Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 212.081 (2025)

Legislative intent.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

212.081 Legislative intent.—It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent of the amendments to ss. 212.11(1), ¹212.12(10), and 212.20 by chapter 57-398, Laws of Florida:

(1) To aid in the enforcement of this chapter by recognizing the effect of court rulings involving such enforcement and to incorporate herein substantial rulings of the department which have been recognized as necessary to supplement the interpretation of some of the terms used in this section.

(2) To arrange the exemptions allowed in this section in more orderly categories thereby eliminating some of the confusion attendant upon the present arrangement where cross-exemptions frequently occur.

(a) It is further declared to be the legislative intent that the tax levied by this chapter and imposed by this section is not a tax on motor vehicles as property but a tax on the privilege to sell, to rent, to use or to store for use in this state motor vehicles; that such tax is separate from and in addition to any license tax imposed on motor vehicles; and that such tax is not intended as an ad valorem tax on motor vehicles as prohibited by the Constitution.

(b) It is also the legislative intent that there shall be no pyramiding or duplication of excise taxes levied by the state under this chapter and no municipality shall levy any excise tax upon any privilege, admission, lease, rental, sale, use or storage for use or consumption which is subject to a tax under this chapter unless permitted by general law; provided, however, that this provision shall not impair valid municipal ordinances which are in effect and under which a municipal tax is being levied and collected on July 1, 1957.

(3) It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent that all purchases made by banks are subject to state sales tax in the same manner as is provided by law for all other purchasers. It is further declared to be the legislative intent that if for any reason the sales tax on federal banks is declared invalid, that sales tax shall not apply or be applicable to purchases made by state banks.

History.—s. 1, ch. 57-398; s. 3, ch. 59-402; s. 4, ch. 61-274; s. 7, ch. 63-253; s. 5, ch. 65-371; s. 2, ch. 65-420; ss. 21, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 35, ch. 95-280; s. 27, ch. 96-397; s. 16, ch. 98-73.

¹Note.—This material can now be found at s. 212.12(9).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1968–2002 · leading case: City of Tampa v. Birdsong Motors, Inc., 261 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Tampa v. Birdsong Motors, Inc., 261 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972). · cites it 17× “" An additional statute pertinent to the decision here is Fla. Stat. § 212.081 (3) (b), F.S.A. It reads, inter alia: "It is also the legislative intent that there shall be no pyramiding or duplication of excise taxes levied by the state under this chapter and no municipality…”

Dep't of Revenue v. Bank of Am., 752 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). · cites it 2× “Section 212.081, Florida Statutes provides an expression of legislative intent with respect to the tax levied on the sale of motor vehicles.”

Belcher Oil Co. v. Dade Cnty., 271 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1972). “Therein, this Court concluded that the City of Tampa was attempting to go beyond its statutory authorization since it attempted to increase its revenue by taxing sales within the city after having imposed the traditional valid license tax.”

Birdsong Motors, Inc. v. City of Tampa, 235 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). · cites it 7× “081(3) provides in part: “It is also the legislative intent that there shall be no pyramiding or duplication of excise taxes levied by the state under this chapter, and no municipality shall levy any excise tax upon any privilege, admission, lease, rental, sale, use or storage…”

Fried v. City of Miami Beach, 212 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). “Not only was Ordinance 1619 not authorized by General Statutes at the time Plaintiff paid the questioned tax, but said Ordinance was in direct conflict with Section 212.081(3). [Fla.Stat., F.S.A.]” In so holding the trial judge was eminently correct.”

P.R. Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. GTE Florida Inc., 806 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). · cites it 2× “Marketing and World Financial Services asserted that DOR and GTE were engaged in a complicated pyramiding of taxation which was contrary to the dictates of section 212.081(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), and section 212.”

— 212.081(3) — 3 cases

City of Tampa v. Birdsong Motors, Inc., 261 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972). “" An additional statute pertinent to the decision here is Fla. Stat. § 212.081 (3) (b), F.S.A. It reads, inter alia: "It is also the legislative intent that there shall be no pyramiding or duplication of excise taxes levied by the state under this chapter and no municipality…”

Birdsong Motors, Inc. v. City of Tampa, 235 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). “081(3) provides in part: “It is also the legislative intent that there shall be no pyramiding or duplication of excise taxes levied by the state under this chapter, and no municipality shall levy any excise tax upon any privilege, admission, lease, rental, sale, use or storage…”

— 212.081(3)(b) — 2 cases

P.R. Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. GTE Florida Inc., 806 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). “Marketing and World Financial Services asserted that DOR and GTE were engaged in a complicated pyramiding of taxation which was contrary to the dictates of section 212.081(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), and section 212.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.