O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 48-13-50 (2019)

Purpose

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is declared to be the purpose and intent of the General Assembly that: (1) Each county and municipality in this state shall be authorized to levy certain excise taxes as hereinafter provided in this article; and (2) Funds be made available for the purposes of promoting, attracting, stimulating, and developing conventions and tourism in the counties and municipalities and for the provision of other local government services.

History

Ga. L. 1975, p. 1002, § 1; Code 1933, § 91A-6201, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 309, § 2; Ga. L. 1989, p. 1, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 1134, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. For article, “Online Travel Companies

Find Issues with Hotels Extremely Taxing: Georgia’s Hotel-Motel Occupancy Excise Tax and Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, T.J. Evans,” see 61 Mercer L. Rev. 1263 (2010).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Collection of taxes. - Although online travel companies were not operators of hotels, the companies actually collected excise taxes from hotel guests, and thus the companies were required to remit those taxes to applicable Georgia cities and counties pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 48-13-50 and 48-13-51. City of Rome v. Hotels.com, LP, No.

4:05-CV-249-HLM, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56369 (N.D. Ga. May 8, 2006), dismissed, 555 F. Supp. 3d 1314, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 250106 (N.D. Ga. 2021). In a city’s action wherein the city filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and other equitable remedies against an online travel company, the trial court did not err by

SPECIFIC, BUSINESS, & OCCUPATION TAXES

requiring the company to collect tax payment obligations under the Enabling Statute, O.C.G.A. § 48-13-50 et seq., and a city’s ordinance via a permanent injunction. The company had contracted with the city to collect such taxes from the customers and was not an innkeeper; thus, the company was required to remit the taxes to the city. Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 285 Ga. 684, 681 S.E.2d 122, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 315 (2009). In a city’s action to recover unpaid occupancy taxes from several online travel companies pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 48-13-50 et seq., summary judgment for the companies was proper on the city’s conversion claim because the city failed to show that the money sought comprised a specific, separate, identifiable fund that belonged to it. City of Atlanta v. Hotels.com, L.P., 332 Ga. App. 888, 775 S.E.2d 276, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 423 (2015), cert. denied, No. S15C1762, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 701 (Ga. Oct. 5, 2015). Determination as to whether tax applied to online travel company had to be determined first. - Trial court erred by dismissing a city’s declaratory judgment action against several online travel companies for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the appellate

court erred by affirming the dismissal as the issue of whether the city’s ordinance allowing the city to collect a hotel occupancy tax from the online travel companies was a contested issue in the matter that neither lower court had determined. The legal question of whether the ordinance even applied to the online travel companies had to be determined before the city was required to submit to the administrative process set forth within the ordinance and the enabling statutes, O.C.G.A. § 48-13-50 et seq. City of Atlanta v. Hotels.com, L.P., 285 Ga. 231, 674 S.E.2d 898, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 96 (2009). Constructive trust. - In a city’s action to recover unpaid occupancy taxes from several online travel companies pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 48-13-50 et seq., summary judgment for the companies was proper on the city’s breach of constructive trust claim under O.C.G.A. § 53-12-132(a) because, under the law of the case, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(h), that claim had been rejected by the trial court and affirmed in a prior appeal. City of Atlanta v. Hotels.com, L.P., 332 Ga. App. 888, 775 S.E.2d 276, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 423 (2015), cert. denied, No. S15C1762, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 701 (Ga. Oct. 5, 2015).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Imposition of tax by county and city. - “Hotel-Motel Tax” may not be imposed by both a county and a city

within the boundaries of the city. 1993 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U93-12.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 71 Am. Jur. 2d, State and Local Taxation, §§ 23, 24.

C.J.S. 84 C.J.S., Taxation, § 494 et seq. 85 C.J.S., Taxation, § 2069.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1990–2015 · leading case: City of Atlanta v. Hotels.com, L.P., 674 S.E.2d 898 (Ga. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Atlanta v. Hotels.com, L.P., 674 S.E.2d 898 (Ga. 2009). · cites it 12× “As explained by the Court of Appeals: So that counties and cities can raise revenue for tourism promotion and the provision of other local government services, the General Assembly enacted OCGA § 48-13-50 et seq. (the "Enabling Statutes"), authorizing local governments to levy…”
Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 681 S.E.2d 122 (Ga. 2009). · cites it 4× “In Georgia, municipalities may levy taxes related to hotel stays and use the funds to promote tourism pursuant to OCGA § 48-13-50 et seq. (the "Enabling Statute").”
Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 699 S.E.2d 600 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Therein the Supreme Court held that pursuant to OCGA § 48-13-50 and the Hotel-Motel Occupancy Excise Tax Ordinance of the City of Columbus (the “City”), Expedia must remit hotel occupancy taxes to the City based on the full room rate it charged its customers rather than the…”
City of Atlanta v. Hotels.com, L.P., 654 S.E.2d 166 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “So that counties and cities can raise revenue for tourism promotion and the provision of other local government services, the General Assembly enacted OCGA§ 48-13-50 et seq. (the “Enabling Statutes”), authorizing local governments to levy and collect an excise tax pertaining to…”
City of Atlanta v. HOTELS. COM., 710 S.E.2d 766 (Ga. 2011). · cites it 2× “The City of Atlanta requires the payment of hotel occupancy taxes pursuant to OCGA § 48-13-50 et seq. (the “Enabling Statute”) which provides for municipalities to impose an excise tax “at the applicable rate on the lodging charges actually collected.”
Youngblood v. State of Ga., 388 S.E.2d 671 (Ga. 1990). · cites it 4× “Laws 1 (codified as amended at OCGA §§ 48-13-50 to -53) is constitutional.”
City of Atlanta v. Hotels.com, L.P. Et Al., 775 S.E.2d 276 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “[T]he OTCs calculate the hotel occupancy tax amount [required by the City pursuant to OCGA § 48-13-50 et seq.] based on the wholesale rate the OTC negotiates with hotels for the right to broker rooms and not on the retail room rate the OTC charges the customer for the right to…”
City of Rome, Georgia v. Hotels.com, L.P., 549 F. App'x 896 (11th Cir. 2013). “The Localities argue that they are entitled to relief under O.C.G.A. § 48-13-50 et seq. (“the Enabling Statute”), as well as on their state common law claims.”
Hotels.com, L.P. v. City of Columbus, 686 S.E.2d 91 (Ga. 2009). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 48-13-50 et seq. (municipalities may impose excise tax "at the applicable rate on the lodging charges actually collected"); Columbus Code § 19-110 et seq.”
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.