ad valorem taxation and the language of section 196.1978....
...PPI, Inc., 843 So.2d 922, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). "The burden is on the claimant to show clearly any entitlement to tax exemption." Volusia County v. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist., 341 So.2d 498, 502 (Fla.1976). The Language of Section 196.1978 Since all real property is subject to ad valorem taxation unless exempted, any analysis of this issue must begin with the language of the statute authorizing the exemption. Section 196.1978 reads in relevant part: Property used to provide affordable housing serving eligible persons ....
...The meaning of the word "provide" Pier Club suggests that the answer to this question is "no," relying upon the dictionary definition of the word "provide." According to Pier Club, since the word "provide" means "to make available," see Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 948 (9th ed.1988), section 196.1978's exemption applies to "the portions of the affordable housing property ....
...he LURA. On the other hand, if only 100 of the 208 remaining units were presently leased to tenants other than those with low and very low incomes, then Pier Club has 108 available units, only 88 of which must be leased to low income individuals. 2. Section 196.1978's Internal References Next, Pier Club contends that any ambiguity as to whether the unit must actually be occupied by a low or very low income tenant on January 1st to qualify for the exemption is resolved by section 196.1978's internal references to sections 159.603(7); 420.0004(9), (10), (14); 196.196, and to Revenue Procedure 96-32. We cannot agree that any of these references shed light on whether section 196.1978 requires actual occupancy on January 1st....
...Economic Development Appropriations Analysis, at 14 (Apr. 10, 2000). 3. The LURA & Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-36.006 Pier Club points to the language of the LURA and Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-36.006 to support its contention that section 196.1978 does not require actual occupancy on January 1st....
...d activities." 509 So.2d at 1320. As in Trinity Episcopal, the court was not considering circumstances where the pre-January 1st use of the land and the January 1st use of the land were at variance. Conclusion Having found that the plain language of section 196.1978, the statute's internal references and legislative history, the LURA, and Florida's actual use doctrine do not address whether actual occupancy by a low or very low income tenant on January 1st is required to trigger the tax exemptio...
...on. See Cedars of Lebanon Hosp., 355 So.2d at 1205; Markham, 843 So.2d at 925. These principles require us to hold that occupancy by a low or very low income tenant on January 1st is necessary to trigger the affordable housing exemption set forth in section 196.1978....
Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 4272115
...neither a party nor a beneficiary under the PILOT agreement. We summarily rejected
the first argument. AHF-Bay Fund, LLC, 169 So. 3d at 134. However, we agreed with
AHF on the second issue, concluding that the PILOT agreement not only violated public
policy but also violated section 196.1978, Florida Statutes (2000), and article VII, § 9(a)
-3-
of the Florida Constitution....
...In its decision, the district court ruled upon the following
question, which the court certified to be of great public importance:
DO PILOT AGREEMENTS THAT REQUIRE PAYMENTS
EQUALING THE AD VALOREM TAXES THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE DUE BUT FOR A STATUTORY TAX
EXEMPTION VIOLATE SECTION 196.1978, FLORIDA
STATUTES (2000), AND ARTICLE VII, § 9(a) OF THE FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION?
Id....
...Bay (RHF), AHF’s
predecessor in interest. AHF-Bay Fund, 169 So. 3d at 135. Under the agreement,
AHF was required to make payments that equaled the ad valorem taxes that would
have otherwise been due but for the statutory tax exemption found in section
196.1978, Florida Statutes (2000)....
...RHF
was a tax exempt 501(c)(3) organization as defined by the Internal
Revenue Code. See 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) (2000). RHF planned to
develop the property to provide affordable housing for persons with
low to moderate income pursuant to chapter 420, Florida Statutes. As
set forth in section 196.1978, Florida Statutes (2000), affordable
housing projects owned by a 501(c)(3) organization are exempt from
ad valorem taxation.
To finance the project, RHF reached an agreement with the City
wherein the C...
...use the
payments are equal to the amount of taxes that would be due if the property were
not tax-exempt. Id.
ANALYSIS
The certified question presents two issues: (1) whether the PILOT agreement
violates section 196.1978, Florida Statutes (2000), and (2) whether the PILOT
agreement violates article VII, section 9(a) of the Florida Constitution....
...ted facts, they are reviewed
de novo. Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Auth., 8 So. 3d 1076, 1084-
85 (Fla. 2008).
The Second District invalidated the PILOT agreement between the City and
AHF by finding that the agreement violated section 196.1978, Florida Statutes
(2000), and violated the public policy of “promoting the provision of affordable
housing for low to moderate income families.” AHF-Bay Fund, 169 So. 3d at 138.
Specifically, the Second District held that “section 196.1978 expressly prohibits ad
-4-
valorem taxation on properties being used for affordable housing.” Id. at 136.
