See also, 1 Fla. State and Local Taxes, §§ 14.01[b][ii][D][I] and 14.02 (Fla. Bar 1984). The vendor argues that sales taxes should not be imposed on delivery charges on rental equipment where possession is transferred at the vendor's (lessor's) place of business and the vendee (lessee) is responsible for transportation charges separate and apart from the rental price, citing Florida Hi-Lift v. Department of Revenue, 571 So.2d 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). See also 1 Fla. State and Local Taxes, Transportation and Similar Charges, § 14.01[c][ii] (Fla. Bar 1984).
The vendor (lessor) should not have to collect sales tax on this "service" merely because he sells or leases the object when an independent firm which provides this delivery "service" is not required to collect such tax.Id. at 722; see Florida Hi-Lift v. Department of Revenue, 571 So.2d 1364, 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (finding that pickup and delivery charges were "incident to a `sale'" and, therefore, not taxable). ATT cites this footnote and the Florida Hi-Lift case and suggests the trial court in this case "recognized that BellSouth had no legal or contractual requirement to purchase services when ordering equipment from ATT."
In addition, it is a fundamental rule of construction that the authority to tax must be strictly construed against the taxing authority and in favor of the taxpayer and all ambiguities or doubts must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. Maas Bros. v. Dickinson, 195 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1967); Florida Dep't of Revenue v. Quotron Sys., Inc., 615 So.2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Florida Hi-Lift v. Department of Revenue, 571 So.2d 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Florida S L Servs., Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 443 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). As eloquently stated in Maas Brothers, "This salutary principle is found in the reason that the duty to pay taxes, while necessary to the business of the sovereign, is still a duty of pure statutory creation and taxes may be collected only within the clear definite boundaries recited by statute." Id.; see also State ex rel. Seaboard Air Line R.R. v. Gay, 160 Fla. 445, 35 So.2d 403 (1948).
Cf. Lincoln, 643 So.2d at 671 (following perceived legislative intent of habitual offender statute, in spite of judicial presumption that criminal statutes are to be construed favorably to the accused). If at the very least these statutes were deemed to be ambiguous, the great deference given to the Division's interpretation would have to yield way to the established principle that taxing statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the taxpayer and against the tax collector. See, e.g., Florida Hi-Lift v. Department of Revenue, 571 So.2d 1364, 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Accordingly, we find that the final declaratory judgment determining that Tampa Jai Alai was entitled to a $40,000 daily tax exemption for the period of December 1989 through August 24, 1992 was not error and we affirm.
The narrow question presented is whether or not strike benefits are wages on which the union owes unemployment compensation tax. Taxing statutes should be construed strictly against the taxing authority. Mikos v. Ringling Bros.-Barnum Bailey Combined Shows, Inc., 497 So.2d 630, 632 (Fla. 1986); Philip C. Owen, Chartered v. Department of Revenue, 597 So.2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Florida Hi-Lift v. Department of Revenue, 571 So.2d 1364, 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Instead, the majority has spurned accepted principles in order to impose a tax the statutes do not. I respectfully dissent.
The Final AssessmentThe Department's Claims 212.02 212.02 Quoton's Financial ServicesQuotron's EquipmentHenley Holdings. See also,Quotron's Payment of the SalesTax on Its Services in 1987The Burden of ProofMaas Brothers, Inc. v. Dickinson, 195 So.2d 193 Florida S L Services, Inc. v.Department of Revenue, 443 So.2d 120 Florida Hi-Life [Lift] v. Department of Revenue, 571 So.2d 1364 Images on a Screen Do not ConstituteTangible Personal PropertyDadeCounty v. AT T Information Systems, 485 So.2d 1302 review denied,RadioTelephone Communication [Communications] v. SoutheasternTelephone Co., 170 So.2d 577 priorafterservices 212.08 212.08 Henley Holdings v. Department Of Revenue,Quotron's Transactions Do Not Constitute a Rental of TangiblePersonal Property Subjecting the Entire Transaction To SalesTaxSee 12A-1.071 212.08 Summary Judgment 212.05 APPENDIX I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This action arises from the Notice of Proposed Assessment dated May 4, 1990 (the "Final Assessment"), issued by the Defendant Florida Department of Revenue (the "Department") to Plaintiff Quotron Systems, Inc. ("Quotron").
Statutes imposing taxes and penalties, however, must be strictly construed against the taxing authority, and any ambiguity in the provisions of a tax statute must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. See Mikos v. Ringling Brothers, Barnun and Bailey Combined Shows, Inc., 497 So.2d 630, 632 (Fla. 1986); Florida Hi-Lift v. Department of Revenue, 571 So.2d 1364, 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Florida S L Services, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 443 So.2d 120, 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Appellant should not have had to read four different subsections from three different chapters in pari materia to determine whether it would be liable for penalties for failure to file EET returns for years during which no EET was owed. Appellee has not directed our attention to any Florida Administrative Code provision which would be of assistance to the taxpayer in reconciling the above-referenced statutes.