DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, APPELLANT,
v.
RUEHL NO. 925, LLC, A FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, APPELLEE
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 Department of Revenue's appeal of a summary judgment in favor of Ruehl No. 925, LLC is affirmed because leasehold improvement costs are not part of taxable rent under Florida Statutes section 212.031.
Leasehold improvement costs are not part of the total rent subject to taxation under section 212.031, Florida Statutes, absent evidence that the parties intended such costs to be included in the rental charges.
[1] Leasehold improvement costs are not included in taxable rent under section 212.031, Florida Statutes, unless the parties to the lease intended such costs to be part of th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRuehl No. 925, LLC leased real property in Florida, and the Department of Revenue sought to tax leasehold improvement costs as part of the total rent …
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 Taxable Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
The Department of Revenue appeals the trial court’s order granting final summary judgment in favor of Ruehl No. 925, LLC, and denying its motion for partial summary judgment. Because the parties stipulated that there were no genuine issues of material fact, the only issue below was whether Ruehl or the Department was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c); USCardio Vascular, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 993 So.2d 81, 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The trial court ruled that Ruehl was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Specifically, *390the trial court determined that the costs of the leasehold improvements were not part of the total rent and therefore not subject to tax under section 212.031, Florida Statutes (2004-2007). We find no error in the trial court’s determination.
Every person who engages in the business of renting or leasing real property in this state is exercising a taxable privilege, unless such property is otherwise exempt from taxation. See § 212.031(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004-2007). For the exercise of such a privilege, a six percent tax is assessed on the “total rent” charged by the person charging or collecting the rental fee. See § 212.031(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004-2007). The “total rent” includes payments for the granting of the privilege to use or occupy the property and includes base rent, percentage rents, or similar charges. See id. In the instant case, there is no evidence that the parties to the leases intended for the costs of the leasehold improvements to be part of the total rent charged. Accordingly, we affirm.
WOLF, HAWKES, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.