O.C.G.A.
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.
This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Homestead Option Sales and Use Tax Act.”
History
Code 1981, § 48-8-100, enacted by Ga.
L. 1995, p. 655, § 1; Ga. L. 2015, p. 217, § 2/HB 215.
Annotations
Law reviews. For article, “Local Government Litigation: Some Pivotal Principles,” see 55 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2003).
For survey article on local government law for the period from June 1, 2002 to May 31, 2003, see 55 Mercer L. Rev. 353 (2003).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Arrangement between county and city allowable. - Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Homestead Option Sales Tax Act (HOST), O.C.G.A. § 48-8-100 et seq., did not allow a county to disburse funds to various cities in order to facilitate the capital outlay requirement under O.C.G.A. § 48-8-104(c)(2)(A) as HOST was implemented under the “special district” provision of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. VI, and as it was not a “county tax,” it was subject to such an arrangement; however, the intergovernmental agreement between the county and cities had to be authorized
under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. III, Para. I in order to be valid. City of Decatur v. DeKalb County, 277 Ga. 292, 589 S.E.2d 561, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 934 (2003). HOST implements district tax. - Homestead Option Sales Tax (HOST), O.C.G.A. § 48-8-100 et seq., implements a district tax under the “special district” provision of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. VI; intergovernmental contracts which are authorized under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. III, Para. I cannot be limited by HOST. City of Decatur v. DeKalb County, 277 Ga. 292, 589 S.E.2d 561, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 934 (2003).
Notes of Decisions
DeKalb Cnty. v. State, 512 S.E.2d 284 (Ga. 1999).
· cites it 6× “The Homestead Option Sales & Use Tax Act, OCGA § 48-8-100 et seq., enacted by Ga. L.”
City of Decatur v. DeKalb Cnty., 668 S.E.2d 247 (Ga. 2008).
· cites it 2× “292 ( 589 SE2d 561 ) (2003), we held that the HOST Act (OCGA § 48-8-100 et seq.) did not prohibit the parties’ intergovernmental agreement and noted that the trial court had made no ruling on whether the parties’ agreement was authorized under the state constitutional provision…”
City of Decatur v. DeKalb Cnty., 713 S.E.2d 846 (Ga. 2011).
· cites it 4× “The County and the Cities disagreed about the calculation of the funds to be distributed to the Cities, and in 2000, the Cities filed suit against the County initially seeking damages for breach of the IGA, conversion, and attorney fees.”
City of Decatur v. DeKalb Cnty., 567 S.E.2d 332 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 48-8-100 et seq. On appeal the cities contend that the trial court erred by (1) holding that the Intergovernmental Agreement between DeKalb County and the cities violated the plain language of the HOST statute, (2) applying the wrong legal standard to DeKalb County’s…”
City of Decatur v. DeKalb Cnty., 589 S.E.2d 561 (Ga. 2003).
· cites it 2× “A portion of the tax, not to exceed 20 percent, is to be used to fund “capital outlay” projects.”
DeKalb Cnty. v. Perdue, 692 S.E.2d 331 (Ga. 2010).
· cites it 2× “1983, the Legislature amended the Homestead Option Sales and Use Tax Act, OCGA § 48-8-100 et seq., so as to provide for changes in the manner in which HOST proceeds are distributed in those special HOST districts in which a “qualified municipality” 1 was thereafter created.”
DeKalb Cnty. v. City of Decatur, 651 S.E.2d 774 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “The HOST statute, OCGA§ 48-8-100 et seq., creates 159 special tax districts coterminous with the geographical boundaries of each county in the state.”
Bd. of Commissioners v. Levetan, 512 S.E.2d 627 (Ga. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Because the challenged violation is insufficient to warrant invalidating the ordinances and Davis seeks no other relief, we need not consider whether the earlier meetings violated the Open Meetings Act.”
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.