The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 201
EXCISE TAX ON DOCUMENTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 201.25

201.25 Tax exemptions for certain loans.—There shall be exempt from all taxes imposed by this chapter:

(1) Any loan made by the Florida Small Business Emergency Bridge Loan Program in response to a disaster that results in a state of emergency declared by executive order or proclamation of the Governor pursuant to s. 252.36.

(2) Any federal loan that is related to a state of emergency declared by executive order or proclamation of the Governor pursuant to s. 252.36.

(3) Any loan made by the Agriculture and Aquaculture Producers Natural Disaster Recovery Loan Program pursuant to s. 570.822.

History.—s. 22, ch. 2018-118; s. 18, ch. 2022-97; s. 21, ch. 2023-349.

F.S. 201.25 on Google Scholar

F.S. 201.25 on Casetext

Amendments to 201.25

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 201.25

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 201.25.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

WENINGER, v. GENERAL MILLS OPERATIONS LLC,, 344 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (E.D. Wis. 2018)

. . . bonus is calculated as a percentage of $175, then all three numbers are added together, the result is $201.25 . . .

CHAPARRO, v. W. COLVIN,, 156 F. Supp. 3d 517 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . education, and work experience, a finding of “not disabled” would be directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 201.25 . . . education, and work experience, a finding of “not disabled” would be directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 201.25 . . .

E. PACE, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 554 F. App'x 787 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . Under the Florida Sentencing Guidelines, Pace’s guidelines range was 121 to 201.25 months (or 16 years . . .

L. GUERRA, v. J. ASTRUE,, 918 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (D. Kan. 2013)

. . . education, and work experience, a finding of ‘not disabled’ is directed by Medical — Vocational Rule 201.25 . . .

M. KNIGHT, v. J. ASTRUE,, 32 F. Supp. 3d 210 (N.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Specifically, the ALJ concluded that a finding of “not disabled” was directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 201.25 . . .

COE, v. TOWN OF BLOOIMING GROVE,, 880 F. Supp. 2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . After reducing the total hours by fifty-percent, this Court awards $87.50 for Ullrich’s fees, and $201.25 . . . $350.00 $ 9,901.50 Ullrich 0.50 0.50 50% 0.25 $350.00 $ 87.50 Paralegals 8.05 8.05 50% 4.025 $ 50.00 201.25 . . .

FULLERTON, Jr. v. J. ASTRUE,, 452 F. App'x 697 (8th Cir. 2012)

. . . P, app. 2 § 201.00(h); id. table 1, rules 201.19-.20, 201.25 — .26; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563(c) . . .

CALABRESE, v. J. ASTRUE,, 358 F. App'x 274 (2d Cir. 2009)

. . . To the extent application of that rule was error, however, the error is immaterial, as grid rule 201.25 . . .

L. JONES, v. J. ASTRUE,, 310 F. App'x 286 (10th Cir. 2009)

. . . The ALJ mistakenly cited to Rules 201.25 and 201.26. . . .

M. FERGUSON, v. J. ASTRUE,, 541 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (E.D. Wis. 2008)

. . . Using Medical-Vocational Rules 202.18 and 201.25 as a framework for decision-making, the ALJ also concluded . . .

FURNISS, v. J. ASTRUE,, 481 F. Supp. 2d 337 (D. Del. 2007)

. . . Using Medical Vocational Rule 201.25 as a framework for decision making, the A.L.J. concluded that Plaintiff . . .

ROMERO, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 135 F. App'x 172 (10th Cir. 2005)

. . . capacity for sedentary work ..., a finding of ‘not disabled’ [was] directed by medical-vocational rules 201.25 . . . performed, and he concluded that “a finding of ‘not disabled’ is directed by medical-vocational rules 201.25 . . .

HOLYBRICE, v. STATE, 753 So. 2d 621 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . This would result in a guideline range of 120.75 months to 201.25 months. . . .

D. KETCHER v. S. APFEL,, 68 F. Supp. 2d 629 (D. Md. 1999)

. . . , and education, if he were able to perform a full range of sedentary work, Medical-Vocational Rule 201.25 . . .

D. BRADY v. S. APFEL,, 41 F. Supp. 2d 659 (E.D. Tex. 1999)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, §§ 201.23, 201.24, 201.25, 201.26, 201.27, 201.28. . . .

J. RICHARDSON, v. S. APFEL,, 9 F. Supp. 2d 666 (N.D. Tex. 1998)

. . . functional capacity allowing for the full range of sedentary work, Medical-Vocational Rules 201.24 and 201.25 . . .

S. TODD, v. APFEL,, 8 F. Supp. 2d 747 (W.D. Tenn. 1998)

. . . that the claimant’s particular vocational and physical limitations coincided with the criteria in Rule 201.25 . . .

