CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1983).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
...Such a tax may be levied pursuant to a resolution or ordinance by the governing body of the county. Section
205.032 , F.S. The authority of a county governing body to levy an occupational license tax is subject to a number of conditions imposed pursuant to s
205.033 , F.S., including a condition that such tax be based upon reasonable classifications and be uniform throughout any class. Section
205.033 (1)(a), F.S....
...ing a `bottle club' business within its jurisdiction. Therefore, I am of the view that a county may levy an occupational license tax on such businesses as long as the provisions of Ch. 205 , F.S., are complied with and it meets the requirements of s 205.033 (1)(a), F.S....
...tion of such establishments is not done in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. In addition, a noncharter county may but is not required to levy an occupational license tax upon businesses pursuant to Ch. 205 , F.S., so long as the requirements of s 205.033 (1)(a), F.S....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20361
...ollect such taxes. Ch. 72-306, Laws of Florida (1972). This new legislation prohibited the counties from levying any occupational license tax at a rate greater than that “provided by Chapter 205 in effect for the year beginning October 1, 1971.” § 205.033(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1972). In 1980, the Florida Legislature amended section 205.033 by adding the following language: However, beginning October 1, 1980, the county governing body may increase occupational license taxes authorized by Chapter 205....
...ween $101 and $300; and 25% for occupational license taxes which are more than $300. Such authority to increase occupational license taxes shall not apply to licenses granted to any utility franchised by the county for which a franchise fee is paid. § 205.033(l)(b), Fla.Stat....
...filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Ray, as Tax Collector of Seminole County. The complaint alleged that the ordinance passed by Seminole County provided for the taxation of telephone systems at a rate higher than that allowed by the newly-amended section 205.033(l)(b), because the license tax paid by Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co....
...statute authorized it to increase the rate per phone by 100% — or, in other words, to double the rate ' per phone in computing the occupational tax. This is a statutory interpretation issue. Southern Bell argues that the word “tax” as used in section 205.033(l)(b) means “the total amount of tax,” while Ray, as Tax Collector of Seminole County, argues that the word “tax” as used in the statute refers to the “tax rate.” The principles governing the construction of statutes generally apply in the construction of license tax statutes....
...Such statutes are penal in nature and therefore strictly construed against the government. Texas Co. v. Amos,
77 Fla. 327 ,
81 So. 471 (1919). The construction urged by Southern Bell is sensible 1 and consistent with the plain meaning, as strictly construed, of the 1980 amendment of section
205.033: the term “license tax levied on October 1, 1971” means the amount of such tax rather than the rate of such tax....
CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1991).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
John J. Copelan, Jr. Broward County Attorney QUESTION: 1. May the county deduct the costs of collecting from the revenues of the additional occupational license tax imposed pursuant to s. 205.033 (6)(1), F.S., before forwarding such revenues to the agency designated to receive such funds? 2....
...If the county may enter into such an agreement, may such an agreement be dated retroactively to the date the additional occupational license tax was first imposed? SUMMARY: 1. The county is not authorized to deduct the cost of collection from the revenues of the additional occupational license tax imposed pursuant to s. 205.033 (6)(a), F.S., before forwarding such revenues to the agency designated to receive such funds....
...imbursed for the costs of collection form such revenues. 3. In light of the response to the second question, it is unnecessary to address the third inquiry. According to your letter, the Broward County Commission has enacted an ordinance pursuant to s. 205.033 (6)(a), F.S., providing for the levy and collection of an additional occupational license tax. This tax is in the amount of 50 percent of the appropriate license tax imposed pursuant to s. 205.033 (1), F.S. In accordance with s. 205.033 (6)(b), F.S., the ordinance provides that the additional revenue derived from the tax is not subject to subsections (4) and (5) of s. 205.033 , F.S., but will be placed in a separate interest-bearing account....
...In addition, it is your opinion that the county may not enter into an agreement with the economic development board for the payment by the development board of such costs. You have apparently so advised the board of county commissioners. Based upon the following analysis, I concur in your opinion. AS TO QUESTION 1: Section 205.033 , F.S., sets forth certain conditions for the imposition of occupational license taxes by counties....
...Pursuant to subsection (4) of the statute, the revenues derived from such taxes, exclusive of the costs of collection and any credit given form municipal license taxes, shall be apportioned between the unincorporated areas of the county. The imposition of an additional license tax is authorized by s. 205.033 (6)(a), F.S., which provides: Each county, as defined in s....
