R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER, STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Interest on tax overpayments accrues from the date the taxpayer actually paid the taxes, not from the original due date or when the Department of Revenue was put on notice.
[1] Interest on tax overpayments accrues from the date the taxpayer actually paid the overpaid taxes, not from the original due date of the tax return.
[2] A state department of revenue's "notice" of an overpayment is not the trigger date for the accrual of interest on that overpayment.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.J. Reynolds made overpayments on its 1977 and 1978 corporate income taxes and sought interest on these overpayments. The Department of Revenue deter…
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.
THOMPSON, Judge.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (R.J. Reynolds) appeals an order of the Department of Revenue (DOR) which, inter alia, determined that the interest on the over-payments R.J. Reynolds made on its 1977 and 1978 corporate income taxes would accrue from the dates DOR was put on notice of such overpayments. R.J. Reynolds argues that the interest on the overpayments should begin to accrue on the dates the original tax returns were due. We find that under the circumstances R.J. Reynolds is entitled to interest on the overpayments from the dates it actually paid the taxes for the years in question and we reverse.
It is uncontroverted that pursuant to § 214.14, Fla.Stat., R.J. Reynolds is entitled to interest on the overpayments because DOR did not refund these overpayments within the time required by § 214.14. The only controversy involved is when the interest begins to accrue. We find no support for DOR’s “notice” interpretation of § 214.14.
Since R.J. Reynolds obtained a six-month extention for the filing of its corporate income tax return for each year herein, its 1977 return was due on October 1, 1978, and its 1978 return was due on October 1, 1979. However, R.J. Reynolds actually paid its 1977 taxes on September 6, 1978 and its 1978 taxes on September 14, 1979. Since R.J. Reynolds did not pay its taxes by the original due dates, April 1, 1978, and April 1, 1979, such that DOR did not have use of the overpayments on these dates, we are unpersuaded by R.J. Reynolds’s argument that it is entitled to interest from the original due dates. However, we find that under these circumstances R.J. Reynolds is entitled to interest on the 1977 overpayment from September 6, 1978, the date it actually paid the 1977 tax, and to interest on the 1978 overpayment from September 14, 1979, the date it actually paid the 1978 tax. These are the dates from which DOR actually had use of the overpayments.
DOR’s order is reversed and the cause is remanded for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
NIMMONS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. JOE Paper Co. v. Dep't OF Revenue, 460 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…following the filing of an amended return, when such return was caused by notification to the taxpayer that an overpayment of taxes had previously been made. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Department of Revenue and Office of the Comp [*405] troller, 455 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), alluded to by the majority, is inapplicable to the case before us insofar as the issue relates to whether section 214.14 applies to both original and amended returns. R.J. Reynolds rejected the department’s argument that interes…1 / 2