DocketNumber: Docket No. 29871-81
Citation Numbers: 45 T.C.M. 935, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 663, 1983 T.C. Memo. 123
Filed Date: 3/9/1983
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SCOTT,
The pleadings and the stipulated facts show that respondent determined a deficiency of $2,846.33 in petitioners' income tax for the calendar year 1979. The issue for decision is whether $12,164.63 of interest received by petitioners on tax sale certificates issued by counties and municipalities of the State of Florida is exempt from tax under section 103(a). *665 filing of their petition in this case, filed a joint Federal income tax return for the calendar year 1979. During the years prior to 1979, John Guy Barrow (petitioner) would obtain, in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Code, documents entitled "Tax Sale Certificate." These documents would read--
TAX SALE CERTIFICATE
STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF TAX COLLECTOR
I, , Tax Collector for the County of , in the State of Florida, do hereby certify that I did, at public auction, pursuant to notice given by law as required, on this the day of , 19 , sell to
the lands hereinafter described for the sum of DOLLARS and CENTS, said sum being the amount due for taxes, interest, costs and charges of the described lands for the year of our Lord, One Thousand Nine Hundred and , that the above named purchaser of this certificate or assigns, will therefore be entitled to a deed of conveyance of such lands in accordance with the law unless the same shall be redeemed within such periods of time as are provided by law, by payment of such amount and interest thereon from the date of this certificate at the rate of eighteen*666 percent per annum, if purchased by the county or twelve percent per annum (or at such lower rate of interest as may be bid by any purchaser other than the county).
Said lands are described as follows: to wit:
[Description]
The interest rate bid at the sale under
in the County of , State of Florida.
WITNESS my hand at , Florida, this day of , 19 .
Signature: , Tax Collector
During 1979, petitioner received $12,164.63 interest on "Tax Certificates" which he had obtained, which were as above set forth with the blanks appropriately filled.
It is petitioner's position that even though the tax sale certificates which he obtained from various counties of the State of Florida recite that the lands described in the certificates are sold to him for the sum of the taxes due thereon plus interest, cost and other charges, and that he will be entitled to a conveyance of such land, unless within the time provided by law the same shall have been redeemed, in fact what he had done was to lend money to the State of Florida or a county or municipality thereof, secured by land on*667 which taxes had been assessed and not paid. Petitioner contends that for this reason the interest he received was on the obligation of a State, territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision thereof and therefore exempt from tax under section 103.
It is respondent's position that petitioner had not lent money to the State of Florida or any political subdivision thereof within the meaning of section 103, but rather that petitioner had purchased a right to the lien for taxes that the state, county or municipality had, and a right to receive those lands under a tax deed unless the owner who had defaulted in the tax payment with respect to the land exercised his right of redemption and paid off the past due taxes together with cost, penalties and interest, and interest from the date that the tax sale certificates had been issued to petitioner until the date of payment. It is respondent's position that the interest was effectively received by petitioner from the delinquent taxpayers against whom the tax was assessed and not as interest on an obligation of a State or political subdivision thereof.
From the analysis of the Florida statutes set forth above, it is apparent that when an individual acquires a tax sale certificate from a county tax collector, there is no obligation arising out of the county's exercise of its borrowing power. Furthermore, there is no obligation on the part of the county to repay to the individual any portion of the funds he transfers to the tax collector to acquire the certificate. The only right that the certificate holder has is to receive from the tax collector any funds paid by the owner of the land with respect to which the certificate is issued to redeem his land in whole or in part or, upon proper application 2 years after acquisition of the certificate but less than 7 years thereafter, to go through the procedures necessary to enable the holder of the tax sale certificate to either acquire a tax deed to the property or receive reimbursement of the funds he expended to acquire the certificate plus the interest bid thereon from funds paid by another to bid in the property and receive a tax deed. Neither of these requirements give rise to a debtor-creditor relationship between the*672 county and the tax sale certificate holder. There is no direct, immediate and unconditional obligation on the part of the county to repay the amount paid for the certificate or any interest thereon.
Petitioner and respondent in their memoranda have made reference to various Florida cases dealing with tax sale certificates and tax deeds. In our view, none of the cases to which our attention was directed bear directly on the issue here involved. A number of Florida cases do state that the purpose of the law dealing with the issuance of tax sale certificates is to get the money past due and delinquent for the lawfully assessed State and county taxes out of the property against which the assessment was made and to put it into State or county funds for the benefit of the State or county.
As was pointed out in
The purchaser of the delinquent tax, with the view of thereafter deriving a gain from the collection of such tax and interest thereon secured by a first lien upon real estate, is, we think, in no different position as concerns the municipality than a purchaser of any other character of property from a municipality. * * *
The Court then pointed out that it had long been held that a gain derived through dealing in property or an interest therein acquired from a State did not fall within any implied constitutional prohibition against taxation.
In the instant case, we conclude that the interest received by petitioner with respect to a tax sale certificate he acquired from various counties and municipalities of the State of Florida is not exempt from tax as interest on an obligation of such county or municipality. Clearly here, the tax sale certificates are issued to transfer the tax obligation owed to the State, county or municipality by the landowner to the individual purchaser of*677 the certificate. The exemption provided by section 103 is limited to interest paid by governmental entities on obligations issued under the borrowing power of the governmental entity.
In the instant case, not only is there no use of the borrowing power of the State of Florida or any of its counties or municipalities in the issuance of the tax sale certificates, there is no indebtedness created from the State or a political subdivision thereof to the purchaser of the tax sale certificate and no obligation on the part of the State or a political subdivision thereof to repay any amount in connection with the certificates.
We conclude that the interest received by petitioner in connection with the tax*678 sale certificates which he purchased from political subdivisions of the State of Florida is not exempt from tax under section 103.
While the parties disagree on the construction to be given to the facts in this case, there is no disagreement as to any material fact. In fact, the facts necessary to our decision in this case have been stipulated. Therefore, respondent's motion for summary judgment will be granted.
1. Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and in effect during the year here in issue.↩
2. Petitioner seems to attach controlling significance to his profession that at the various times he acquired tax sale certificates he had intended to make loans of the funds he transferred to the State of Florida or a county or municipality thereof. Petitioner further flatly denies that he was seeking to enter into an agreement for the conditional future purchase by him of the lands described in the certificates. However, for a transaction to be considered a loan, both parties to the transaction at the time the funds were furnished must have reached an actual agreement to establish a debtor-creditor relationship. Petitioner does not contend that there was any such intention on the part of the State or counties. In fact, in his pleadings and briefs he repeatedly terms the actions of the various county tax collectors in advertising and labeling the transaction as a sale to be a fraud. At any rate, our examination of the Florida law makes it abundantly clear that no borrowing is contemplated under the Florida statutes.↩
Wiltsie v. United States , 3 F. Supp. 743 ( 1933 )
American National Bank of Austin v. United States , 421 F.2d 442 ( 1970 )
Tom M. Drew and Justa Drew v. United States , 551 F.2d 85 ( 1977 )
Smith v. City of Arcadia , 185 So. 2d 762 ( 1966 )
Beebe v. State Ex Rel. Hillsborough County , 113 Fla. 28 ( 1933 )