Governmental Immunity and Taxation in Florida

In Florida, the ad valorem property tax is the single most important source of revenue for local governments. Considerable revenue is lost to local governments when property that should be taxed is not taxed because of mistaken application of the governmental immunity doctrine. Most governmentally owned property is used by the governmental entity for governmental purposes and remains nontaxable. However, when governmentally owned property is used by a nongovernmental person for a nonexempt use, the property no longer enjoys governmental immunity and is taxable. After all, such property is being used for private, profit-seeking purposes in competition with nongovernmentally owned property being used for similar purposes; the privately owned property is taxable, and so too is the governmentally owned property. It is a matter of compelling public interest that Florida\u27s tax system is applied in a fair, evenhanded manner--that similarly situated taxpayers be taxed in the same manner. When property is being used for private, nonexempt purposes, it should be subject to ad valorem taxation, regardless of who owns the underlying fee interest in the property. Part II of this article briefly discusses the governmental immunity doctrine and the circumstances under which it has been waived. Part III explores the waiver of immunity from ad valorem taxation in Florida when governmentally owned property is used by a nongovernmental entity for a nonexempt use. Part IV discusses the role that the state and local governments play in Florida in the imposition and collection of sales tax. Part V examines the governmental immunity doctrine in the context of Florida\u27s gross receipts tax and documentary stamp tax

Florida\u27s Property Appraisers

The property appraiser today plays a central role in the imposition of ad valorem taxes by Florida\u27s local governmental units

Governmental Immunity And Taxation In Florida

In Florida, the ad valorem property tax is the single most important source of revenue for local governments. Considerable revenue is lost to local governments when property that should be taxed is not taxed because of mistaken application of the governmental immunity doctrine. Most governmentally owned property is used by the governmental entity for governmental purposes and remains nontaxable. However, when governmentally owned property is used by a nongovernmental person for a nonexempt use, the property no longer enjoys governmental immunity and is taxable. After all, such property is being used for private, profit-seeking purposes in competition with nongovernmentally owned property being used for similar purposes; the privately owned property is taxable, and so too is the governmentally owned property. It is a matter of compelling public interest that Florida\u27s tax system is applied in a fair, evenhanded manner--that similarly situated taxpayers be taxed in the same manner. When property is being used for private, nonexempt purposes, it should be subject to ad valorem taxation, regardless of who owns the underlying fee interest in the property. Part II of this article briefly discusses the governmental immunity doctrine and the circumstances under which it has been waived. Part III explores the waiver of immunity from ad valorem taxation in Florida when governmentally owned property is used by a nongovernmental entity for a nonexempt use. Part IV discusses the role that the state and local governments play in Florida in the imposition and collection of sales tax. Part V examines the governmental immunity doctrine in the context of Florida\u27s gross receipts tax and documentary stamp tax

International and Interstate Approaches to Taxing Business Income

In the United States, many states have sought the objective of uni- formity by enacting the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA). In addition, many of those same states have entered into the Multistate Tax Compact (MTC). The salutary objective of both the UDITPA and the MTC is to provide uniform rules for the allocation and apportionment of income, in order to facilitate both compliance and enforcement, as well as to reduce the likelihood of double taxation. The promised uniformity, however, has been at the same time both illusive and elusive. Experience with the UDITPA and the MTC in the United States has demonstrated that a multilateral treaty would not achieve uni- formity amongst the numerous sovereign countries of the world, primarily because there is no paramount supervisory body in the international arena. At the same time, uniformity could be achieved within the United States by pre-emptive federal legislation uniformly interpreted and ap- plied to all of the states. The uniform application of an apportionment formula to distribute the tax base of a multijurisdictional unitary enter- prise would avoid many of the problems of the separate entity approach, producing a fair, equitable determination of the tax base for state income taxes. Part II of this article will examine the treatment of business income of multinational enterprises under tax treaties, and Part III discusses the determination of the tax base of such enterprises. Part IV examines the evolution of the law pertaining to state imposed taxes on, or measured by, the net business income of multistate unitary enterprises, the issues of jurisdiction and the determination of the tax base. Part V addresses vari- ous attempts to achieve uniformity in state taxation. Part VI suggests that in the international setting, the goal of uniformity is unlikely to be achieved by a multilateral treaty, but that within the United States, pre- emptive federal legislation should be enacted