Florida Statute 210.06 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 210
TAX ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 210.06

210.06 Affixation of stamps; presumption.—

(1) Every dealer within the state shall affix or cause to be affixed to such package or container of such cigarettes such stamps as are required under this section within 10 days after receipt of such products. Dealers outside this state shall affix such stamps before the shipment of cigarettes into this state.

(a) A tax stamp shall be applied to all cigarette packages intended for sale or distribution to consumers subject to the tax imposed under s. 210.02, except as otherwise provided in this part.

(b) No stamp shall be applied to any cigarette package exempt from tax under 26 U.S.C. s. 5704 that is distributed by a manufacturer pursuant to federal regulations.

(c) Dealers may apply stamps only to cigarette packages received directly from a manufacturer or importer of cigarettes, or a distributing agent representing a manufacturer or importer of cigarettes, who possesses a valid and current permit under this part.

(2) Each retail dealer shall open such box, carton or other container of cigarettes prior to exposing for sale or selling such cigarettes and examine the packages contained therein for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the said packages have affixed thereto the proper tax stamp. If unstamped or improperly stamped packages of cigarettes are discovered, the retail dealer shall immediately notify the dealer from whom said cigarettes were purchased. Upon such notification, the dealer from whom said cigarettes were purchased shall replace such unstamped or improperly stamped packages of cigarettes with those upon which stamps have been properly affixed, or immediately affix thereto the proper amount of stamps.

(3) Whenever any cigarettes are found in the place of business of any such retail dealer, or in the possession of any other person without the stamps affixed, the presumption shall be that such cigarettes are kept in violation of the provisions of this law.

(4) Stamps shall be affixed to each package of cigarettes of an aggregate denomination not less than the amount of the tax upon the contents therein, and shall be affixed in such manner as to be visible to the purchaser. All stamps shall be affixed in the manner prescribed by the division. The state may not impose an additional charge on stamps for printing costs.

(5) Except as provided in s. 210.04(9) or s. 210.09(1), no person, other than a dealer or distributing agent that receives unstamped cigarette packages directly from a cigarette manufacturer or importer in accordance with this section and s. 210.085, shall hold or possess an unstamped cigarette package. Dealers shall be permitted to set aside, without application of stamps, only such part of the dealer’s stock that is identified for sale or distribution outside this state. If a dealer maintains stocks of unstamped cigarette packages, such unstamped packages shall be stored separately from stamped product packages. No unstamped cigarette packages shall be transferred by a dealer to another facility of the dealer within this state or to another person within this state.

History.—s. 4, ch. 21946, 1943; s. 4, ch. 22645, 1945; s. 1, ch. 26320, 1949; ss. 16, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 5, ch. 79-11; s. 4, ch. 87-86; s. 1, ch. 89-293; s. 3, ch. 2005-228.

F.S. 210.06 on Google Scholar

F.S. 210.06 on Casetext

Amendments to 210.06

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 210.06

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 210.06.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 210.06

Total Results: 13

Way v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2000-04-20

Citation: 760 So. 2d 903, 2000 WL 422869

Snippet: respecting the defendant's guilt. Model Penal Code § 210.6(1) (1962). The fact that a jury or judge may not

Robinson v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1999-08-19

Citation: 761 So. 2d 269, 1999 WL 628777

Snippet: afforded a new penalty phase proceeding. Id. at 210.[6] Here, the defense requested a SPECT scan. The

Melendez v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1986-12-11

Citation: 498 So. 2d 1258, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 639

Snippet: the defendant's guilt. ALI, Model Penal Code § 210.6(1), p. 107 (Off.Draft, 1980). See also Smith v.

Redfern v. Department of Professional Regulation

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1986-11-20

Citation: 498 So. 2d 1313, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2436, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10789

Snippet: order within the twenty days prescribed by Rule 210-6.21, Fla.Admin.Code; a seventh exception was filed

Northwest Florida Home Health Agency v. Merrill

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1985-05-21

Citation: 469 So. 2d 893, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1257, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13974

Snippet: has been adopted by the Board of Nursing. Rule 210-6.21, Florida Administrative Code. An administrative

N. WEST FLA. HOME HLT. AG. v. Merrill

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1985-05-21

Citation: 469 So. 2d 893, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1257

Snippet: has been adopted by the Board of Nursing. Rule 210-6.21, Florida Administrative Code. An administrative

Florida Bar re Rules of Appellate Procedure

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1984-09-13

Citation: 463 So. 2d 1114, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 127, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 127, 1984 Fla. LEXIS 3392

Snippet: briefs shall be served as prescribed by Rule 9.210, 6. Rule 9.165 is adopted as follows: Rule 9.165.

State of Florida Ex Rel. Davis v. City of Stuart

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1929-01-30

Citation: 120 So. 335, 97 Fla. 69

Snippet: v. Dubuque, 13 Ia. 86; Smith v. Sherry, 50 Wis. 210; 6 N.W. 561. See also McQuillin Municipal Corp., 2nd

Perkins v. O'Donald

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1919-05-21

Citation: 77 Fla. 710

Snippet: notably the case of Batch v. White, 117 U. S. 210, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617, 710, opinion by Mr. Justice

Perkins v. O'Donald

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1919-01-15

Citation: 77 Fla. 727

Snippet: description immaterial. In Patch v. White, 117 U. S. 210, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617, 710, the court held that “the

Albury v. Albury

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1912-01-15

Citation: 63 Fla. 329

Snippet: proposition. The case of Patch v. White, 117 U. S. 210, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617, 710, the opinion written by

Webster v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1905-01-15

Citation: 49 Fla. 131

Snippet: the judge fails to attend. May v. People, 8 Colo. 210, 6 Pac. Rep. 816; People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal. 17. The

Seymour v. Creswell

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1881-01-15

Citation: 18 Fla. 29

Snippet: 457 ; 10 ib., 397; 1 A. K. Mar., 460; 5 Litt., 210; 6 B. Mon., 463; 22 N. Y., 170. There certainly was