QUINLAN, v. S. CHATER,, 966 F. Supp. 854 (E.D. Mo. 1997)

. . . years of age, a younger individual; that she has a limited education; and that under Rules 201.24 and 201.25 . . . Thus, the ALJ properly applied Rules 201.24 and 201.25 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines to find that . . .

CLAUSSEN, v. CHATER,, 950 F. Supp. 1287 (D.N.J. 1996)

. . . further found: “Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16 and Rules 201.25 . . . the Grids: “Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and section 416.969 of Regulation No. 16 and Rules 201.25 . . .

SHANNON, v. S. CHATER,, 54 F.3d 484 (8th Cir. 1995)

. . . P, App. 2, Table No. 1, Rule 201.25. . . .

DAVIS, D. v. CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE, N. Y. N. Y., 156 F.R.D. 549 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . Plaintiffs’ counsel has expended 201.25 hours out of a grand total of 433.50 hours in this action on . . .

J. VINCENT, v. E. SHALALA,, 830 F. Supp. 126 (N.D.N.Y. 1993)

. . . P, App. 2, Table 1, Rule 201.25. . . .

EDWARDS, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 985 F.2d 334 (7th Cir. 1993)

. . . The AU accordingly utilized Rule 201.25 of Table 1 of Appendix 2 to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 as . . . Rule 201.25 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines directs that an individual with Edwards’ age, education . . .

In ANDERSON,, 143 B.R. 719 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1992)

. . . Miscellaneous $ 10.00 TOTAL $201.25 Debtors’ Schedule “J” lists an additional $15.00 per month for charity . . .

PRESTON, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 785 F. Supp. 1267 (S.D. Ohio 1992)

. . . only plaintiff’s exertional impairments, the administrative law judge found that application of Rule 201.25 . . .

B. PEARSON, S. S. XXX- XX- XXXX v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 780 F. Supp. 682 (E.D. Cal. 1991)

. . . residual functional capacity to perform the full range of sedentary work, and applying Rules 201.24 or 201.25 . . .

J. SMITH, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 769 F. Supp. 1386 (E.D. Va. 1991)

. . . Using the described vocational factors, the undersigned found that Rules 201.19, 201.20, 201.25, and . . . Sears referred to Rules 201.19, 201.20, 201.25 and 201.26 to conclude that plaintiff was not disabled . . .

BORN, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH HUMAN SERVICES,, 923 F.2d 1168 (6th Cir. 1990)

. . . . § 404.1569 and Grid Rule 201.25, Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2. . . .

L. POOLE, v. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD,, 905 F.2d 654 (2d Cir. 1990)

. . . vocational adjustment under one of the so-called grid rules, specifically Medical Vocational Guideline 201.25 . . .

UNITED STATES v. N. HARDAGE, ADVANCE CHEMICAL COMPANY, v. ABCO, INC., 733 F. Supp. 1424 (W.D. Okla. 1989)

. . . States has presented a prima facie case of its entitlement to response costs in the amount of $5,441,-201.25 . . . response costs incurred by the United States in connection with the Hardage site in the amount of $5,441,-201.25 . . . partial summary judgment for response costs in connection with the Hardage site in the amount of $5,441,-201.25 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. SULLIVAN,, 717 F. Supp. 639 (N.D. Ill. 1989)

. . . Even if the claimant were limited to sedentary work, Rules 201.19, 201.20, 201.24 and 201.25 would direct . . . of Regulations No. 4 and section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16, and Rules 201.19, 201.20, 201.24 and 201.25 . . .

In G. THOMPSON, W. WOODSON, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO. G. In I. VANDIVER, d b a W. WOODSON, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO. I. In WALKUP W. WOODSON, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO. In CLEM W. WOODSON, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO. In D. ALLAN L. W. WOODSON, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO. In RIDENOUR, W. WOODSON, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO. In DUCUMMON, W. WOODSON, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO. In COLLINS W. WOODSON, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO. In KNOX W. WOODSON, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO., 101 B.R. 658 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 1989)

. . . $225.00 “Refundable Reconditioning Reserve” plus $213.32 “Advance Monthly Payment;” monthly payments of $201.25 . . .

HANSLEY, v. R. BOWEN,, 708 F. Supp. 724 (E.D.N.C. 1989)

. . . Applying the grids to these facts, the AU concluded that claimant was not disabled under Rules 201.24 and 201.25 . . . perform the full range of sedentary work thus indicating no disability on the basis of Rules 201.24 and 201.25 . . .

