The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 202
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES TAX SIMPLIFICATION LAW

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 202.12

202.12 Sales of communications services.—The Legislature finds that every person who engages in the business of selling communications services at retail in this state is exercising a taxable privilege. It is the intent of the Legislature that the tax imposed by chapter 203 be administered as provided in this chapter.

(1) For the exercise of such privilege, a tax is levied on each taxable transaction and is due and payable as follows:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, at the rate of 4.92 percent applied to the sales price of the communications service that:

1. Originates and terminates in this state, or

2. Originates or terminates in this state and is charged to a service address in this state,

when sold at retail, computed on each taxable sale for the purpose of remitting the tax due. The gross receipts tax imposed by chapter 203 shall be collected on the same taxable transactions and remitted with the tax imposed by this paragraph. If no tax is imposed by this paragraph due to the exemption provided under s. 202.125(1), the tax imposed by chapter 203 shall nevertheless be collected and remitted in the manner and at the time prescribed for tax collections and remittances under this chapter.

(b) At the rate of 9.07 percent applied to the retail sales price of any direct-to-home satellite service received in this state. The proceeds of the tax imposed under this paragraph shall be accounted for and distributed in accordance with s. 202.18(2). The gross receipts tax imposed by chapter 203 shall be collected on the same taxable transactions and remitted with the tax imposed by this paragraph.

(c) At the rate set forth in paragraph (a) on the sales price of private communications services provided within this state, which shall be determined in accordance with the following provisions:

1. Any charge with respect to a channel termination point located within this state;

2. Any charge for the use of a channel between two channel termination points located in this state; and

3. Where channel termination points are located both within and outside of this state:

a. If any segment between two such channel termination points is separately billed, 50 percent of such charge; and

b. If any segment of the circuit is not separately billed, an amount equal to the total charge for such circuit multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of channel termination points within this state and the denominator of which is the total number of channel termination points of the circuit.

The gross receipts tax imposed by chapter 203 shall be collected on the same taxable transactions and remitted with the tax imposed by this paragraph.

(d) At the rate set forth in paragraph (a) applied to the sales price of all mobile communications services deemed to be provided to a customer by a home service provider pursuant to s. 117(a) of the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act, Pub. L. No. 106-252, if such customer’s service address is located within this state.

(2) A dealer of taxable communications services shall bill, collect, and remit the taxes on communications services imposed pursuant to chapter 203 and this section at a combined rate that is the sum of the rate of tax on communications services prescribed in chapter 203 and the applicable rate of tax prescribed in this section. However, a dealer shall, in reporting each remittance to the department, identify the portion thereof which consists of taxes remitted pursuant to chapter 203. Return forms prescribed by the department shall facilitate such reporting.

(3) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the combined amount of taxes imposed under this section and s. 203.01(1)(a)2. shall not exceed $100,000 per calendar year on charges to any person for interstate communications services that originate outside this state and terminate within this state. This subsection applies only to holders of a direct-pay permit issued under this subsection. A refund may not be given for taxes paid before receiving a direct-pay permit. Upon application, the department may issue one direct-pay permit to the purchaser of communications services authorizing such purchaser to pay the Florida communications services tax on such services directly to the department if the majority of such services used by such person are for communications originating outside of this state and terminating in this state. Only one direct-pay permit shall be issued to a person. Such direct-pay permit shall identify the taxes and service addresses to which it applies. Any dealer of communications services furnishing communications services to the holder of a valid direct-pay permit is relieved of the obligation to collect and remit the taxes imposed under this section and s. 203.01(1)(a)2. on such services. Tax payments and returns pursuant to a direct-pay permit shall be monthly. As used in this subsection, “person” means a single legal entity and does not mean a group or combination of affiliated entities or entities controlled by one person or group of persons.

History.—ss. 3, 58, ch. 2000-260; ss. 3, 4, 38, ch. 2001-140; s. 2, ch. 2005-187; s. 1, ch. 2010-149; s. 2, ch. 2015-221.

