Colding v. Herzog
10 Fla. L. Weekly 109, 467 So.2d 980 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Florida Legislature has the constitutional authority to classify property for ad valorem taxation, allowing for the exclusion of household goods and personal effects from taxation for all owners, regardless of residency, when the expense of assessment and collection would exceed the revenue generated from the tax.
Facts:
- Peter W. Herzog and other respondents were Missouri residents who owned a house in Collier County, Florida.
- Herzog used the Collier County house as a part-time dwelling.
- Neither the house nor the household goods and personal property within it were used for commercial purposes.
- The Collier County tax appraiser assessed an ad valorem tax on Herzog's household goods and personal effects.
- This tax was based on Florida Administrative Code rule 12D-7.02, which specified that household goods belonging to persons not making their permanent home in Florida were not exempt from ad valorem taxation.
- No similar ad valorem tax was assessed against Florida residents for their household goods and personal effects.
Procedural Posture:
- Peter W. Herzog contested the ad valorem tax assessment on his household goods and personal effects.
- A trial court (court of first instance) entered summary judgment in favor of Sam J. Colding, the Collier County tax appraiser, thereby approving the tax.
- Herzog appealed the trial court's decision to the Second District Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
- The Second District Court of Appeal, in Herzog v. Colding, reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that household goods and personal effects in Florida are not subject to ad valorem taxation regardless of residency.
- The district court certified the question of whether household goods and personal effects are subject to ad valorem taxation to the Supreme Court of Florida as one of great public importance.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Florida Constitution and existing statutes permit the ad valorem taxation of household goods and personal effects, particularly those owned by non-residents, when such goods are used for personal comfort and not commercial purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Overton, Justice
No, household goods and personal effects are not subject to ad valorem taxation under Florida statutes and constitution, regardless of the owner's residency. The Court adopted the reasoning from Department of Revenue v. Markham, which extensively analyzed the history of household goods taxation in Florida, noting that the Markham district court opinion, though quashed on standing, contained valid legal analysis. The legislature, through a 1967 amendment to section 200.01, Florida Statutes, effectively eliminated household goods and personal effects used for personal comfort and non-commercial purposes from the definition of "tangible personal property," thereby removing them from the scope of taxing statutes for all owners. The Court found that this legislative action, further clarified by a 1970 revisor's bill, was a legitimate exercise of the legislature's power to classify property for taxation, especially when the cost of assessment and collection would outweigh the revenue generated. This power to classify and exclude is not limited by Article VII, section 3(b) of the Florida Constitution, which provides a specific exemption for resident heads of families; rather, interpreting the Constitution otherwise would illogically subject non-head-of-family residents to the tax. The Court found it unnecessary to address the privileges and immunities clause argument. The Court's decision is prospective only for the taxable year commencing January 1, 1985, except for non-resident taxpayers who had already timely challenged the tax.
Analysis:
This case is significant as it affirms the Florida Legislature's broad authority to define and classify property for ad valorem tax purposes, specifically allowing for the exclusion of certain categories of property (like household goods) where the administrative costs of taxation outweigh the revenue. It clarifies that a specific constitutional exemption for a subset of property (e.g., resident heads of families) does not necessarily preclude the legislature from providing a broader statutory exclusion for the same type of property for all citizens. This decision establishes uniform tax treatment for household goods regardless of residency and provides a legal basis for legislatures to enact fiscally pragmatic tax policies.
