The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 210
TAX ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 210.40

210.40 License fees; surety bond; application for each place of business.—Each application for a distributor’s license shall be accompanied by a fee of $25. The application shall also be accompanied by a corporate surety bond issued by a surety company authorized to do business in this state, conditioned for the payment when due of all taxes, penalties, and accrued interest which may be due the state. The bond shall be in the sum of $1,000 and in a form prescribed by the division. Whenever it is the opinion of the division that the bond given by a licensee is inadequate in amount to fully protect the state, the division shall require an additional bond in such amount as is deemed sufficient. A separate application for a license shall be made for each place of business at which a distributor proposes to engage in business as a distributor under this part, but an applicant may provide one bond in an amount determined by the division for all applications made by the distributor.

History.—s. 1, ch. 85-141; s. 1, ch. 86-286; s. 4, ch. 91-429.

F.S. 210.40 on Google Scholar

F.S. 210.40 on Casetext

Amendments to 210.40

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 210.40

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 210.40.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC. v. HERNANDEZ,, 196 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (S.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . The Court further finds that that TracFone has established that its investigator paid $210.40 for the . . .

T. CUMMINGS, v. BURGE,, 581 F. Supp. 2d 436 (W.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . . § 210.40. R. 91-137. . . . ’ trial counsel moved to dismiss the indictment, it was on purely equitable grounds, under C.P.L. § 210.40 . . . Law § 210.40. . . .

In L. SMITH L., 388 B.R. 885 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2008)

. . . Official Form 22A, the line for deducting future payments on secured claims, the DEBTORS deducted $210.40 . . .

In MILLER, Jr. v. M. MEHLTRETTER,, 478 F. Supp. 2d 415 (W.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . . § 210.40. . . .

J. JONES, C- v. P. KEANE,, 250 F. Supp. 2d 217 (W.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . Law § 210.40, in a pretrial omnibus motion to dismiss dated December 1, 1983. . . .

KIRBY, v. A. SENKOWSKI,, 141 F. Supp. 2d 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . . §§ 210.40, 330.30(1), 330.40, and 330.50 to set aside the verdict on the ground that the evidence adduced . . .

M. C. By MRS. C. v. VOLUNTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION,, 56 F. Supp. 2d 243 (D. Conn. 1999)

. . . Here, plaintiff is requesting $46,495.00 in attorneys’ ■ fees and $210.40 in costs, for a total of $46 . . . Accordingly, we find that M.C. is entitled to $34,871.25 in attorneys’ fees plus $210.40 in costs, for . . .

COAKLEY C. v. JAFFE, I. DOE W. DOE, 49 F. Supp. 2d 615 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . Attorney, the charges against the plaintiffs were dismissed pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 210.40 . . . See C.P.L. § 210.40(3). . . . plaintiffs were dismissed in the interests of justice pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 210.40 . . .

LABENSKY, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, O, 6 F. Supp. 2d 161 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . dismissing the indictment in the interests of justice pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 210.40 . . . thereupon dismissed the indictment in the interest of justice pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 210.40 . . . That provision requires a court to set forth its reasons for dismissal on the record, see § 210.40(3) . . .

KALIKA, v. A. STERN,, 911 F. Supp. 594 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . provision under DRL § 253(8) that false verifications are subject to prosecution under N.Y.Penal Law § 210.40 . . . apparently sworn false statement in the first degree and shall be punished in accordance with section 210.40 . . .

LOPEZ v. CITY OF NEW YORK,, 901 F. Supp. 684 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . (“CPL”) § 210.40. . . . factors on which such a dismissal may be based is the evidence of guilt, CPL §§ 170.40, subd. 1(e), 210.40 . . . It should be noted that Section 210.40 pertains to dismissals of indictments "in the interest of justice . . .

J. PINAUD, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, J. O, 52 F.3d 1139 (2d Cir. 1995)

. . . dismissed the stolen property indictment “in the interest of justice” pursuant to N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § 210.40 . . .

W. ROUNSEVILLE v. ZAHL, M. P. W., 819 F. Supp. 1148 (N.D.N.Y. 1993)

. . . . §§ 170.40, 170.55, or 210.40 fails to satisfy the favorable termination requirement to maintain a malicious . . .

J. PINAUD, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, a J. O, 798 F. Supp. 913 (E.D.N.Y. 1992)

. . . the Possession and Bail Jumping charges were dismissed “in the interest of justice” pursuant to CPL § 210.40 . . . 823, 829, 467 N.E.2d 487 (Ct.App.1984), (“dismissal ‘in the interest of justice’ [pursuant to CPL § 210.40 . . . states that he based his motion to dismiss the charges against him on all ten subsections of CPL § 210.40 . . . (1), including subsection 210.40(l)(c), which relates to evidence of guilt, and that the court dismissed . . . clearly established from the totality of the circumstances that he has met the requirements of CPL 210.40 . . .

FERGUSON, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,, 722 F. Supp. 1137 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)

. . . similar practices could lead a state judge to utilize the discretion authorized by New York Penal Law § 210.40 . . .

ESTES- EL, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, R. W. Jr. K, 552 F. Supp. 885 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)

. . . CPL 210.40 (McKinney 1981), in “the interests of justice.” . . .

MITCHELL, v. J. SMITH,, 633 F.2d 1009 (2d Cir. 1980)

. . . Law §§ 210.40, 470.15(3)(c) (McKinney Supp. 1979). . . .

GOODRICH v. GONZALEZ, P., 451 F. Supp. 747 (E.D.N.Y. 1978)

. . . CPL §§ 210.20(l)(g) and (4), 210.40; cf. Perez v. . . .

W W LEASING UNLIMITED, v. TOROK EXPLORATION, MINING AND CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., 575 F.2d 1259 (9th Cir. 1978)

. . . of 7.11% using a formula reflecting a stream of anticipated periodic payments; (3) A late charge of $210.40 . . .

UNITED STATES M. ROBINSON, v. L. ZELKER,, 468 F.2d 159 (2d Cir. 1972)

. . . . § 210.40, and there is every reason to suppose that this has always been the case. Cf. . . .

ABC AIR FREIGHT COMPANY, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, C. F. P I E Co. D C, 391 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. 1968)

. . . . § 210.40 (1967), to which the other air freight forwarders have been restricted. . . .

LAW MOTOR FREIGHT, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, 364 F.2d 139 (1st Cir. 1966)

. . . . § 210.40, in effect accepts the pickup and delivery areas designated in Board authorized air carrier . . .

NATIONAL BUS TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION, v. UNITED STATES, 249 F. Supp. 869 (N.D. Ill. 1965)

. . . F.R. 210.40(b) and 49 C.F.R. 210.45(b)). . . .

WYCOFF COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES, 240 F. Supp. 304 (D. Utah 1965)

. . . The regulations have been codified as 49 C.F.R. 210.40 and 404, 404.1. . . . I.C.C. authority in order for Flying Tiger Lines to operate in the manner it proposes”. . 49 C.F.R. 210.40 . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. TAYLOR,, 305 F.2d 183 (4th Cir. 1962)

. . . the conditions, among others, that he pay his District Director of Internal Revenue the sum of $32,-210.40 . . .

v., 6 B.T.A. 636 (B.T.A. 1927)

. . . Your claim for the refund of $210.40 representing part of corporation income and profits taxes for the . . . return for this year discloses an additional assessment of $123.94 your claim will be rejected for $210.40 . . .