F.S. 202.12 on Google Scholar

F.S. 202.12 on Casetext

Amendments to 202.12

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 202.12

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 202.12.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

DIRECTV, INC. n k a LLC, L. L. C. n k a L. L. C. v. STATE, 225 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Thereafter, the Florida Supreme Court reversed our opinion and found that section 202.12(1), Florida . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, v. DIRECTV, INC., 215 So. 3d 46 (Fla. 2017)

. . . . § 202.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . . . § 202.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2015). . . . trial court disagreed, and “[i]n ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment,” found that section 202.12 . . . (FCTA) argue that section 202.12(1) of the CST does not discriminate in its effect or its purpose and . . . The satellite companies contend that section 202.12(1) is facially unconstitutional. . . .

EASTERN SAVINGS BANK, FSB, v. K. STREZ, A., 320 F.R.D. 9 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . . § 202.12-a, amended by 2016 NEW YORK COURT ORDER 0039 (C.O. 0039). . . .

RICHARDSON, v. STATE, 182 So. 3d 918 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 202.12 (footnote omitted). . . .

STACEY, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 451 F. App'x 517 (6th Cir. 2011)

. . . Rules 202.11 & 202.12.) . . .

LEWIS, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 666 F. Supp. 2d 730 (E.D. Mich. 2009)

. . . See Vocational Rules 202.10 through 202.12, Appx. 2 Subpart P, Regulations No. 4. . . .

OGBORN, v. ZINGALE,, 988 So. 2d 56 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . amended class action complaint, Appellants alleged that the Communications Services Tax statute, section 202.12 . . . Section 202.12 is entitled "Sales of communications services" and provides in part: The Legislature finds . . .

STATE v. GREEN,, 890 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 202.12, at 52 (West 1996 Ed.)). . . .

E. WIRTH, v. Jo BARNHART,, 325 F. Supp. 2d 911 (E.D. Wis. 2004)

. . . P § 202.12). . . .

WIRTH, v. Jo BARNHART,, 318 F. Supp. 2d 726 (E.D. Wis. 2004)

. . . P § 202.12. . . .

L. HECTOR, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 337 F. Supp. 2d 905 (S.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . and physical and mental residual functional capacity within the framework of Medical-Vocational Rule 202.12 . . .

DELGADO, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 305 F. Supp. 2d 704 (S.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . reached within the framework of Medical-Vocational Rule[s] 202.17, 202.18, 202.19, 202.10, 202.11, and 202.12 . . . full range of light work, using Medical-Vocational Rule[s] 202.17, 202.18, 202.19, 202.10, 202.11 and 202.12 . . . if they were- appropriate with regard to the other two categories (i.e., age and education), Rules 202.12 . . .

KRIMSTOCK, v. W. KELLY,, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002)

. . . . § 202.12(a) (“If the action has not been assigned to a judge, the party shall file a request for judicial . . . Comp.Codes R. & Regs. § 202.12(c)(l)-(4), and "any other matters that the court may deem relevant,” id . . . . § 202.12(c)(5). . . . .

CAPITOL MORTGAGE BANKERS, INCORPORATED, v. M. CUOMO, U. S. RLS, d b a St., 222 F.3d 151 (4th Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 202.12(c), and required lenders with a high default rate who are so notified by the HUD Secretary . . .

CAPITOL MORTGAGE BANKERS, INC. v. M. CUOMO,, 77 F. Supp. 2d 690 (D. Md. 1999)

. . . . § 202.12(c) ("If a mortgagee approved for participation in Title II programs is notified by the Secretary . . . See 24 C.F.R. § 202.12(c) ("If a mortgagee approved for participation in Title II programs is notified . . . (x) Failure to submit a report required under 24 C.F.R. § 202.12(c) [the regulation implementing section . . .

TACKETT, v. S. APFEL,, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999)

. . . P, app. 2, rules 202.12, 202.21. . . .

LATIMORE, v. CITIBANK FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Ed, 151 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 1998)

. . . . § 202.12(b)(l)(i), and the .logs of the notes occurred within that period., ■ The violation of a recordretention . . .

R. WILLIS G. v. QUALITY MORTGAGE USA, INC., 5 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (M.D. Ala. 1998)

. . . . §§ 202.10-202.12. . The plaintiffs also rely on Smith v. First Family Fin. . . .

WILCUTTS, v. S. APFEL,, 143 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir. 1998)

. . . The first ALJ held that Rules 202.11 and 202.12 of the Medical Vocational Guidelines (Grid), 20 C.F.R . . . Rule 202.12 provides that an individual with the same profile except for the possession of transferable . . .

