Did a Florida-resident service member owe use tax when titling and registering in Florida a vehicle bought and kept outside the state?

Subject

Motor Vehicle Titled and Registered/Military Florida Resident

Plain-English summary

The service member owed Florida use tax if the vehicle had not already completed at least six months of qualifying out-of-state use when Florida title or registration was sought. Planned future use outside Florida did not count; the statute used the past-tense concept of property already “used” elsewhere.

Florida found no separate military exemption. The six-month rule also required use under conditions giving the other jurisdiction lawful taxing authority and proper payment of the tax imposed there.

What this means for you

The historical ruling treated Florida registration as the point for testing completed prior use. Military orders, Florida domicile, and an intention not to drive the car in Florida did not replace the six-month evidence.

Common questions

Did active-duty status create an exemption? No.

Could proof of future out-of-state use satisfy the rule? No. Only prior completed use counted.

When was the six-month period measured? At the time of Florida titling or registration.

Citations and references

• Fla. Stat. §§ 212.06(8)(a), 212.06(10), 319.023(7), 320.02(1), and 213.22
• Fla. Admin. Code r. 12A-1.007(2)(a)

Source

• Landing page: Florida Tax Law Library
• Advisement: TAA 94A-004

Original ruling text

Title:

Motor Vehicle Titled and Registered/Military Florida
Resident

Jan 12, 1994

Re: Technical Assistance Advisement 94A-004
Sales and Use Tax - Motor Vehicle Titled and Registered in
Florida by a Florida Resident in the Military Stationed in
XXX
Sections 212.06(8)(a) and 212.06(10), F.S.

Dear :

This response is in reply to your December 3, 1993, petition for
the Department's issuance of a Technical Assistance Advisement
("TAA") pursuant to s. 213.22, F.S., concerning the referenced
matter. Your petition has been carefully examined and the
Department finds it to be in compliance with the requisite
criteria set forth in Chapter 12-11, F.A.C. Therefore, the
Department is herewith granting your request for the issuance of
a TAA and the ensuing discourse shall embody said ruling.

DISCUSSION OF FACTS

Your petition and supporting documents impart the following
significant information regarding the issue under advisement
herein:

"I am a Florida resident on active duty in the Army with a
military assignment in XXX. I entered military service
while a resident of Florida. I recently purchased a car
from a dealer in XXX, for my use while assigned here. The
car cost $XX. I will not be using the car in Florida.

"Under the Soldier's and Sailor's Civil Relief Act, I
remain a Florida resident, despite my absence from the
state. I vote as a Florida resident, I have a Florida
driver's license, and I have registered all of my cars in

Florida.

"When I tried to register and title my car with the XXXXX,
I was advised that there had been an rule change and the
military had to pay the sales or use tax even if they were
not buying or using the car in Florida.

"I spoke with Nydia Menendez of taxpayer assistance and
Bill Oglo of the Department of Revenue to determine what
had happened. They explained the rule change, and I was
recently given a letter explaining the Department of
Revenue's position on this issue; that letter is
enclosed...."

As pertinent documentation, you submit a copy of your Florida
drivers license and your military identification card.

REQUESTED ADVISEMENT

You endeavor to elicit a determination by the Department
affirming that you are not susceptible to the payment of Florida
use tax upon the event of titling and registration of the
subject vehicle in Florida based on your submission of
evidentiary matter to support that the vehicle was purchased
outside the state and will not be used in Florida.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF LAW

Section 212.06(10), F.S., as amended by section 73, Chapter 86152, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1986, states in
pertinent part the following:

"No title certificate may be issued on any boat, mobile
home, motor vehicle, or other vehicle, or, if no title is
required by law, no license or registration may be issued
for any boat, mobile home, motor vehicle, or other vehicle,
unless there is filed with such application for title
certificate or license or registration certificate a
receipt, issued by an authorized dealer or designated agent
of the Department of Revenue, evidencing the payment of the
tax imposed by this chapter where the same is payable....

All transfers of title to boats, mobile homes, motor
vehicles, and other vehicles are taxable transactions,
unless expressly exempt under this chapter." (Emphasis
Supplied)

This statutory subsection bars the issuance of a Florida title
or registration without the proof of payment of Florida sales or
use tax unless an express statutory exemption or exception
applies. No express statutory exemption or exception from the
sales or use tax exists for military personnel who purchase
vehicles out of state and title or register them in Florida.

