Kindelan v. United States

233 F. Supp. 557, 14 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6314, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8624
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedJuly 9, 1964
DocketCiv. No. 63-167
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 233 F. Supp. 557 (Kindelan v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kindelan v. United States, 233 F. Supp. 557, 14 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6314, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8624 (S.D. Fla. 1964).

Opinion

DYER, Chief Judge.

The Taxpayers-Plaintiffs instituted this suit to recover the amount paid by them to the Defendant as excise taxes on sums of money claimed to be dues assessed by the Miami Shores Country Club for the calendar years 1959, 1960 and 1961.

The Country Club is a municipally-owned facility operated by the Recreation Department of the Miami Shores Village, a municipal corporation organized and existing under Chapter 26036, Laws of Florida, 1949. The responsibility for the actual operation of the Club was delegated by the Council to the Village Manager, the day to day operations being conducted by a Club Manager employed by the Village. The latter in turn has his own staff and all of the employees of the Club were employed by the Village.

The Club was established by the Village in 1937 on approximately 121 acres of land. The property was acquired by tax foreclosures, gifts and purchases. The club house and 18-hole golf course was constructed and financed by WPA grants and the proceeds of mortgages placed on the land.

In 1945 the Village refinanced the whole project by the issuance of general obligation bonds, some of which are still outstanding. Proceeds from the operation of the Club were pledged to the payment of principal and interest on the bonds, and if this was insufficient ad valorem taxes were to be assessed to make up any deficiency. Since 1945 other improvements have been made in the physical facilities of the Club.

At all times the Club has been self-supporting. It has not been necessary to pay expenses of operation from any funds (including ad valorem taxes) other than those derived from the profits of the Club. All improvements have likewise been ultimately paid for from operation profits.

The Council determines the operational procedures of the Club and is responsible for its appropriations, they being part of the Village budget. The monies derived from the Club operation are deposited in a Village bank account and disbursed according to budget authorization. A separate set of books and a separate bank account are used with respect to the operation of the Club. Receipts from the Club are brought forward into the Village budget and disbursements are made only upon checks signed by the Manager or Mayor, or other member of the Council.

The golf course and facilities were open to the general public until 1946, when the Council passed Resolution No. 363, hereinafter referred to, which virtually restricted use to citizens and residents of the Village.

The physical plant of the Club consists of a swimming pool, with administrative, locker and shower facilities; two parking lots of approximately 200 automobile capacity; a club house containing a lobby, administrative offices, dining room, main floor bar, patio room, men’s and women’s locker rooms, and a men’s [559]*559bar on the lower floor; an 18-hole golf course, a golf shop separate from the main club house operated by a golf pro containing merchandise for sale, an office and a golf club storage space; and six tennis courts operated by a tennis pro with a small office adjacent thereto.

The club house is the only civic center in the Village. In it are held zoning and other hearings relating to the public affairs of the Village. The club house is used as one of the voting precincts for the holding of Village and State elections.

All of the permanent employees at the club house, swimming pool and golf course are hired and discharged either by the Club Manager, who is an appointee of the Village Manager, or by the latter, and all are paid with Village funds. They are subject to social security and Federal withholding taxes which are collected by the Village. They are members of the Village pension plan (a legislatively authorized measure, Chapter 27740, Laws of Florida, 1951, to which public funds may be contributed). No Florida unemployment tax is paid with respect to such employees.

The Club’s lounge and restaurant facilities operate under the same legal provisions as those governing commercial enterprises. The Club is exempt from real and personal property taxes and no Federal income tax is paid on the profits derived from its operations.

No Florida sales tax is imposed or collected on articles purchased by the Village for Club use, such transactions being exempt under Fla.Stats.1963, Ch. 212.08(7), F.S.A.

Because of the rapid population growth of the area which taxed the golf course facilities, the use thereof was restricted by Resolution No. 363 to Village residents and their guests except for annual non-resident members, and fees for the use of the golf course and swimming pool were fixed as follows:

(A) ANNUAL GOLF & POOL

Single Village Resident (Freeholder) $175.00

Family Village Resident (Freeholder) 200.00

Single Village Resident (Tenant) 400.00

Family Village Resident (Tenant) 400.00

2/16/60

Non-Resident members (Single or Family) 400.00

(B) DAILY GOLF

Village Resident (summer-83.00) $ 5.00

Guests of Residents or Members (summer-85.00) 7.50

(C) ANNUAL POOL

Single Village Resident (Freeholder) $ 40.00

Family Village Resident (Freeholder) 60.00

Single Village Resident (Tenant) 60.00

Family Village Resident (Tenant) 85.00

1/ 1/58

Single Non-Resident members 60.00

Family Non-Resident members 85.00

(D) DAILY POOL

Weekdays Sat., Sun., Holidays

Village Residents (Minors) $ .25 $ .50

Village Residents (Adults) .50 1.00

Guests of Residents or Members .50 1.00

(Children or adults)

[560]*560These annual fees were imposed and collected as a substitute for green fees which were charged for the use of the facility, a reduction being made for lump-sum payment. Theoretically, the charge was imposed on a cost basis, i. e., the amount was designed to provide upkeep and maintenance.

It was possible for a Village resident to use any of the Club’s sporting facilities without a specific membership therefor. To do this, he was required to present a Citizen’s Social Identification Card to identify himself, or a member of his family, as being a Village resident. He would then pay an additional daily fee for the use of the particular facility, the amount of which would depend on the facility used. The fee for this card was $10.00 per year and was issued only upon application.

All applicants for any type of membership in the Club were required to make out an application form. Freeholders and resident tenants, after being cheeked by the Membership Committee of the Miami Shores Country Club Association (described more fully hereinafter), were automatically accepted no matter what type of membership was requested. Application for non-residents of the Village required listing of membership in other clubs, bank and personal references, etc. Such applications were passed upon by the same Membership Committee, and if it disapproved the application the applicant was notified of his rejection without reference to the Village Manager. If, however, the Membership Committee found the non-resident applicant acceptable, it was forwarded to the Village Manager who then made the final decision as to acceptability.

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

Related

DeMott v. Board of Police Commissioners
122 Cal. App. 3d 296 (California Court of Appeal, 1981)
United States v. Mitchell B. Howe
349 F.2d 483 (Ninth Circuit, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 F. Supp. 557, 14 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6314, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kindelan-v-united-states-flsd-1964.