Legal Opinion · Dissent

Department of Revenue v. Mobile Home Industries, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 26, 1984No. AK-119Published

1DissentWentworth, Judge

I respectfully dissent because the statute provides explicitly in these circumstances that a dealer may not keep for his own benefit, as a credit, the sales taxes paid to him by purchasers unless there is an “unpaid balance due him when he repossesses.” (e.s.) Section 212.17(2), Florida Statutes, provided:

A dealer who has paid the tax imposed by this chapter on tangible personal property sold under a retained title, conditional sale, or similar contract, or under a contract wherein the dealer retains a security interest in the property pursuant to chapter 679, may take credit or obtain a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State Dept. of Revenue v. AndersonSupreme Court of Florida · 1981
  2. Estate of WT Grant Co. v. LewisDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1978
  3. Anderson v. State, Dept. of RevenueDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1980
  4. Anderson v. Department of RevenueDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API