E. JOHNSON, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 687 F. Supp. 1284 (W.D. Wis. 1988)

. . . sections 404.1569 and 416.969 of Social Security Administration Regulations Nos. 4 and 16 and Rule 201.25 . . . pain and her mental impairment, a finding of “not disabled” is appropriate upon consideration of Rule 201.25 . . . (Tr: 155) It found that "if’ plaintiff could perform sedentary work, § 201.25 of the grid would direct . . . mental impairment did not significantly affect the range of sedentary work she could perform, use of § 201.25 . . .

ASHER, v. Dr. BOWEN,, 837 F.2d 825 (8th Cir. 1988)

. . . .-24 and 201.25 (the Guidelines), and concluded that Asher was not disabled. . . .

DEFOSSE, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 670 F. Supp. 1078 (D. Mass. 1987)

. . . Rule 201.25, Table No. 1, Appendix 2. . . . Therefore, the ALJ concluded that “[rjegulations 404.-1569, 414.969 and Rule 201.25, Table No. 1 of Appendix . . .

L. FORD, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 662 F. Supp. 954 (W.D. Ark. 1987)

. . . Therefore, as a younger individual with an eighth-grade education, Ford fit within Rule 201.25, Table . . .

NUNN, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 828 F.2d 1140 (6th Cir. 1987)

. . . P, app. 2, Table No. 1, Rules 201.24 and 201.25. . . .

CULLOTTA, v. BOWEN,, 662 F. Supp. 1161 (N.D. Ill. 1987)

. . . whose acquired skills are not transferable, directed a ruling that Cullotta was not disabled (see Rule 201.25 . . . finding, when considered with AU Evans’ other undisputed findings, directed a conclusion under Rule 201.25 . . . For example, Rule 201.25 of the Grid is the provision relevant to Cullotta’s ability to perform sedentary . . .

R. HURT, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 816 F.2d 1141 (6th Cir. 1987)

. . . and then applied the grids (20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Table No. 1, Rules 201.24 and 201.25 . . .

J. BOLTON, v. R. BOWEN,, 814 F.2d 536 (8th Cir. 1987)

. . . The AU then applied Rule 201.25 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. . . .

RODRIGUEZ PAGAN, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 819 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1987)

. . . Accordingly, the AD applied Rule 201.25 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. . . .

C. HALE, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 816 F.2d 1078 (6th Cir. 1987)

. . . P, App. 2, Rules 201.24 and 201.25, the AU concluded that plaintiff is not disabled. . . .

ARTRIP, v. R. BOWEN,, 651 F. Supp. 376 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)

. . . See 20 C.F.R. 404, Subpt.P.App. 2, Rule 201.24 and 201.25. . . .

SHULTZ v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 662 F. Supp. 1074 (E.D. Pa. 1986)

. . . Applying Rule 201.25, Table No. 1 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, the portion of the medical-vocational guidelines . . .

L. PARFAIT, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 803 F.2d 810 (5th Cir. 1986)

. . . Parfait’s age, education and work experience (these facts are not in dispute), the ALJ applied Rule 201.25 . . .

A. WILLIAMS, v. R. BOWEN,, 790 F.2d 713 (8th Cir. 1986)

. . . Therefore, according to Rule 201.25 of the Guidelines, Williams was not “disabled” within the meaning . . .

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, v. DYKEMA, GOSSETT, SPENCER, GOODNOW TRIGG, a DYKEMA, GOSSETT, SPENCER, GOODNOW TRIGG Co. v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY,, 625 F. Supp. 1052 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

. . . The items which concern the Court are the following: LAW Review and analysis of doc- $201.25 8/10 uments . . .

L. GIBSON, v. M. HECKLER,, 762 F.2d 1516 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . Specifically, the AU applied Rule 201.25 of 20 C.F.R. . . . The AU then applied Rule 201.25 which analyzes the variables of a younger individual (age 18-44), with . . . See App. 2, Table 1, Rule 201.25. . . . The fact that the ALJ stated that he used Rule 201.25 "as a framework,” Record, vol. 2 at 15-16, is of . . . After a careful reading of the ALJ’s opinion, we are convinced that he mechanically applied Rule 201.25 . . .

BAZEMORE, v. HECKLER,, 595 F. Supp. 682 (D. Del. 1984)

. . . not based upon substantial evidence; and second, that the AU’s excessive reliance on rules 201.24 and 201.25 . . . Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Rules 201.24 and 201.25 Table No. 1 of Appendix 2, Subpart . . . Based on the above, the ALJ determined that 20 C.F.R. 404.1569 and Rules 201.24 and 201.25 of the grid . . .

BABINEAUX, v. M. HECKLER,, 743 F.2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1984)

. . . P, App. 2 Rule 201.25 (1983). Dr. . . .

