Florida Statute 220.63 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 220
INCOME TAX CODE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 220.63

220.63 Franchise tax imposed on banks and savings associations.—

(1) A franchise tax measured by net income is hereby imposed on every bank and savings association for each taxable year commencing on or after January 1, 1973.

(2)(a) The tax imposed by this section shall be an amount equal to 51/2 percent of the franchise tax base of the bank or savings association for the taxable year, except as provided in paragraph (b).

(b) The tax rate imposed in paragraph (a) shall be adjusted as provided in s. 220.1105.

(3) For purposes of this part, the franchise tax base shall be adjusted federal income, as defined in s. 220.13, apportioned to this state, plus nonbusiness income allocated to this state pursuant to s. 220.16, less the deduction allowed in subsection (5) and less $50,000.

(4) Nothing contained in this part shall be construed to prohibit a savings association, in computing its franchise tax base, from claiming the maximum deduction allowed under s. 593 of the Internal Revenue Code.

(5) There shall be allowed as a deduction from adjusted federal income, to the extent not deductible in determining federal taxable income or subtracted pursuant to s. 220.13(1)(b)2., the eligible net income of an international banking facility determined as follows:

(a) The “eligible net income of an international banking facility” is the amount remaining after subtracting from the eligible gross income the applicable expenses.

(b) The “eligible gross income” is the gross income derived by an international banking facility from:

1. Making, arranging for, placing, or servicing loans to foreign persons, provided, however, that in the case of a foreign person which is an individual, a foreign branch of a domestic corporation (other than a bank or savings association), or a foreign corporation or a foreign partnership which is 80 percent or more owned or controlled, either directly or indirectly, by one or more domestic corporations (other than banks or savings associations), domestic partnerships, or resident individuals, substantially all the proceeds of the loan are for use outside the United States;

2. Making or placing deposits with foreign persons which are banks or savings associations or foreign branches of banks or savings associations, including foreign subsidiaries or foreign branches of the taxpayer, or with other international banking facilities; or

3. Entering into foreign exchange trading or hedging transactions in connection with the activities described in this paragraph.

However, the term “eligible gross income” does not include any amount derived by an international banking facility from making, arranging for, placing, or servicing loans or making or placing deposits if the loans or deposits of funds are secured by mortgages, deeds of trust, or other liens upon real property located in this state.

(c) The “applicable expenses” are any expenses or other deductions attributable, directly or indirectly, to the eligible gross income described in paragraph (b).

History.—s. 8, ch. 72-278; s. 2, ch. 73-152; s. 6, ch. 81-179; s. 9, ch. 83-349; ss. 8, 12, 22, ch. 84-549; s. 102, ch. 91-112; s. 6, ch. 2011-229; s. 11, ch. 2012-32; s. 24, ch. 2016-10; s. 6, ch. 2018-119.

F.S. 220.63 on Google Scholar

F.S. 220.63 on Casetext

Amendments to 220.63

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 220.63

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 220.63.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 220.63

Total Results: 19

Dept. of Revenue v. First Union Nat. Bk.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1987-09-24

Citation: 513 So. 2d 114, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 489, 1987 Fla. LEXIS 2717

Snippet: imposed on banks and savings associations by section 220.63, Florida Statutes (1985), on the ground that it

First Un. Nat. Bk. v. Fla. Dept. of Rev.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1987-02-05

Citation: 502 So. 2d 964

Snippet: of appellees upholding the validity of Section 220.63, Florida Statutes,[1] on the grounds that the tax

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1981-09-09

Snippet: 199.072(4), F.S., or a deduction pursuant to s. 220.63(5), F.S. However, these amendments do not in any

County of Volusia v. ATLANTIC INTERN.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1981-02-13

Citation: 394 So. 2d 477, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19550

Snippet: See, Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 So. 429 (1913). We recognize that allowing Volusia

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1977-12-01

Snippet: franchise tax base for the taxable year. Section 220.63. The tax imposed by part VII on defined `banks'

Falb v. Miami National Bank

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1967-08-15

Citation: 201 So. 2d 593

Snippet: defendants. See Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 So. 429 (1913); Gulf Refining Co. v. Wilkinson

Weaver v. Worley

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1961-11-08

Citation: 134 So. 2d 272

Snippet: reversed. Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 So. 429; Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Allen, 67

Fogarty Bros. Transfer, Inc. v. Boyd

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1959-02-25

Citation: 109 So. 2d 883

Snippet: Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 219, 220, 63 S.Ct. 997, 1010, 1011, 87 L.Ed. 1344 [1364, 1365];

Tampa Electric Company v. Fleischaker

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1943-04-06

Citation: 12 So. 2d 901, 152 Fla. 701, 1943 Fla. LEXIS 1010

Snippet: 437; Standard Phosphate Co., v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220,63 South. Rep. 429." The step plaintiff was required

Slaughter v. Barnett

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1934-03-27

Citation: 154 So. 134, 114 Fla. 352

Snippet: 145; Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 So.2d Rep. 429. There are no allegations in the

Smith v. Coleman

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1931-01-12

Citation: 132 So. 198, 100 Fla. 1707

Snippet: action. Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 So. R. 429. The defendants, without questioning

Gulf Refining Co. v. William Wilkinson

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1927-10-19

Citation: 114 So. 503, 94 Fla. 664

Snippet: Standard Phosphate Co. v. *Page 672 Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 So. 429; L. N. R. R. Co. v. Allen,67 Fla. 247

City of Tallahassee v. Hawes

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1921-02-08

Citation: 81 Fla. 123, 87 So. 765

Snippet: 437; Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 South. Rep. 429; DeFuniak Springs v. Perdue, 69

McDaniel v. Harrell

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1921-02-01

Citation: 81 Fla. 66, 87 So. 631

Snippet: 437; Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 South. Rep. 429. The defense interposed by this

Mathews v. City of Miami

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1920-01-28

Citation: 79 Fla. 108, 83 So. 867

Snippet: defendant. See Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 South. Rep. 429; Tampa & J. R. Co. v. Crawford

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Norton

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1918-04-22

Citation: 75 Fla. 597, 78 So. 982

Snippet: 437; Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 South. Rep. 429. This holding is not in conflict

National Surety Co. v. Williams

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1917-12-08

Citation: 74 Fla. 446, 77 So. 212

Snippet: case of Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 South Rep. 429, in considering the question of

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Allen

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1914-03-27

Citation: 67 Fla. 257

Snippet: 310. Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63 South. Rep. 429, cited and relied upon by the plaintiff

Tampa & Jacksonville Railway Co. v. Crawford

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1914-02-03

Citation: 67 Fla. 77, 64 So. 437

Snippet: declaration. See Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lum, 66 Fla. 220, 63 South. Rep. 129. For the reason stated the court