Canaveral Port Auth. v. Dep't of Revenue - 690 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 1996)

Rule:

Together, Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 196.001, 196.199(2), and 196.199(4) require ad valorem taxation of fee interests in property owned by an authority and subject to a lease by a nongovernmental lessee unless the lessee is serving a governmental, municipal, or public purpose or function as defined in Fla. Stat. Ann. § 196.012(6) or uses the property exclusively for a literary, scientific, religious, or charitable purpose. The court therefore construes Fla. Stat. Ann. § 315.11 in conjunction with Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 196.001, 196.199(2), and 196.199(4), and Fla. Stat. Ann. § 315.11 provides an exemption only when port authority property is being used for a purpose which is specifically set forth in Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 196.199(2) and (4). If the property is being used for some purpose other than that provided for in Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 196.199(2) and (4), then the fee interest will be subject to taxation.

Facts:

The county in which petitioner port authority was located assessed ad valorem taxes against petitioner pursuant to Fla. Stat. Ann. § 196.199(4) on the fee interest of real property owned by petitioner and leased to private entities engaged in nongovernmental activities. Petitioner filed suit challenging the assessment. The trial court found that petitioner was a political subdivision of the state and thus was immune from ad valorem taxation. The Fifth District Court of Appeal, Brevard County (Florida) reversed, finding that the petitioner was not a political subdivision because it did not act as a branch of general administration of the policy of the state. Petitioner moved for rehearing and clarification of the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal. 

Issue:

Was the fee interest in petitioner’s property exempt from ad valorem tax? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, noting that immunity from ad valorem taxation, which was necessary for the proper functioning of state government, was to be kept within narrow bounds, and not extended to exempting of commercial establishments operated for profit on property leased from the government. Therefore, fee interest in petitioner's property was not exempt from ad valorem taxation because the property was leased to a nongovernmental entity for a nongovernmental use.