ELLIS, v. S. SCHWEICKER,, 739 F.2d 245 (6th Cir. 1984)

. . . See 20 C.F.R. 404, Rules 201.25, Table 1, and 202.17, Table 2 to Appendix 2 to Subpart P of the Secretary . . .

MARTINEZ, Jr. v. M. HECKLER,, 735 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1984)

. . . Martinez argues the AU misapplied Rules 201.23, 201.24 and 201.25 of Appendix 2. . . . Rule 201.25 cannot apply because claimant has no skilled or semiskilled work history with transferable . . .

RILEY, v. HECKLER,, 585 F. Supp. 278 (S.D. Ohio 1984)

. . . Rules 201.24, 201.25, App. 2, Reg. No. 16, Sub-part I (tr. 15-16). . . .

FORD, v. HECKLER,, 572 F. Supp. 992 (E.D.N.C. 1983)

. . . Based upon these findings, the ALJ referred to Rule 201.25, Table No. 1, Appendix 2, which directed a . . . However, Rule 201.25 upon which the ALJ relied applies to persons with a limited education or less. . . . experience to be either skilled or semi-skilled, because that is the corresponding finding under Rule 201.25 . . .

QUINONES, v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 567 F. Supp. 188 (E.D.N.Y. 1983)

. . . consideration was given to plaintiff’s allegations of his nonexertional impairments when the ALJ applied Rules 201.25 . . .

In FINE PAPER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 98 F.R.D. 48 (E.D. Pa. 1983)

. . . (C) Total Lodestar 201.25 hours X $75/hour = $15,093.75 (D) Multiplier Pagniucci asks for a multiplier . . . 32,050.00 $ 36,050.00 $ 183,722.50 Dickie 668.5 $50/100 $ 64,162.50 $ 66,112.50 $ 319,125.62 Pagniucci 201.25 . . .

LARGE, v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 555 F. Supp. 500 (E.D. Mo. 1982)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Table 1, Appendix 2, Rule 201.25. . . .

BARBOSA, v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 549 F. Supp. 773 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)

. . . claimant was not disabled under Social Security Regulations §§ 404.1569 and 416.969 and Rules 201.24, 201.25 . . . Sub-part P, Appendix 2, Table No. 1, Rules 201.24, 201.25, 201.26. . . .

MOGUEZ, v. HARRIS,, 512 F. Supp. 11 (D. Colo. 1980)

. . . The ALJ applied Rule 201.25 of Table No. . . .

THE FLORIDA BAR, v. B. PAGE,, 381 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 1980)

. . . Costs in the amount of $201.25 are hereby taxed against the Respondent. It is so ordered. . . .

CAPOCCI M. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,, 444 F. Supp. 1306 (D. Haw. 1978)

. . . 0.00 260.39 OCT 230.99 251.25* 251.25 0.00 251.25 NOV 230.99 251.25* 251.25 0.00 251.25 DEC 230.99 201.25 . . . * 201.25 0.00 201.25 -Patsy turns 62 1976 JAN 230.99 201.25* 201.25 0.00 201.25 EEB 230.99 201.25* 201.25 . . . 0.00 201.25 MAR 230.99 201.25* 201.25 0.00 201.25 APR 230.99 201.25* 201.25 0.00 201.25 MAY 230.99 201.25 . . . * 201.25 0.00 201.25 JNE 230.99 201.25* 201.25 0.00 201.25 JLY 230.99 201.25* 201.25 0.00 201.25 AUG . . . 230.99 201.25* 201.25 0.00 201.25 [1976] SEPT 230.99 201.25* 0.00 230.99 201.25 -Recapture begins OCT . . .

UNITED STATES v. BLOOMFIELD STEAMSHIP CO., 359 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1966)

. . . were conducted pursuant to the Mutual Security Act and ICA Regulation 1, as amended, 22 C.E.R. 201.1-201.25 . . .

UNITED STATES v. FANCHER, 195 F. Supp. 448 (D. Conn. 1961)

. . . . §§ 201.3 (b), 201.25(d), 201.26(d) (Supp.1961); cf. United States v. . . .

WOODS v. LOMBARDI, 96 F. Supp. 295 (W.D. Pa. 1951)

. . . The total amount which defendant received in excess of the maximum legal rental was $201.25. 9. . . .

H. C. v. M. G. a, 121 Fla. 733 (Fla. 1935)

. . . thereafter petitioner paid on said personal property, State, county and city taxes in the amount of $201.25 . . .

THACHER v. TNA ACCIDENT LIABILITY CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN., 287 F. 484 (8th Cir. 1923)

. . . defendant that he could settle and compromise said judgment for $3,000 and costs of suit, amounting to $201.25 . . . administratrix, the sum of $3,000 in settlement of the judgment against his daughter, and the sum of $201.25 . . .