CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...February 14, 2024
OSTERHAUS, C.J.
Appellant SEI Fuel Services, Inc. appeals the Department of
Revenue’s final order denying its request for a partial refund of
double-paid motor fuel taxes. The Department concluded that
§ 206.414(3), Florida Statutes, barred it from refunding either of
Appellant’s overpayments....
...e on sales of motor
fuel. This section specifies that, generally, motor fuel taxes are
imposed on the “removal of motor fuel in this state from a terminal
if the motor fuel is removed at the rack.” §
206.41(6)(a), Fla. Stat.
But, relevant here, §
206.414 requires a different collection
methodology for fuel taxes imposed under §
206.41(1)(d), (e), and
(f) that are above the annual minimum tax. These taxes above the
annual minimum must be collected and remitted directly by
purchasing suppliers like Appellant upon selling, delivering, or
consigning fuel to their customers. §
206.414(2)-(3), Fla....
...Stat.
Where a midstream supplier like Appellant fails to follow this
directive and pays the taxes to an upstream supplier then “no”
refunds are available for the above-the-annual-minimum taxes
imposed under §
206.41(1)(d), (e), and (f) paid to the supplier.
§
206.414(3), Fla. Stat.
In this case, the parties don’t dispute that the motor fuel taxes
applicable here fall within §
206.414’s requirement for payment
directly by Appellant to the Department. This meant Appellant’s
first tax payment through Sunshine was not made via a lawful
channel. But the Department nonetheless received and accepted
the tax payment made through Appellant’s supplier. According to
§
206.414(3), Appellant couldn’t now receive a refund for this tax
payment made through Sunshine....
...additional penalties and forfeitures for the taxpayer, or windfalls
for the state.”). Since the second payment was made directly, and
nothing bars refunds for direct tax payments mistakenly made to
the Department, Appellant should not have been disqualified
under § 206.414(3) from receiving a refund of the $3,179,675.11
payment made directly to the Department.
We therefore REVERSE and REMAND for the issuance of a
refund of Appellant’s direct payment because no tax remained due
in addition to the full...