LATIMORE, v. CITIBANK, F. S. B. Ed, 979 F. Supp. 662 (N.D. Ill. 1997)

. . . . § 202.12(b)(l)(i). Ms. Latimore contends that Mr. . . .

MARADIE, v. B. MARADIE,, 680 So. 2d 538 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 202.12, at 52 (West 1996 Ed.). . . .

E. WOLFE, v. S. CHATER,, 86 F.3d 1072 (11th Cir. 1996)

. . . The Secretary asserts that the ALJ correctly used grid rule 202.12 to conclude that Wolfe is not disabled . . . transferable or non-transferable, is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Rules 202.11 & 202.12 . . .

K. HOPE, INC. v. ONSLOW COUNTY, TREANTS ENTERPRISES, v, ONSLOW COUNTY, A. MERCER, Sr. t a v. ONSLOW COUNTY,, 911 F. Supp. 948 (E.D.N.C. 1995)

. . . 14, art. 26A North Carolina’s legislature has also enacted N.C.Gen.Stat. ch. 14, art. 26A, §§ 202.10-202.12 . . . N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-202.12 establishes that first-time violations of N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-202.11 constitute . . .

OPERATING ENGINEERS TRUST FUNDS, v. L. KINORES,, 902 F. Supp. 1201 (D. Haw. 1995)

. . . following: Dates Contribution Liquidated Damages 10/90-12/91 $18,271.90 $4,065.78 1/92-12/92 799.20 202.12 . . .

S. DELYRIA, v. E. SHALALA,, 856 F. Supp. 1432 (D. Or. 1994)

. . . qualified to perform “light work,” is not supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ’s reliance on Rule 202.12 . . .

GONZALEZ v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 799 F. Supp. 940 (N.D. Ind. 1992)

. . . Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Rule 202.12, Table No. 2 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations . . .

HILL, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 769 F. Supp. 467 (W.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . difference between being disabled under Rules 202.01 or 202.02 or being not disabled under Rules 202.11 or 202.12 . . .

SERRA, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 762 F. Supp. 1030 (W.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . light work, the grids, specifically 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Rules 202.10 through 202.12 . . .

J. LONG, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 866 F.2d 1066 (8th Cir. 1989)

. . . .-11, 202.12, 202.18, and 202.19 of the grid (Table No. 2 in Appendix 2, 20 C.F.R. . . .

SHOPCO DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, INC. a v. COMMANDING GENERAL OF MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LE- JEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA,, 696 F. Supp. 1063 (E.D.N.C. 1988)

. . . . § 202.12(a). . . .

B. EGGLESTON, v. R. BOWEN,, 851 F.2d 1244 (10th Cir. 1988)

. . . P, App. 2, table 2, Rule 202.12, and concluded that Eggleston is not disabled. . . .

A. SPADA v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 687 F. Supp. 188 (E.D. Pa. 1988)

. . . . § 404.1569 and Rules 202.12 and 202.03, Table No. 2, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4, found . . . found plaintiff capable of performing substantial gainful activities, pursuant to Rules 202.03 and 202.12 . . .

H. PAULSON, v. R. BOWEN,, 836 F.2d 1249 (9th Cir. 1988)

. . . Grid Rules 202.10, 202.11, and 202.12 each direct a finding of “not disabled,” irrespective of the level . . .

ARCE CRESPO, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 831 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1987)

. . . The AU also used Rule 202.12 of the grid, which would direct a finding of “not disabled,” as a framework . . . We find no error in the ALJ’s application of Rule 202.12 of the grid as a “framework for decisionmaking . . . Nor did the AU err in making reference to Rule 202.12. . . . Claimant also asserts that since he is unable to communicate in English, Rule 202.12 was inapplicable . . .

MULLINS, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 836 F.2d 980 (6th Cir. 1987)

. . . P, app. 2, Table 1, Rule 201.11, and Table 2, Rules 202.11, 202.12. C. . . . P., app. 2, Table 2, Rules 202.11, 202.12. . . .

ROBERT R. JONES ASSOCIATES, INC. v. NINO HOMES,, 686 F. Supp. 160 (E.D. Mich. 1987)

. . . . § 202.12(a). The Herman Frankel Organization v. Tegman, et al., 367 F.Supp. 1051 (E.D.Mich.1973). . . .

M. N. C. OF HINESVILLE, INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,, 791 F.2d 1466 (11th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 202.12(a). This is a benefit that no other commercial newspaper enjoys. . . .