Additionally, s. 319.023(7), F.S., provides in relevant part the
following:

"(7) The department [Department of Highway Safety and Motor
Vehicles] shall in no event issue a certificate of title
for any motor vehicle or mobile home to any applicant until
the applicant has shown that:
"(a) All sales or use taxes due on the transfer of the
motor vehicle or mobile home are paid...."

An express statutory exemption or exclusion from use tax does
exist in general for tangible personal property, including a
motor vehicle, which has been used in another state, United
States territory, or the District of Columbia for 6 months or
longer before importation into Florida. This exemption or
exclusion from use tax is provided in s. 212.06(8)(a), F.S.,
which states in pertinent part:
"(8)(a) Use tax will apply and be due on tangible personal
property imported or caused to be imported into this state
for use, consumption, distribution, or storage to be used
or consumed in this state; provided, however, that, except
as provided in paragraph (b), it shall be presumed that
tangible personal property used in another state, territory
of the United States, or the District of Columbia for 6
months or longer before being imported into this state was
not purchased for use in this state." (Emphasis Supplied)

In construing a statutory exemption or exclusion from tax, the
Department must adhere to and be guided by the long-standing and

fundamental precept of statutory construction, established by
the Florida Supreme Court and District Courts, which mandates
that exemptions from or exceptions to taxing statutes must be
strictly construed against the taxpayer. See Asphalt Pavers v.
Dept. of Revenue, 584 So.2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Dade Cty.
Taxing Auth. v. Cedars of Lebanon, 355 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 1978),
reh. den. April 5, 1978; Williams v. Jones, 326 So.2d 425 (Fla.
1975), reh. den. March 4, 1976; Straughn v. Camp, 293 So.2d 689
(Fla. 1974); United States Gypsum Company v. Green, 110 So.2d
409 (Fla. 1959).

The meaning of the term "used" is paramount in determining the
scope of the exemption or exclusion from use tax set forth in s.
212.06(8)(a), F.S., above. The following fundamentals of
statutory construction established by the Florida Supreme Court
must be enlisted in ascertaining the legislature's intent in
using the term "used" in s. 212.06(8)(a), F.S.:

It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction
that legislative intent and policy concerns must control
our construction of statutes and that the determination as
to the intent of the legislature is based upon the plain
and ordinary meaning of the language in the statute itself.
See Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1984).

In the matter of St. Petersburg Bank & Trust Co. v. Hamm,
414 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 1982), the Florida Supreme Court held
that while legislative intent controls construction of
statutes, that intent is determined primarily from language
of the statute; plain meaning of statutory language is
first consideration.

In the matter of S.R.G. Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 365
So.2d 687 (Fla. 1978), the Florida Supreme Court held that
legislative intent must be determined primarily from
language of statute, as the legislature must be assumed to
know the meaning of the words and to have expressed its
intent by the use of the words found in the statute.

The denotative meaning of a word as found in a widely used and
recognized dictionary is representative of the plain and

ordinary meaning of the word. The American Heritage Dictionary,
Second College Edition, defines the word "use" (present tense of
the word "used") as follows:

"v... 1. To bring or put into service; employ.... n... 1.a.
The act of using; the application or employment of
something for some purpose...."

The word "used" being the past tense of the word "use" denotes
"use" which has previously occurred and does not refer to "use"
which has yet to occur.

Therefore, bearing in mind the Florida Supreme Court doctrine of
strict construction of statutory exemptions or exceptions from
tax against the taxpayer, the plain and ordinary meaning of the
term "used" in s. 212.06(8)(a), F.S., forces the conclusion that
the legislature intended only for previous use in another state,
United States territory, or the District of Columbia to be
considered in determining the application of the exemption or
exclusion from use tax specified in s. 212.06(8)(a), F.S.