...125.011 (1), 1 or any county adjacent thereto may levy and collect, pursuant to an ordinance enacted by the governing body of the county, an additional occupational license tax up to 50 percent of the appropriate license tax imposed pursuant to subsection (1). (e.s.) Section 205.033 (6)(b), F.S., however, clearly states that subsections (4) and (5) do not apply to any revenues derived from the additional tax imposed pursuant to subsection (6)....
...Proceeds from this additional license tax are to be placed into a separate interest-earning account and distributed, together with the accrued interest, each fiscal year by the county to an organization designated by the county to oversee and implement a comprehensive economic development strategy. Thus, s. 205.033 (4), F.S., which appears to recognize that the costs of collection may be deducted from the occupational license tax revenues, is not applicable to the additional occupational license tax levied pursuant to s. 205.033 (6), F.S. An examination of the legislative history surrounding the enactment of subsection (6) of s. 205.033 , F.S., indicates that the Legislature considered the economic impact of adopting this subsection to be "primarily limited to the local government cost necessary to administer the additional collections." 2 This office has previously stated that public officials have no legal claim for official services rendered except when and to the extent that compensation is provided by law; when no compensation is provided, the rendition of such service is deemed to be gratuitous. 3 Section 205.033 (6), F.S., in authorizing a county to impose an additional occupational tax, does not provide for the costs of collection to be deducted from the additional revenues....
...In fact, subsection (6) specifically excludes that portion of the statute which recognizes that costs may be deducted. Based upon the above, I am of the opinion that the county is not authorized to deduct the cost of collection from the revenues of the additional occupational license tax imposed pursuant to s. 205.033 (6)(a), F.S., before forwarding such revenues to the agency designated to receive such funds....
...se and the collection of license taxes is the exclusive prerogative of the Legislature. 4 Thus, a county may not establish a method of selling such licenses or collecting such taxes which are in conflict with state law. As discussed in Question One, s. 205.033 (6)(b), F.S., clearly states that the provisions of s. 205.033 (4), F.S., which recognize that costs may be deducted from the tax revenues, are not applicable to the additional occupational license tax imposed pursuant to subsection (6). You have not directed this office's attention to any provision authorizing the deduction of such costs from the revenues generated by the tax imposed pursuant to s. 205.033 (6), F.S....
...h costs would appear to be contrary to the terms of the statute and therefore, in my opinion, impermissible. It is a general principle that public agencies may not do indirectly what they are precluded from doing directly. 5 Accordingly, inasmuch as s. 205.033 (6), F.S., does not contemplate that costs of collection be deducted from the tax revenues generated pursuant to that section, the county would be prohibited from entering into a contract to provide for the reimbursement of such funds....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18660
...In each, General Telephone Company appeals a summary final judgment in favor of the county in an action brought by General Telephone for a declaratory judgment and partial refund of occupational license taxes paid for the fiscal year 1980-1981. We reverse in both cases. This decision rests upon an interpretation of section 205.033(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.), which sets out the rates for occupational license taxes. Prior to 1972, the state levied occupational license taxes. When the right to levy these taxes was transferred to the counties in 1972, the legislature provided in section 205.033(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1972 Supp.), that the tax levied by the counties could not be at a rate greater than the rate levied by the state on October 1, 1971....
...Pasco County’s tax became 30$ *279 per phone on the first 500 phones, 24$ per phone on the next'500, and 18$ on each phone over 1,000. General Telephone contends that the counties can increase the tax by only 25 percent, pursuant to the 1980 amendment to section 205.033(l)(b), because the total tax levied on October 1, 1971, was more than $300....
...The facts of this case are virtually identical to those in Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Ray,
402 So.2d 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We adopt the reasoning of that case. The construction urged by Southern Bell is sensible and consistent with the plain meaning, as strictly construed, of the 1980 amendment of section
205.033: the term ‘license tax levied on October 1, 1971’ means the amount of such tax rather than the rate of such tax....
...Under the Southern Bell interpretation, a small telephone company could end up paying more tax than a larger company if the smaller company’s 1971 tax was less than $100 and the tax could, therefore, be increased by 100 percent. The counties claim that such a result would violate section 205.033(l)(a), which requires the tax to be based on reasonable classifications and to be uniform throughout any class....
...We do not believe that our interpretation of the 1980 amendment compels such an unlawful result. As General Telephone has argued, the percentages set out in the 1980 amendment are maximum allowable increases. The counties can fashion a taxing arrangement under this statute which will not violate section 205.033(l)(a)....
