ALVIN N. ANDREWS, APPELLANT,
v.
PAL-MAR WATER CONTROL DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, A.D. "AUGIE" MALFREGEOT, PROPERTY APPRAISER, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACTING AS THE BOARD OF TAX ADJUSTMENT, APPELLEES; DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. PAL-MAR WATER CONTROL DISTRICT, A. D. "AUDIE" MALFREGEOT, PROPERTY APPRAISER, ALVIN N. ANDREWS, TAX COLLECTOR, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACTING AS THE BOARD OF TAX ADJUSTMENT, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a water management district, as a political subdivision of the state, is immune from ad valorem taxation and therefore entitled to a refund of taxes paid under protest.
[1] Political subdivisions of the state are immune from taxation.
[2] A political subdivision of the state is entitled to a refund of ad valorem taxes paid under protest.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA water control district paid ad valorem taxes under protest and sought a refund. The trial court found the district was a political subdivision of th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tax Exemption cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment holding that the appellee, Pal-Mar Water Control District, was entitled to a refund of 1976 ad valorem taxes paid under protest. We affirm.
Although the issues as framed by the appellant involve a determination of whether the appellee water management district is entitled to an exemption from ad valorem taxation pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 196, Florida Statutes (1975), it is our conclusion that the district is immune from tax liability and hence not subject to the provisions of Chapter 196.
The trial court found that the district was a political subdivision of the state and as such entitled to an exemption from ad valo-rem taxation under the provisions of Chapter 196. At issue in the trial court was whether the district was entitled to a Chapter 196 exemption and if so whether the district had complied with the provisions of Chapter 196 in order to secure such an exemption.
The state and its political subdivisions are immune from taxation since there is no power to tax them. Dickinson v. City of Tallahassee, 325 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1975); Alford v. State, 107 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1958); Park-N-Shop, Inc. v. Sparkman, 99 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1958); Orlando Utilities Comm’n. v. Milligan, 229 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), cert. denied 237 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1970).
We find no error by the trial court in its determination that the district was a political subdivision of the state.1 Once that determination was made it is clear under the authorities cited, supra, that the district was immune from tax liability and hence entitled to a refund of the 1976 taxes paid under protest.2
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
DOWNEY and HERSEY, JJ., concur. . See Op.Atty.Gen. 076-87, April 8, 1976 § 1.01(9), Fla.Stat. (1975). Chapter 298, Fla. Stat. (1975). But see Sugar Bowl Drainage District v. Miller, 120 Fla. 436, 162 So. 707 (1935).
. The property appraiser for Martin County testified that the property of other water control districts located in the county was not taxed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grimshaw v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 195 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (S.D. Fla. 2002)
Authorities Cited
- Park-N-Shop, Inc. v. Sparkman, 99 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1957)
- Orlando Utils. Comm'n v. Milligan, 229 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Dickinson v. City OF Tallahassee, 325 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1975)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Charlotte Cnty. v. Alford, 107 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1958)
- Lago v. State, 237 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1970)
- Nat'l Indem. Co. v. Donald, 237 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1970)
- Sugar Bowl Drainage Dist. v. Sallie S. Miller, 120 Fla. 436 (Fla. 1935)