O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 48-13-59 (2019)

Failure to collect taxes; punishment

✓ 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

(a) It shall be unlawful for any innkeeper to fail, neglect, or refuse to collect the tax provided in this article, either by himself or herself or through his or her agents or employees.

(b) In addition to the penalty of being liable for and paying the tax himself or herself, any person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100.00 or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than three months, or both.

History

Code 1981, § 48-13-59, enacted by Ga. L. 2000, p. 1325, § 4.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS 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).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Fingerprinting of offenders not required. - Violation of O.C.G.A. § 48-13-59 is not an offense designated as

one that requires fingerprinting. 2000 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2000-11.

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Obligation of online travel companies to

collect and remit hotel occupancy taxes, 61 A.L.R. 6th 387.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2017–2017 · leading case: Bellsouth Telecomm., LLC Et Al. v. Cobb Cnty. Et Al., 802 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bellsouth Telecomm., LLC Et Al. v. Cobb Cnty. Et Al., 802 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “6 See also OCGA § 48-13-59 (a) - (b) (making it unlawful “for any innkeeper to fail, neglect, or refuse to collect the [hotel] tax,” and imposing a “penalty of being liable for and paying the tax himself” as well as a misdemeanor charge punishable by a fine or imprisonment if…”

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.