REED, v. CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, a, 483 So. 2d 759 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . jurisdiction because Reed failed to exhaust legal and administrative remedies available to him under Section 202.12 . . . Section 202.12 of the South Florida Building Code provides that “[a]ny person aggrieved by a decision . . .

W. MEYER, v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 549 F. Supp. 1242 (W.D.N.Y. 1982)

. . . Subpart P, Rules 202.03, 202.12, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that plaintiff was not disabled within . . .

v., 447 U.S. 929 (U.S. 1980)

. . . . §§ 14r-202.10 to 14-202.12. . . .

HART BOOK STORES, INC. d b a R. M. F. Jr. d b a L. J. d b a E. M. d b a s MC d b a M s a v. EDMISTEN, E. K. K. H. W. C. W. A. T. B. H. W. Jr. Jr. b C. D. U. T. INCORPORATED, a d b a s s a d b a s v. EDMISTEN, C. C., 612 F.2d 821 (4th Cir. 1979)

. . . . § 14-202.12. . . . devices are sold, distributed, exhibited, or contained shall contain any adult establishment. § 14-202.12 . . .

A. VANDER MISSEN, v. KELLOGG- CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF GREEN BAY,, 481 F. Supp. 742 (E.D. Wis. 1979)

. . . . § 202.12. . . .

HART BOOK STORES, INC. v. EDMISTEN, TRI- STATE NEWS, INC. v. EDMISTEN FEHLHABER, d b a v. W. GRANNIS, Jr. MOORE, d b a E M v. EDMISTEN PAGE d b a EDMISTEN CAMERA S EYE, INC. v. EDMISTEN, 450 F. Supp. 904 (E.D.N.C. 1978)

. . . . §§ 14-202.10— 202.12, “An Act to Regulate the Number of Adult Establishments in Any One Building.” . . . G.S. §§ 14-202.10 through 14-202.12. . . . N.C.G.S. § 14-202.12. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CITY OF LEESVILLE, LOUISIANA, 389 F. Supp. 943 (W.D. La. 1975)

. . . Board of Education of City of Bismarck, 126 F.Supp. 338 (1954) at p. 342: “Section 202.12 of the Code . . .

HERMAN FRANKEL ORGANIZATION, v. TEGMAN, 367 F. Supp. 1051 (E.D. Mich. 1973)

. . . . § 202.12(a). . . .

IMPERIAL HOMES CORPORATION, a v. M. LAMONT M., 458 F.2d 895 (5th Cir. 1972)

. . . . § 202.12(a). . . .

G. B. LEWIS COMPANY, v. GOULD PRODUCTS, INC., 297 F. Supp. 690 (E.D.N.Y. 1968)

. . . . §§ 202.10, 202.12; 35 U.S.C. § 171, 37 C.F.R. § 1.153(a). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CREWS, Du A., 230 F. Supp. 268 (E.D. Ill. 1964)

. . . asserting that there is due and owing to the Department of Revenue of the State of Illinois the sum of $202.12 . . .

DeSILVA CONSTRUCTION CORP. a v. E. HERRALD J. R. DeSILVA CONSTRUCTION CORP. a v. LaHURD Jr., 213 F. Supp. 184 (M.D. Fla. 1962)

. . . . § 202.12(a),) in which architectural plans are referred to as copyrightable under the classification . . .

BARTON CANDY CORPORATION, v. TELL CHOCOLATE NOVELTIES CORP. C., 178 F. Supp. 577 (E.D.N.Y. 1959)

. . . . § 202.12, Bules and Begulations of the Begister of Copyrights (37 C.F.B., Ch.’ . . .

UNITED STATES v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF BISMARCK,, 126 F. Supp. 338 (D.N.D. 1954)

. . . Section 202.12 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains the following: “Repayment of advances. . . .

Co., 5 B.T.A. 23 (B.T.A. 1926)

. . . Canadian Government during the year 1919; and (3) the right of the petitioner to deduct from gross income $202.12 . . . During the same calendar year it also paid to the Department of Insurance of the Dominion of Canada $202.12 . . . The petitioner now admits that it was in error in claiming a credit of the $202.12 paid to the Dominion . . . paid to the Dominion of Canada in the amount of $4,873.60, and the deduction from gross income of the $202.12 . . . The petitioner erroneously claimed a credit against the tax due the United States of $202.12. . . .