DAVIS v. GULF POWER CORP. 799 So.2d 298, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D2368 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 2001) District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Similar documents
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board.

CASE NO. 1D Elliott Messer and Thomas M. Findley of Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants.

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

FLORIDA HI-LIFT v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE [571 So.2d 1364, 15 FLW D2967, 1990 Fla.1DCA 4762] FLORIDA HI-LIFT, Appellant,

Title: Ronald J. Schultz, Citrus County Property Appraiser. Jun 03, 1994 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2010

Larry E. Levy and Loren E. Levy of The Levy Law Firm, Tallahassee for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Rick Barnett.

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

Larry E. Levy and Loren E. Levy of The Levy Law Firm, Tallahassee for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Rick Barnett.

Supreme Court of Florida. Lewis WARD, et al., Petitioners, Gregory BROWN, Property Appraiser of Santa Rosa County, etc., et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Florida

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

CASE NO. 1D Silver Shells Corporation (Developer) appeals the partial summary judgment

CASE NO. 1D Fred M. Johnson of Johnson, Farrell & Mabile, LLC, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. John F. Simon, Jr., Judge.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA HERON AT DESTIN WEST BEACH & BAY RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

William S. Graessle of William S. Graessle, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees. In this eminent domain action, the JEA appeals a final order awarding

CHAPTER Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 287

William S. Henry of Burke Blue Hutchison Walters & Smith, P.A., Panama City, for Appellants.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2007

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO. v. CASE NO.: 1D An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Terry D. Terrell, Judge.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

v. CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order from the Circuit Court for Walton County. William F. Stone, Judge.

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

Daniel M. Schwarz of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Appellants.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

ZAPO v. GILREATH 779 So.2d 651, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D754 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 2001) District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

SOUTHERN BELL TEL. & TEL. v. MARKHAM [632 So.2d 272, 19 FLW D406, 1994 Fla.4DCA 465]

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Florida Attorney General Advisory Legal Opinion

IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

Appellants Bay County and Laguna Beach Properties, LLC, challenge the

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. ERVIN A. HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC Lower Court Case Number 4D ELLER DRIVE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner, vs.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2001

SEBRING AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. MCINTYRE 718 So.2d 296, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2097 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1998)

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. ERVIN HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

CRANE RENTAL OF ORLANDO v. HAUSMAN [518 So.2d 395, 13 FLW 125, 1987 Fla.5DCA 4675] CRANE RENTAL OF ORLANDO, INC., Appellant,

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009

James J. Taylor, Jr. of Taylor & Taylor, P.A., Keystone Heights, for Appellee.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA 2 ND DCA CASE NO FSC CASE NO ROB TURNER, as Hillsborough County Property Appraiser. Appellant, vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES, AND MOBILE HOMES

Supreme Court of Florida

Michael Anthony Shaw and Joseph D. Steadman, Jr., of Jones Walker LLP, Miami, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D Appellants, who possess leasehold interests in various properties located on

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA. ** CASE NO. 3D Appellant, ** vs. ** LOWER WESLEY WHITE, individually,

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

Supreme Court of Florida

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D16-440

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Standing on Shaky Ground

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (DCA 1DO2-4491) KEETON CORRECTIONS, INC., d/b/a JACKSONVILLE MINIMUM SECURITY SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA. HAINES O NEIL, individually and O NEIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

OF FLORIDA. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Roberto M. Pineiro, Judge.

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2005

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC10-90 / SC10-91 (Consolidated) (Lower Tribunal Case No. s 3D08-944, )

CRESCENT MIAMI CENTER, LLC v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF FLORIDA, 857 So.2d 904, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2116 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.

CASE NO. 1D W.O. Birchfield and Bruce B. Humphrey of Birchfield & Humphrey, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

CASE NO. 1D Thomas F. Panza, Paul C. Buckley, and Brian S. Vidas of Panza, Maurer & Maynard, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Appellant, CASE NO. 1D

Transcription:

DAVIS v. GULF POWER CORP. 799 So.2d 298, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D2368 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 2001) District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. Richard DAVIS, Bay County Property Appraiser, Appellant, v. GULF POWER CORPORATION, a Maine Corporation, Appellee. No. 1D00-4815. Oct 04, 2001. Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 2001. SYNOPSIS Taxpayer brought action against county property appraiser, seeking a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to ad valorem tax exemption for its proposed electric power plant expansion. The Circuit Court, Bay County, N. Russell Bower, J., declared that electricity was "tangible personal property" within meaning of tax statute. County property appraiser appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Polston, J., held that: (1) electricity was "tangible personal property," rather than "inventory," for purposes of ad valorem tax exemption statute, and (2) under the statute, the generation of electricity in taxpayer's plant was a "manufacturing process" in a "manufacturing plant." Affirmed. COUNSEL Larry E. Levy, The Levy Law Firm, Tallahassee, for Appellant. David E. Hightower and Gary B. Leuchtman, Beggs & Lane,

