State, Department of Revenue v. Brock

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State, Department of Revenue v. Brock

673 So. 2d 902, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4592, 1996 WL 225709

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 1996

DocketNo. 95-3259

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 673 So. 2d 902 (State, Department of Revenue v. Brock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State, Department of Revenue v. Brock, 673 So. 2d 902, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4592, 1996 WL 225709 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

The State of Florida appeals a final summary judgment ruling that appel-lees/plaintiffs below were entitled to a tax refund with interest. The dispute over the tax assessment was based upon the Department of Revenue’s interpretation that section 440.57(7), Florida Statutes (1989), obligated the Florida Hotel-Motel Self Insurers Fund to pay the premium tax in section 624.509, Florida Statutes (1989), without entitlement to the salary credit provided in section 624.509(5). For the reasons expressed in our opinion in State of Florida, Dep’t of Revenue v. Central Dade Malpractice Trust Fund, 673 So.2d 899, released on this date, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that appel-lees are entitled to the salary credit and to a refund of the overpayment of tax resulting from calculating their tax obligation without accounting for that credit.

We also affirm the trial court’s conclusion that appellees are entitled to post-judgment interest on that amount. Unlike the circumstance in Kuhnlein v. Department of Revenue, 662 So.2d 308 (Fla.1995), this is a final money judgment, and therefore there is now an entitlement to post-judgment interest. In that ease the Florida Supreme Court expressly ruled that there is no entitlement to prejudgment interest on a tax refund, but did not hold that there cannot be post-judgment interest on a tax refund. Instead, the court stated that it was affirming the denial of post-judgment interest because there was not yet a final money judgment, and relinquished jurisdiction to the circuit court for entry of a final order. See also Dryden v. Madison County, Florida, 672 So.2d 840, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We affirm appellees’ entitlement to post-judgment interest. See [903]*903Palm Beach County v. Town of Palm Beach, 579 So.2d 719 (Fla.1991).

AFFIRMED.

ZEHMER, C.J., and BARFIELD, J., concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

The State of Florida appeals a final summary judgment ruling that appel-lees/plaintiffs below were entitled to a tax refund with interest. The dispute over the tax assessment was based upon the Department of Revenue’s interpretation that section 440.57(7), Florida Statutes (1989), obligated the Florida Hotel-Motel Self Insurers Fund to pay the premium tax in section 624.509, Florida Statutes (1989), without entitlement to the salary credit provided in section 624.509(5). For the reasons expressed in our opinion in State of Florida, Dep’t of Revenue v. Central Dade Malpractice Trust Fund, 673 So.2d 899, released on this date, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that appel-lees are entitled to the salary credit and to a refund of the overpayment of tax resulting from calculating their tax obligation without accounting for that credit.

We also affirm the trial court’s conclusion that appellees are entitled to post-judgment interest on that amount. Unlike the circumstance in Kuhnlein v. Department of Revenue, 662 So.2d 308 (Fla.1995), this is a final money judgment, and therefore there is now an entitlement to post-judgment interest. In that ease the Florida Supreme Court expressly ruled that there is no entitlement to prejudgment interest on a tax refund, but did not hold that there cannot be post-judgment interest on a tax refund. Instead, the court stated that it was affirming the denial of post-judgment interest because there was not yet a final money judgment, and relinquished jurisdiction to the circuit court for entry of a final order. See also Dryden v. Madison County, Florida, 672 So.2d 840, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We affirm appellees’ entitlement to post-judgment interest. See [903]*903Palm Beach County v. Town of Palm Beach, 579 So.2d 719 (Fla.1991).

AFFIRMED.

ZEHMER, C.J., and BARFIELD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 So. 2d 902, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4592, 1996 WL 225709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-revenue-v-brock-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack