CopyCited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...wine manufactured in the state as being violative of the Commerce Clause, concluding that the exemption had both the purpose and effect of discriminating in favor of locally produced products. At the time of the Bacchus decision, sections
564.06 and
565.12, Florida Statutes (Supp....
...1984), granted tax preferred treatment to alcoholic beverages made from certain base agricultural crops grown in Florida and manufactured and bottled in Florida. In response to the Bacchus decision, the Florida Legislature amended sections
564.06 and
565.12 in Chapters 85-203 and 85-204, Laws of Florida. The amended provisions, as codified in sections
564.06 and
565.12 Florida Statutes (1985), among other things, grant exemptions or tax preferences to wines and distilled spirits manufactured from citrus, sugar cane and certain grape species, all of which will grow in Florida, or from by-products or concentra...
...n, a manufacturer of wine coolers in California who sells its products to wholesalers in Florida for resale in the state. Tampa Crown, Florida Beverage and McKesson challenge the preference and disqualification provisions of both sections
564.06 and
565.12....
...o their business flowing from those provisions." Each of the appellees claims that the overall tax preference scheme for alcoholic beverages, which is made up of both the exemption provisions and the disqualification provision of sections
564.06 and
565.12, discriminates against interstate commerce and thus, has an adverse competitive impact on their *1003 businesses....
...sidies for agricultural produces used in making said alcoholic beverages. Funding for research purposes or retail sale of wine at licensed wineries shall not be construed as an `economic incentive or advantage' within the meaning of this subsection. Section 565.12, Florida Statutes (1985), provides in pertinent part: Excise tax on liquors and beverages....
...d and therefore excessive burden on interstate commerce. We also agree with the appellees that even if the overall preference scheme did not violate the commerce clause by placing an excessive burden on interstate commerce, sections
564.06(9)(a) and
565.12(1)(c)1., (2)(c)1....
...Accordingly, both those portions of the judgments below finding [t]hat the provisions of [Florida Statutes]
564.06(2), (3) following the term "$3.00 per gallon," (4) following the term "3.50 per gallon," (7) and (9) through (13) and [Florida Statutes]
565.12(1)(b), (1)(c), (2)(b), (2)(c) and (5) through (10) are ......
0 red0 yellow12 green0 procedural
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 129, 1989 Fla. LEXIS 201, 1989 WL 27659
...*1131 EHRLICH, Chief Justice. We have before us the direct appeal of a final judgment declaring the recent amendment to Florida's alcoholic beverage tax scheme, chapter 88-308, sections 10 and 11, Laws of Florida, which is codified at sections
564.06 and
565.12, Florida Statutes (Supp....
...We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(5), of the Florida Constitution, and affirm. Recently, in Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. McKesson Corp.,
524 So.2d 1000 (Fla.), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___,
109 S.Ct. 389,
102 L.Ed.2d 378 (1988), [1] this Court held provisions of sections
564.06 and
565.12, Florida Statutes (1985), which granted tax exemptions or tax preferences to alcoholic beverages made from certain agricultural crops which grow in Florida, regardless of the place of manufacture, invalid under the commerce clause. Prior to the 1985 amendment, sections
564.06 and
565.12, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984), granted tax-preferred treatment to alcoholic beverages made from certain base crops grown in Florida and manufactured and bottled in Florida. The 1985 amendment to sections
564.06 and
565.12 was implemented in response to the 1984 United States Supreme Court decision in Bacchus Imports, Ltd....
...s being violative of the commerce clause because it had both the purpose and effect of discriminating in favor of local products. Relying on Bacchus, the plaintiffs in McKesson took the position that because the 1985 amendment to sections
564.06 and
565.12 had both the purpose and effect of discriminating against interstate commerce, the challenged provisions were properly struck down by the trial court as "simple economic protectionism."
524 So.2d at 1003....
..., safety, welfare, and economic integrity of the state, the costs of ensuring compliance with relevant state laws should be included in the taxes imposed upon said alcoholic beverages. Sections 10 and 11 of the law, as codified in section
564.06 and
565.12, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), respectively, provide for an excise tax on wines and distilled spirits as well as an import tax on wines and distilled spirits which are imported into the state. Subsection
565.12(4) provides that all beverages distilled in this state for sale in this state, except flavoring extracts, shall be distilled above 185 proof and shall be made from produce grown on land inspected by Florida agricultural inspectors....
...Subsection
564.06(7) provides that all fortified beverages taxed under that section shall be fortified with alcohol, except for flavoring extracts, distilled above 185 proof and shall also be made from produce grown on land inspected by Florida agricultural inspectors. Sections
564.06 and
565.12 provide in pertinent part:
564.06 Excise and import taxes on wines and beverages....
...n by s. 10, ch. 88-308, Laws of Florida, shall be preserved and continue to operate to the extent that such amendments are not dependent upon the portions of said section which expire pursuant to the provisions of s. 10, ch. 88-308, Laws of Florida. 565.12 Excise and import tax on liquors and beverages....
...in the production of such beverages are grown. The court held the provisions of Section 10(1) of Chapter 88-308, Laws of Florida, amending §
564.06, Florida Statutes; and the provisions of Section 11(1) of Chapter 88-308, Laws of Florida, amending §
565.12, Florida Statutes ......
...In light of the clearly limited interests furthered by the challenged provisions, we do not believe that twenty-first amendment concerns are sufficiently implicated to allow this clearly discriminatory tax scheme to stand. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court holding subsections
564.06(1) through (10) and subsections
565.12(1) through (5), Florida Statutes (Supp....
0 red0 yellow11 green0 procedural
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1988 WL 31798
...We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(5), Fla. Const. We affirm the summary judgment below. This case involves a challenge to portions of two state statutes which imposed an excise tax on certain alcoholic beverages in the years between 1981 and 1985. §§
564.06 &
565.12, Fla....
...We recently determined in Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. McKesson Corp.,
524 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 1988), that chapters 85-203 & 85-204, Laws of Florida (1985), were unconstitutional under Bacchus. These two chapters had amended sections
564.06 and
565.12, Florida Statutes (1983), in an attempt to correct the deficiences recognized in Bacchus....
...m taxation certain other wines manufactured and bottled in Florida; (c) that portion of section
564.06(4), Florida Statutes (1981 to 1984 supp.), exempting from taxation certain natural sparkling wines manufactured and bottled in Florida; (d) all of section
565.12(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1981 to 1984 supp.), which reduced the taxation on certain alcoholic beverages manufactured and bottled in Florida; and (e) all of section *158
565.12(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1981 to 1984 supp.), which reduced the taxation on certain other alcoholic beverages manufactured and bottled in Florida....
0 red0 yellow1 green0 procedural