Section 196.1978, Florida Statutes (2000), provides in relevant part:
Property used to provide affordable housing serving eligible persons
as defined by s....
...420.0004(9) and (14) shall
be exempt from ad valorem taxation to the extent authorized in s.
196.196. All property identified in this section shall comply with the
criteria for determination of exempt status to be applied by property
appraisers on an annual basis as defined in s. 196.195.
§ 196.1978, Fla....
...Instead,
the section provides an exemption to nonprofit entities. However, the statute also
requires the nonprofit entity, here the owner of an affordable housing project, to
take affirmative steps to take advantage of the exemption. Specifically, section
196.1978 requires the owner to “comply with the criteria for determination of
exempt status to be applied by property appraisers on an annual basis as defined in
s....
...by the City
and RHF are not taxes and do not implicate article VII, section 9(a).
Consequently, the agreement does violate the Florida Constitution.
CONCLUSION
Because the PILOT agreement does not violate section 196.1978, Florida
Statues (2000), or article VII, section 9(a) of the Florida Constitution, we answer
the certified question in the negative and quash the decision of the Second District.
We do not address Respondent’s argument concernin...
...POLSTON, J.
In Stranburg v. Panama Commons L.P., 160 So. 3d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA
2015), the First District Court of Appeal held that Panama Commons’ right to due
process was violated by applying the 2013 repeal of the ad valorem tax exemption
under section 196.1978, Florida Statutes (2012), to the 2013 tax year.1 However,
because Panama Commons’ interest in the tax exemption under section 196.1978
had not vested, we reverse.
1....
...BACKGROUND
As the First District explained,
[Panama Commons] is a nonprofit Florida limited partnership
that constructed a ninety-two-unit affordable housing project in
Panama City. The Bay County Property Appraiser granted the project
a full tax exemption for the 2012 tax year under section 196.1978.
[Panama Commons then timely filed its exemption application for the
2013 tax year.] After [Panama Commons] filed its application, the
Legislature passed legislation eliminating the tax exemption for
affordabl...
...3d at 162.
On appeal, the First District agreed with the trial court and held that the
statutory repeal was unconstitutionally applied to the 2013 tax year because
Panama Commons’ substantive right to the ad valorem tax exemption under
section 196.1978 had vested on January 1, 2013, before the repeal was enacted.
The First District recognized “that claims for tax exemptions are subject to
statutory conditions” and that “the property appraiser had until July 1, 2013, to
deny [Panama Commons’] application.” Id....
...Florida case holds that the ‘right’ to a property tax exemption vests on January 1.”
Id. at 164 (Benton, J., dissenting).
II. ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that applying the 2013 repeal of the exemption under
section 196.1978 to the 2013 tax year does not violate due process because a
property owner does not have a vested right to the exemption before its exemption
application is granted and before the tax roll is certified....
...The parties
acknowledge that the de novo standard of review applies. We hold that due
process is not violated in this case by applying the 2013 repeal of the exemption
-3-
for limited partnerships under section 196.1978 to Panama Commons for the 2013
tax year.2
As this Court explained in Maronda Homes, Inc....
...v.
]Knowles, 402 So. 2d [1155, 1158 (Fla. 1981)].
Chase Federal, 737 So. 2d at 503.
In this case, application of the repeal to Panama Commons for the 2013 tax
year passes constitutional muster because Panama Commons’ right to the
exemption under section 196.1978 had not vested before the repeal was enacted.
“A vested right has been defined as ‘an immediate, fixed right of present or future
enjoyment’ and also as ‘an immediate right of present enjoyment, or a present,
fixed right of future enjoyment.’ ” Buster, 984 So....
...Panama Commons did not
have an immediate and fixed right to the exemption, but rather an expectation.
And a statute does not operate unconstitutionally simply if it “upsets expectations
based in prior law.” Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 269 (1994).
Receiving an ad valorem tax exemption under section 196.1978 for a
particular tax year is contingent upon many factors....
...is received by the tax collector.” Taxes assessed on November 1
become delinquent on April 1 of the following year. See id.
Stranburg, 160 So. 3d at 164 (Benton, J., dissenting).
Here, the Legislature enacted the statutory repeal of the exemption under
section 196.1978 for limited partnerships before the certification of the tax roll,
meaning before Panama Commons’ right to the exemption had vested....
...legislation is not a promise, and a taxpayer has no vested right in the Internal
Revenue Code.” Id. at 33.
Finally, contrary to the First District’s conclusion and Panama Commons’
argument, Panama Commons’ right to the exemption under section 196.1978 for
the 2013 tax year did not vest on January 1, 2013....
