Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Ga. L. 1973, p. 750, § 8; Ga. L. 1979, p. 401, § 20; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 50; Ga. L. 1994, p. 97, § 50; Ga. L. 1995, p. 172, § 6; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1347, § 1.)
Exemptions of this section were validly passed, the title to the legislation giving sufficient warning of the exemptions. Sears v. State, 232 Ga. 547, 208 S.E.2d 93 (1974).
- O.C.G.A. § 50-17-29(e) evinces the legislature's intent to prohibit a county or municipality from taxing any property used by a contractor on a state project, or from getting around that prohibition by including the contract price of a state project as a basis for any other kind of authorized tax or fee. Lunda Constr. Co. v. Clayton County, 201 Ga. App. 106, 410 S.E.2d 446 (1991).
Phrase "any tax" in O.C.G.A. § 50-17-29(e) included local option, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, and special county sales taxes which were assessed against a contractor performing work for the state. C.W. Matthews Contracting Co. v. Collins, 214 Ga. App. 532, 448 S.E.2d 234 (1994).
- Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-17-29(e), a highway construction contractor who performed work solely for a state agency was entitled to a refund of sales and use taxes and local option taxes. Collins v. Lunda Constr. Co., 214 Ga. App. 512, 448 S.E.2d 236 (1994).
Inventory and equipment of company producing asphalt for road construction were not exempt from ad valorem taxes since the property was taxed solely as a condition to or result of the performance of work for the state. Gainesville Asphalt, Inc. v. Hall County, 214 Ga. App. 679, 448 S.E.2d 721 (1994).
Highway construction contractor was entitled to an exemption under O.C.G.A. § 50-17-29(e) to the extent that the contractor's machinery and equipment were used in state projects in the tax year. Gwinnett County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. APAC-Georgia, Inc., 215 Ga. App. 609, 451 S.E.2d 798 (1994).
Paving contractor was entitled to a tax exemption for that part of the contractor's machinery and equipment located in the taxing county for use on state projects; use of the equipment solely on state projects was not required, nor was it required that proximity to state work be the sole reason for moving to the taxing county or that the majority of work be performed for the state. APAC-Georgia, Inc. v. Richmond County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 230 Ga. App. 570, 496 S.E.2d 488 (1998).
- 12 Am. Jur. 2d, Bonds, § 42. 64 Am. Jur. 2d, Public Securities and Obligations, §§ 11, 13, 33, 309, 311, 312, 316. 71 Am. Jur. 2d, State and Local Taxation, § 278.
- 10 C.J.S., Bills and Notes, § 15. 81A C.J.S., States, §§ 364 et seq., 439, 446 et seq. 84 C.J.S., Taxation, § 315.
- Constitutional provision against impairing obligation of contract as applicable to statutes affecting rights or remedies of holders or owners of improvement bonds or liens, 97 A.L.R. 911.
Total Results: 1
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-05-15
Citation: 265 Ga. 448, 457 S.E.2d 171
Snippet: Court of Appeals ordered refunds under OCGA § 50-17-29 (e) of local sales and use taxes collected in