5D00-268

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D00-268

Case Date: 05/28/2001

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2001

UNITED SPECIALTIES OF AMERICA & KASKAM, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, etc. Appellee. ______________________________/ Opinion filed June 1, 2001 Administrative Appeal from the Department of Revenue. Jonathan D. Kaney III of Cobb Cole & Bell, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and James F. McAuley, Assistant Attorney General, Tax Section, Tallahassee, for Appellee. SHARP, W., J. United Specialties of America (USA) and Kaskam, Inc. (Kaskam) appeal from orders of the Florida Department of Revenue which denied their requests for a refund of the aviation fuel tax on kerosene, which they paid. In appeal number 5D00-268, USA requested a refund for the time period July 1996 through February 1997. In two appeals, No. 5D00-268 and 5D00-771, Kaskam requested a refund for the time periods March 1997 through June 1999 and from September 1999 through December 1999.1 The Department determined that the companies' use of kerosene was not exempt from CASE NOS. 5D00-268 5D00-771

1

In 1997, the parent company of Kaskam acquired USA.

taxation under section 206.9825, the aviation fuel tax statute, and it denied their requests for refunds. Because the facts and legal issues are identical in all of the appeals, they were consolidated. We affirm. The record established that for all of the transactions involved in these appeals, the companies sold undyed kerosene in one gallon or less containers to retailers and hardware distributors. The retailers and distributors, in turn, sold the kerosene in the same containers, to consumers for nonaviation fuel uses. USA and Kaskam argue that although imposition of the tax is apparently clear under section 206.9825(3)(a), its meaning is ambiguous when considered with other sections of the same statute and chapter titles. As such, they are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. See Miller v. Agrico Chemical Co., 383 So.2d1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Effective July 1, 1996, Chapter 96-323,

Download 5D00-268.pdf