J. M. LEE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COMPTROLLER, APPELLANT,
v.
POINSETTIA DAIRY PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL., 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 reviewed whether milk distributing plants were subject to a gross receipts tax. The court held that these plants were not "stores" as defined by the relevant tax law, and that the sale of milk was exclusively regulated by a separate milk control law.
No, the milk distributing plants are not stores contemplated by the gross receipts tax law. Furthermore, the sale of milk is exclusively regulated by the milk control law, Chapter 17103, Acts of 1935, which preempts other taxation schemes for milk businesses.
“The question presented is whether or not such distributing plants are stores subject to the gross receipts tax imposed by Chapter 16848, Acts of 1935.”
This quote frames the central legal question of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees operated milk distributing plants where milk was collected, pasteurized, and distributed to regular customers. No sales were made at the pla…
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 Gross Receipts Tax cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellees as complainants filed their bill of complaint in the circuit court praying that appellant as defendant be restrained from enforcing them to pay the gross receipts tax imposed by Chapter 16848, Acts of 1935. A motion to dismiss the bill of complaint was overruled and the injunction as prayed for was granted. This appeal was prosecuted.
Appellees own and operate milk distributing plants where milk is collected, pasteurized, and distributed to regular customers by solicitors working on a commission basis. No sales w'ere made at the plant, no clerks are employed for such sales, no facilities are provided for the service and the plant is in no sense designed for such a purpose.
The question presented is whether or not such distributing plants are stores subject to the gross receipts tax imposed by Chapter 16848, Acts of 1935.
This question must be answered in the negative. The ■distributing plants by the very nature of the business done are not stores as contemplated by Chapter 16848, Acts of 1935, or Chapter 17103 passed at the same session of the Legislature and better known as the milk control law. Lee v. Cloverleaf, Inc., et al., 130 Fla. 435, 177 So. 722; Lee v. Hector Supply Co., 133 Fla. 95, 182 So. 613. Chapter *61216848 Acts of 1935, applies only to retail sales and it is perfectly apparent that the sale brought in question is a wholesale sale.
Another and perhaps more conclusive reason why the sales brought in question are not subjet to the chain store tax is that the sale of milk is regulated by Chapter 17103, Acts of 1935, which defines a complete scheme aside from all others for regulating the sale, licensing, taxing, and distributing of milk. An examination of the latter Act shows conclusively that it was not intended that the gross receipts tax should be imposed on the milk distributing business whether dispensed, from distributing plants or from retail stores, Chapter 17103 being the sole authority to tax the milk business.
Affirmed.
Buford, Thomas and Adams, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LB Price Mercantile Co. v. Gay, 44 So.2d 87 (Fla. 1950)…no merchandise was offered for sale, in the places of business operated by it. Relator is therefore, not subject to the tax. This conclusion is fortified by the decision *90 in the case of Lee v. Poinsettia Dairy Products, Inc., 145 Fla. [610] 611, 200 So. 369. See also the Texas case of Hurt v. Cooper, 130 Tex. 433, 110 S.W. 2d 896. "3. Relator is not estopped to demand return of the taxes in question. It seeks only the return of taxes paid for the tax year in which the petition was filed. One of the es…
Authorities Cited
- Lee v. The Cloverleaf, Inc., 130 Fla. 435 (Fla. 1937)
- Lee v. Hector Supply Co., 133 Fla. 95 (Fla. 1938)