Judges: Robert L. Shevin, Attorney General Prepared by: Cecil L. Davis, Jr., Assistant Attorney General
Filed Date: 12/27/1978
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
J. T. Landress Highlands County Tax Collector Sebring
QUESTIONS:
1. Is the Highlands County Tax Collector entitled to a commission pursuant to s.
2. If question 1 is answered in the negative, would it be proper for a county tax collector to charge each special benefit district a reasonable fee to help defray the administrative costs involved in collecting and remitting these special assessments?
SUMMARY:
Special assessments levied by special taxing districts and based on the footage or some other criteria of the benefited lots located within the special districts, rather than on an ad valorem basis, are not real or tangible personal property taxes or license taxes within the meaning of s.
AS TO QUESTION 1:
Section 5(c), Art. II, State Const., provides that `the powers, duties, compensation and method of payment of state and county officers shall be fixed by law.' (Emphasis supplied.) Similarly, the Florida Supreme Court has held that the fees or compensation for official services of public officers must be fixed by law. Bradford et al. v. Stoutamire,
It is also the settled law of this state that public officers have no legal claim for official services rendered, except when, and to the extent that, compensation is provided by law, and, when no compensation is so provided, the rendition of such service is deemed to be gratuitous. Rawls v. State,
The Legislature has provided for the compensation of county tax collectors in s.
(2) The tax collectors of the several counties of the state shall be entitled to receive upon the amount of real and tangible personal property taxes, and licenses, collected and remitted, the following commissions:
(c) On each taxing district:
1. Three percent on the amount of taxes levied on an assessed valuation of $50 million; and
2. Two percent on the balance.
Whether your office would be entitled to a commission under the provisions of s.
True special assessments based on some criteria such as acreage or footage and not on an ad valorem basis are not taxes. Klemm v. Davenport,
The classification of the taxes in question here as special assessments rather than ad valorem taxes is further supported by the case of City of Naples v. Moon,
It should also be noted that under s.
Therefore, it is my opinion that the special assessments levied pursuant to Highlands County Ordinances Nos. 76-2 and 76-3 cannot be considered real and tangible personal property taxes or license taxes and your office would not be entitled to a commission pursuant to the provisions of s.
AS TO QUESTION 2:
Your second question concerns whether a county tax collector may charge each special benefit district a reasonable fee to help defray the administrative costs involved in collecting and remitting the special assessments levied against each special benefit district.
As I stated earlier in my opinion, public officers have no legal claim for official services rendered, except when, and to the extent that, compensation is provided by law, and, when no compensation is so provided, the rendition of such service is deemed to be gratuitous. Rawls v. State, supra. My research reveals no constitutional or statutory provision which would empower a county tax collector to charge a fee to help defray the costs of collecting and remitting these special assessments. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the lack of a statutory fee or means of reimbursement would not excuse a county tax collector from rendering statutorily required services even though he received no fee. See AGO 073-77.
Prepared by: Cecil L. Davis, Jr., Assistant Attorney General
City of Naples v. Moon , 269 So. 2d 355 ( 1972 )
State, Ex Rel. v. Reardon , 114 Fla. 755 ( 1934 )
Klemm v. Davenport , 100 Fla. 627 ( 1930 )
Rawls v. State Ex Rel. Nolan , 98 Fla. 103 ( 1929 )
State Ex Rel. v. Raulerson , 113 Fla. 147 ( 1933 )