Recalling ss. 212.06(10) and 319.023(7), F.S., the point in time
of titling or registering a motor vehicle in Florida is the
juncture at which it must be determined whether the use tax
applies or not. Therefore, at the point in time of titling or
registering a motor vehicle in Florida, only the duration of
previous use in another state, United States territory, or
District of Columbia may be considered in determining if the
exemption or exception from use tax provided in s. 212.06(8)(a),
F.S., has been satisfied. The notion or concept of introducing
documentary evidence at the time of titling or registering a
motor vehicle in Florida which was purchased out of state to
establish that the use potentially will occur outside Florida
violates both: (i) the Florida Supreme Court doctrine of strict
construction of statutory exemptions or exceptions against the
taxpayer; and (ii) the legislative intent manifested in its use
of the word "used" in s. 212.06(8)(a), F.S., as determined by
applying the principles of construction established by the
Florida Supreme Court.

It is further pointed out that the United States Supreme Court

in Sullivan v. United States, 395 U.S. 169, 23 L. Ed. 2d 182, 89
S. Ct. 1648 (1969), determined that the Soldiers' and Sailors'
Relief Act does not prohibit a state from imposing its sales and
use taxes on service members. Motor vehicles either purchased
in Florida or registered or titled here or imported into the
state by military personnel under orders are subject to
Florida's one-time sales or use tax in exactly the same manner
as motor vehicles owned by other individuals. Inasmuch as s.
320.02(1), F.S., only subjects to registration a vehicle which
is used on Florida roads or highways, the act of securing a
Florida motor vehicle registration is viewed to manifest the
elements of a "constructive" importation of the vehicle. In
this regard, Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defines
"Constructive Intent" to "exist where one should have reasonably
expected or anticipated a particular result...." Pursuant to the
this legal precept of "constructive intent", the Department is
compelled to conclude that it is "reasonably expected or
anticipated" that a vehicle is used on Florida roads if
registered under Florida's registration law (s. 320.01(1), F.S.)
which applies only to vehicles used on Florida roads.

FINDING

Concurrent with the foregoing analysis of law, the Department is
compelled to enter its finding that unless at the point in time
of titling or registering your vehicle in Florida you can show
that it has already been "used" for a period of six months or
more in the Commonwealth of Virginia, or other U.S. states,
United states territories, or the District of Columbia you will
be susceptible to the payment of Florida use tax on the motor
vehicle. It is further pointed out that consistent with Rule
12A-1.007(2)(a), F.A.C., had there been six months or more
previous use of your vehicle in such other jurisdictions prior
to its titling or registration in Florida, such use would have
to have been under conditions which lawfully gave rise to the
taxing jurisdiction of such other jurisdictions and the lawfully
imposed tax in such other jurisdictions would have to have been
properly paid. An agencies administrative interpretation of a
statute by rule has been accorded great deference by the courts,
and will not be overturned unless the agency's interpretation of
the statutes are clearly erroneous; reviewing court will defer

to any interpretation within the range of possible
interpretation. See Pershing Industries v. Department of
Banking, 591 So.2d 991, 993 (Fla. 1 DCA 1991); Eager v. Florida
Keys Aqueduct Authority, 580 So.2d 771 (Fla. 3 DCA 1991);
Natelson v. Department of Ins.; 454 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1 DCA 1984);
State ex rel. Szabo Food Serv., Inc. of N.C. v. Dickinson, 286
So.2d 529 (Fla. 1973), reh. den. Jan. 9, 1974.

This response constitutes a Technical Assistance Advisement
under s. 213.22, F.S., which is binding on the Department only
under the facts and circumstances described in the request for
this advice as specified in s. 213.22, F.S. Our response is
predicated on those facts and the specific situation summarized
above. You are advised that subsequent statutory or
administrative rule changes or judicial interpretations of the
statutes or rules upon which this advice is based may subject
similar future transactions to a different treatment than
expressed in this response.

You are further advised that this response and your request are
public records under Chapter 119, F.S., which are subject to
disclosure to the public under the conditions of s. 213.22, F.S.
Your name, address, and any other details which might lead to
identification of the taxpayer must be deleted by the Department
before disclosure. In an effort to protect confidential
information, we request you notify the undersigned in writing
within 15 days of any deletions you wish made to the request or
this response.

Sincerely,

Daniel M. Wagner, Jr.
Tax Law Specialist

DW/
Control No. 12442