Pensacola; Benjamin Redding, Barron, Redding, Hughes, Fite, Basset, Fensom & Sanborn, P.A., Panama City, for Appellee. OPINION POLSTON, J. Appellee Gulf Power Corporation ("Gulf Power") was granted an economic development ad valorem tax exemption for its proposed plant expansion in Bay County. The exemption was granted through an ordinance adopted by the Bay County Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") pursuant to section 196.1995, Florida Statutes (1999). Appellant Richard Davis, the Bay County Property Appraiser ("Appraiser"), objects to the exemption on the basis that electricity is not tangible personal property within the meaning of the statute.(fn 1) Although using different reasoning, we agree with the trial court that electricity is tangible personal property. Accordingly, we affirm. To qualify for an economic development ad valorem tax exemption, section 196.1995(8)(d) requires proof to the satisfaction of the Board that the applicant is "a new business or an expansion of an existing business, as defined in s. 196.012(15) or (16)." Gulf Power intends to expand its existing business. Section 196.012(16)(a)1 defines "Expansion of an existing business": A business establishing 10 or more jobs to employ 10 or more full-time employees in this state, which manufactures, processes, compounds, fabricates, or produces for sale items of tangible personal property at a fixed location and which comprises an industrial or manufacturing plant; (Emphasis added) Because the definition of an expanding business involves the manufacture or production for sale of tangible personal property, it is necessary to determine whether electricity is deemed tangible personal property for purposes of the statute.

Section 192.001, Florida Statues (1999), provides definitions that "shall apply in the imposition of ad valorem taxes." Because the issue in this case is whether an ad valorem tax exemption is applicable, and there are no statutory provisions to the contrary or more specific, the definition of tangible personal property in section 192.001(11)(d) is applicable. Section 192.001(11)(d) states: "Tangible personal property" means all goods, chattels, and other articles of value (but does not include the vehicular items enumerated in s. 1(b), Art. VII of the State Constitution and elsewhere defined) capable of manual possession and whose chief value is intrinsic to the article itself... Inventory and household goods are expressly excluded from this definition. Electricity has the characteristics of tangible personal property described within section 192.001(11)(d).(FN 2) See e.g., Curry v. Alabama Power Co., 243 Ala. 53, 8 So.2d 521 (1942)(describing the physical characteristics of electricity and concluding that Alabama Power Company's generation of electricity is the manufacture of tangible personal property); Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation v. Benson, 480 S.W.2d 905, 908 (Tenn.1972)(electricity has the physical characteristics of tangible personal property); Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue, 170 Ariz. 145, 822 P.2d 498, 502 (Ct.App.1991)(electricity is tangible personal property). Gulf Power contends, and the trial court ruled: The definition of "tangible personal property" in section 192.001(11)(d), Florida Statutes (1999), cannot apply to the use of that term in section 196.012(16)(a)(1), because the latter statute refers to tangible personal property produced for sale, i.e., inventory, and the former statute explicitly excludes items of inventory from its definition of tangible personal property. We do not agree with this interpretation of the law. An

item that is tangible personal property manufactured for sale is inventory if it has not yet been sold. If the item has been sold, then it is no longer inventory although it is tangible personal property.(fn 3) Therefore, for purposes of the economic development ad valorem tax exemption statute, the item, electricity in this case, is not excluded from the definition of tangible personal property within section 192.001(11)(d) because of the inventory exclusion. Gulf Power is manufacturing electricity for sale to customers. Although some of the electricity may or may not be inventory(fn 4), there is no dispute that electricity will be sold to customers. The electricity sold to customers (not being held for sale) is tangible personal property that is not inventory. Finally, the Appraiser's claim that the economic development ad valorem tax exemption is not applicable because Gulf Power's plant for generating electricity is not an industrial or manufacturing plant is not supported by the facts or law. See e.g., Lowe v. Lee County Electric Cooperative, Inc., 367 So.2d 1114, 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)(noting that Florida Power & Light Company "manufactures" and sells electricity as contrasted to a cooperative that purchased and sold electricity); City of Ames v. Iowa State Tax Commission, 246 Iowa 1016, 71 N.W.2d 15, 22 (1955) (generating electricity is manufacturing). Accordingly, we hold that for purposes of section 196.1995, Florida Statutes (1999), and section 196.012(16) referenced therein, electricity is tangible personal property and the generation of electricity in Gulf Power's plant is a manufacturing process in a manufacturing plant. AFFIRMED. WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur. FOOTNOTE 1. The Appraiser also asserts that (i) the complaint has not alleged or raised a justiciable controversy so that the

court does not have jurisdiction, and (ii) the complaint should be dismissed for failure to join the Board as an indispensable party. We reject these contentions. Gulf Power has stated a claim for declaratory relief. See section 86.051, Fla. Stat. (1999) ("[a]ny declaratory judgment rendered pursuant to this chapter may be rendered by way of anticipation with respect to any act not yet done or any event which has not yet happened"). The Board, although a proper party, is not indispensable. See N & C Properties v. Vanguard Bank and Trust Co., 519 So.2d 1048, 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)(a proper party has an interest in the subject matter but the party's absence will not prevent a judgment determining substantial issues between the parties). FOOTNOTE 2. The parties agree that there are no disputed issues of fact in the record and this case should be decided as a matter of law. FOOTNOTE 3. For example, a shovel has the characteristics of tangible personal property. If it is on a store's shelf waiting to be sold, it is inventory. Once the shovel is sold to a customer, it is no longer inventory, although it continues to be tangible personal property. FOOTNOTE 4. The record in this case is insufficient to determine whether electricity in this instance is capable of being inventory (generated but not yet sold). However, we do not need to make that determination to decide this case.