Ago
This text of Ago (Ago) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Florida Attorney General Reports primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Mr. Frank C. Adler Dania City Attorney Post Office Box 1708 Dania, Florida 33004
Dear Mr. Adler:
You ask the following question:
May the City of Dania impose a head tax on gate receipts for the Dania Jai Alai fronton?
In sum:
The imposition of a head tax or admissions tax is reserved to the state and the city may not, in the absence of express statutory authorization, impose such a tax on the gate receipts for the Dania Jai Alai fronton.
Prior to 1993, the Florida pari-mutuel statutes were contained in Chs. 550 (dogracing and horseracing) and 551 (jai alai), Fla. Stat. (1993). Each chapter contained a provision preempting the taxation of pari-mutuels to the state with a limited exception for the imposition of municipal occupational license taxes not to exceed a specified amount.1
During the December 1992 Special Session, the Florida Legislature revised the state's pari-mutuel laws.2 Chapter
Section
Subsection (8) of the statute states:
The tax imposed by this section is in lieu of all license, excise, or occupational taxes to the state or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision, except that, if a race meeting is held or conducted in a municipality, the municipality may assess and collect an additional tax against any person conducting live racing or games within its corporate limits, which tax may not exceed $150 per day for horseracing or $50 per day for dogracing or jai alai. Except as provided in this chapter, a municipality may not assess or collect any additional excise or revenue tax against any person conducting race meetings within the corporate limits of the municipality or against any patron of any such person. (e.s.)
The courts have recognized the preemption of taxation of pari-mutuel admission to the state. The Supreme Court of Florida, in Town of Hallandale v. Broward County Kennel Club,5 concluded that the state statutes regulating pari-mutuels superseded a municipality's authority to impose an excise tax on the subjects regulated by those statutes. Thus, the Court held a municipal ordinance seeking to impose an admissions tax was invalid.
Section
In light of the above, I am of the opinion that a municipality is prohibited from imposing such a tax. However, the municipality, in accordance with the provisions of s.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
RAB/tgk
Taxes upon the operation of pari-mutuel pools may be preempted to the state or allocated in while or in part to the counties. When allocated to the counties, the distribution shall be in equal amounts to the several counties.
[T]he net sum of money after deduction of any federal taxes for admitting a person or vehicle or persons to any place of amusement, sport, or recreation or for the privilege of entering or staying in any place of amusement, sport, or recreation, including, but not limited to, theaters, . . . shows . . . games, races, or any place where charge is made by way of sale of tickets, gate charges, . . . entrance fees, or other fees or receipts of anything of value measured on an admission or entrance or length of stay or seat box accommodations in any place where there is any exhibition, amusement, sport, or recreation. . . .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ago, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ago-flaag-1994.