...“In the present case, by contrast, [Panama
Commons’] use of its real property on January 1, 2013, was not in issue.” Id.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, because Panama Commons’ right to the tax exemption under
section 196.1978 had not vested before the Legislature repealed the exemption for
limited partnerships in 2013, we hold that applying the repeal to Panama Commons
for the 2013 tax year does not violate due process....
...Stephen Turner and David K. Miller of Broad and Cassel, Tallahassee, for
Appellee.
SWANSON, J.
Appellants seek review of a final summary judgment concluding that
appellee was entitled to a 2013 property tax exemption for its affordable housing
project under section 196.1978, Florida Statutes (2012)....
...issue.
Appellee is a nonprofit Florida limited partnership that constructed a ninety-
two-unit affordable housing project in Panama City. The Bay County Property
Appraiser granted the project a full tax exemption for the 2012 tax year under
section 196.1978....
...In the present case, by contrast, appellee’s use of its real property on January
1, 2013, was not in issue. Appellee was not entitled to a tax exemption because,
when the Property Appraiser denied its 2013 exemption application, no exemption
was legally available to it under section 196.1978, Florida Statutes (2013). The
2013 Legislature amended section 196.1978, Florida Statutes, to eliminate the
9
exemption. The amended statute was the law in effect when the Property
Appraiser acted on the application, and was binding on him.
The law amending section 196.1978, Florida Statutes provided that the
changes be applied “retroactively to the 2013 tax roll.” Ch....
...an existing law’” that it would receive the exemption for the 2013 tax year after it
had received the exemption for the 2012 tax year under the 2012 statute. Brevda,
420 So. 2d at 891 (citation omitted). The Property Appraiser denied appellee’s
exemption application based upon section 196.1978, Florida Statutes (2013), the
law in effect when he acted....
...RHF was a tax
exempt 501(c)(3) organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Code. See 26
U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) (2000). RHF planned to develop the property to provide affordable
housing for persons with low to moderate income pursuant to chapter 420, Florida
Statutes. As set forth in section 196.1978, Florida Statutes (2000), affordable housing
projects owned by a 501(c)(3) organization are exempt from ad valorem taxation.
1
In the complaint, the City also raised a claim of breach of contract as...
...elfare of the public. See Miami
Battlecreek v. Lummus, 192 So. 211, 216 (Fla. 1939). Such exemptions are to be
-4-
strictly construed. See id. The exemption from ad valorem taxation as set forth in
section 196.1978 is applicable here.
Section 196.1978 was the legislature's response to Southlake Community
Foundation, Inc....
...Prior to the Havill
decision, nonprofit entities typically enjoyed exemption from ad valorem taxation without
qualification. But in Havill, the Fifth District Court of Appeal called into question that
practice. After Havill was decided, the Florida Legislature enacted section 196.1978,
making it clear that all 501(c)(3) nonprofit entities that provide affordable housing for low
to moderate income families were entitled to the exemption. The legislative history of
section 196.1978 is particularly instructive:
A recent court ruling in Florida's Fifth District Court of
Appeal[] (Southlake Community Foundation, Inc....
...on or that it
owns and operates the property as an affordable housing option for low to moderate
-5-
income families. Consequently, AHF is entitled to exemption from ad valorem taxation
pursuant to section 196.1978....
...VII, § 9(a) Fla. Const. (providing generally
that municipalities shall impose taxes as authorized by law); § 166.211(1), Fla. Stat.
(2000) (limiting power to levy ad valorem taxes "in a manner not inconsistent with
general law"),4 and because section 196.1978 expressly prohibits ad valorem taxation
on properties being used for affordable housing, a municipality cannot circumvent that
prohibition by seeking to recover ad valorem taxes merely by utilizing a different name,
see State v....
...valorem taxation and the PILOT agreement in question was merely an attempt to
recoup the ad valorem taxes that would have otherwise been due. Id. at 152.
Similarly here, the property in question is exempt from ad valorem taxation
pursuant to section 196.1978, but the PILOT agreement requires the owner of the
property to make annual payments that are the equivalent of the ad valorem taxes that
would have otherwise been due....
...See Farnham & Pfile Co., Inc., 878 A.2d at 151-52 (citing
school district's allegations in its complaint as indication that school district was seeking
to recoup ad valorem taxes).
We conclude that based on the statutory exemption from ad valorem
taxation as set forth in section 196.1978, the City did not have authority to collect ad
valorem taxes from AHF via enforcement of the PILOT agreement....
...We therefore certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question
to be of great public importance:
DO PILOT AGREEMENTS THAT REQUIRE PAYMENTS
EQUALING THE AD VALOREM TAXES THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE DUE BUT FOR A STATUTORY TAX
EXEMPTION VIOLATE SECTION 196.1978, FLORIDA
STATUTES (2000), AND ARTICLE VII, § 9(a) OF THE
FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
-10-
This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.
