Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 213.756 (2025)
Funds collected are state tax funds.
✓ 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
213.756 Funds collected are state tax funds.—
(1) Funds collected from a purchaser under the representation that they are taxes provided for under the state revenue laws are state funds from the moment of collection and are not subject to refund absent proof that such funds have been refunded previously to the purchaser.
(2)(a) In any action by a purchaser against a retailer, dealer, or vendor to obtain a refund of or to otherwise recover taxes, fees, or surcharges collected by the retailer, dealer, or vendor from the purchaser:
1. The purchaser in the action has the burden of proving all elements of its claim for a refund by clear and convincing evidence;
2. The sole remedy in the action is damages measured by the difference between what the retailer, dealer, or vendor collected as a tax, fee, or surcharge and what the retailer, dealer, or vendor paid to the taxing authority plus any discount or collection allowance authorized by law and taken by the retailer, dealer, or vendor; and
3. It is an affirmative defense to the action when the retailer, dealer, or vendor remitted the amount collected from the purchaser to the appropriate taxing authority, less any discount or collection allowance authorized by law.
(b) This subsection applies to those taxes enumerated in s. 72.011, excluding chapter 202 and that portion of chapter 203 collected thereunder, and also applies to taxes imposed under chapter 205.
(c) This subsection does not change the law regarding standing to claim a refund.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Cox v. Porsche Fin. Servs., Inc., 342 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (S.D. Fla. 2018).
Cox v. Porsche Fin. Servs., Inc., 342 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (S.D. Fla. 2018). “Fla. Stat. § 213.756 (Counts 2, 3, 4) Defendants argue that Fla.”
Schojan v. Papa John's Int'l Inc., 34 F. Supp. 3d 1206 (M.D. Fla. 2014). “Papa John’s further contends that Florida Statute § 213.756 expressly bars the purchaser from recovering from a retailer alleged *1209 overpayments that have been remitted to the Florida Department of Revenue.”
Blackshears II Aluminum, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 641 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). “In 1991, the Legislature enacted section 213.756, which provides: 213.756.”
Schojan v. Papa Johns Int'l, Inc., 303 F.R.D. 659 (M.D. Fla. 2014). “Thereafter, on June 13, 2014, Papa John’s moved to dismiss or alternatively stay this action “because the relief sought—a refund of a purported sales tax overcharge—is barred by section 213.756, Florida Statutes, by the voluntary payment doctrine, and because Plaintiffs failed…”
Cox v. Porsche Fin. Servs., Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2020). “Fla. Stat. § 213.756 . (emphasis added). Plaintiff correctly submits that the statute is inapplicable where, as is the case here, the action is not against a retailer, dealer, or vendor, and the plaintiff does not seek a tax refund.”
Bj's Wholesale Club, Inc., Etc. v. Laura Bugliaro, Etc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). “§ 213.756, Fla. Stat. 14 § 212.07(3)(a), Fla.”
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Revenue (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). “” § 213.756(1), Fla. Stat. However, even though the statute only permits the taxpayer to receive the refund, the Code requires that “[a] taxpayer who has overpaid tax to a dealer, or who had paid tax to a dealer when no tax is due, must secure a refund of the tax from the dealer…”
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Revenue (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). “” § 213.756(1), Fla. Stat. However, even though the statute only permits the taxpayer to receive the refund, the Code requires that “[a] taxpayer who has overpaid tax to a dealer, or who had paid tax to a dealer when no tax is due, must secure a refund of the tax from the dealer…”
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). “” § 213.756(1), Fla. Stat. However, even though the statute only permits the taxpayer to receive the refund, the Code requires that “[a] taxpayer who has overpaid tax to a dealer, or who had paid tax to a dealer when no tax is due, must secure a refund of the tax from the dealer…”
Daytona Wheels, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 752 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). “We find section 213.756, Fla. Stat., inapplicable because we are not here dealing with a tax assessment or the purported tax assessment.”
— 213.756(1) — 4 cases
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Revenue (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). “” § 213.756(1), Fla. Stat. However, even though the statute only permits the taxpayer to receive the refund, the Code requires that “[a] taxpayer who has overpaid tax to a dealer, or who had paid tax to a dealer when no tax is due, must secure a refund of the tax from the dealer…”
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Revenue (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). “” § 213.756(1), Fla. Stat. However, even though the statute only permits the taxpayer to receive the refund, the Code requires that “[a] taxpayer who has overpaid tax to a dealer, or who had paid tax to a dealer when no tax is due, must secure a refund of the tax from the dealer…”
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). “” § 213.756(1), Fla. Stat. However, even though the statute only permits the taxpayer to receive the refund, the Code requires that “[a] taxpayer who has overpaid tax to a dealer, or who had paid tax to a dealer when no tax is due, must secure a refund of the tax from the dealer…”
Bj's Wholesale Club, Inc., Etc. v. Laura Bugliaro, Etc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). “§ 213.756, Fla. Stat. 14 § 212.07(3)(a), Fla.”
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.