Bauman v. QuikTrip Corp.

431 S.E.2d 704, 208 Ga. App. 618, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 1796, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 553
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 7, 1993
DocketA93A0259
StatusPublished

This text of 431 S.E.2d 704 (Bauman v. QuikTrip Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bauman v. QuikTrip Corp., 431 S.E.2d 704, 208 Ga. App. 618, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 1796, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 553 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

This appeal is from the grant of summary judgment to QuikTrip Corporation (“QuikTrip”) in an action against William M. Bauman [619]*619and Richard S. Blumenfeld (defendants) for collection of amounts due on a promissory note. Held:

Decided May 7, 1993. Gershon, Olim, Katz & Loeb, Jay E. Loeb, for appellants. Branch, Pike & Ganz, Cathleen M. Devlin, Robert J. Augustine, for appellee.

1. Defendants contend the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because QuikTrip failed to report and pay all intangible taxes as required under OCGA § 48-6-32. Specifically, defendants argue that QuikTrip’s “tax return must include all accounts receivable and unsecured notes generated within the State of Georgia and not just the obligation sued on.” This contention is without merit.

OCGA § 48-6-32 does not require proof of reporting and payment of intangible taxes on all property subject to such taxation, it provides that “[w]illful failure to return any property to the commissioner for taxation . . . shall be a bar to any action upon the property [subject to intangible taxation].” See Peters v. Thomason, 157 Ga. App. 513, 514 (2) (277 SE2d 798). In the case sub judice, QuikTrip filed the undisputed affidavit of a corporate officer (Terry L. Carter) showing that QuikTrip had paid all Georgia intangible tax due on the promissory note. Consequently, the trial court did not err in granting QuikTrip’s motion for summary judgment.

2. In light of our holding in Division 1, defendants’ second enumeration provides no basis for reversal.

Judgment affirmed.

Beasley, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Peters v. Thomason
277 S.E.2d 798 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
431 S.E.2d 704, 208 Ga. App. 618, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 1796, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauman-v-quiktrip-corp-gactapp-1993.