Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
(a) There is imposed a state tax on all loans made in violation of this chapter. Such tax shall be administered and collected in connection with the Georgia income taxation of the person making such loans and shall be in addition to any other tax liability of such person. (b) The tax imposed by this Code section shall be at the rate of 50 percent of all proceeds received by a person from loans made in violation of this chapter. (c) A person making loans in violation of this chapter shall declare and return the proceeds subject to taxation under this Code section as a part of such person’s Georgia income tax return. (d) The state revenue commissioner shall retain returns under this Code section apart from all other returns and shall not disclose any part of such a return for any purpose other than the collection of tax owed or a criminal prosecution involving tax matters. In a criminal proceeding under this chapter, a person’s return of proceeds under this Code
section and any evidence derived as a result of such return shall not be admissible.
History
Code 1981, § 16-17-5, enacted by Ga. L. 2004, p. 60, § 3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 2004–2016 · leading case: State v. Chulpayev, 770 S.E.2d 808 (Ga. 2015).
State v. Chulpayev, 770 S.E.2d 808 (Ga. 2015). · cites it 2דSee also OCGA § 16-17-5 (d) (“In a criminal proceeding under this chapter [relating to illegal payday loans], a person’s return of proceeds under this Code section and any evidence derived as a result of such return shall not be admissible.”
W. Sky Fin., LLC v. State, 793 S.E.2d 357 (Ga. 2016). · cites it 2דOCGA § 16-17-5. The remedial schemes of the two statutory provisions are distinct, and the Payday Lending Act expressly states that its purpose is to create new, different, and more onerous remedies and penalties upon lenders who engage in the conduct prohibited by the Act than…”
Bankwest, Inc. v. Baker, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (N.D. Ga. 2004). · cites it 2דO.C.G.A. § 16-17-5. Under the Act, any business entity engaging in payday lending that is not otherwise exempt under the Act is prohibited from obtaining a certificate of authority to do business in the state or will have its existing certificate of authority revoked.”
State v. Chulpayev (Ga. 2015). · cites it 2דSee also OCGA § 16-17-5 (d) (“In a criminal proceeding under this chapter [relating to illegal payday loans], a person’s return of proceeds under this Code section and any evidence derived as a result of such return shall not be admissible.”
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.