07/01/2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Karen Wonsetler, Esq. Writing Sample -- Prior Report zot5 & Recommendation Specifically, the Property Appraiser's legal basis for the denial rests upon the requirement set forth in Sections 196.195 and 196.1978, Florida Statutes [2012]. Per the first section, the Petitioner must comply with the determination of exempt status as defined in Section 196.195 in order to establish eligibility for the Affordable Care exemption. Mr. Wood focuses on subsection (3) of 196.195 which states as follows: "Each applicant must affirmatively show that no part of the subject property, or the proceeds of the sale, lease, or other disposition thereof, will inure to the benefit of its members, directors, or officers or any person or firm operating for profit of for a nonexempt purpose." The Property Appraiser as part of its initial denial determined that the income or proceeds from the subject property inures to the for-profit entity. The depreciation and tax credits as well inure to the benefit of a for-profit partner, Centerline Credit Enhanced Partners L.P., which owns 99.98% of Huntington Reserve Associations, Ltd. Petitioner's attorney argues that the fact that Petitioner is a Florida registered non-profit entity is and should be sufficient to satisfy the requirements set forth in the statute and was not able to dispel the Property Appraiser's theory on how and in what manner the non-profit inured to the benefit of the for-profit partners. The statute does not only call for a Florida based non-profit general partner, but has additional conditions and qualifications which went largely unaddressed by Petitioner. Petitioner argues that the case law of TEDC/Shell City Inc., v. Robbins 690 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 3`I DCA 1997) which holds that tax credits is tantamount to a "benefit." There is only argument that Shell City has been legislatively negated as it has not been overruled by a higher court; As such, at hearing both parties continued their legal interpretations in support of their respective positions. No dispositive documentation was produced to satisfy Petitioner's affirmative obligation that the Petitioner's partners did not benefit from the Petitioner's operation of the facility as "affordable housing." Conclusions of Law When a taxpayer seeks a preferential tax treatment such as relief from an ad valorem tax, the statute under which he claims the benefit must be strictly construed against the taxpayer. DeQuervain v. Desguin, 927 So. 2d 232, 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Furthermore, the person claiming the exemption has the burden of proving by testimony or evidence that he qualifies for such. Schooley v. Judd,149 So. 2d 587, 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). The burden of proof in an exemption hearing falls upon the Petition to prove eligibility by at least a preponderance of the evidence. In this case, the Petitioner failed to carry its burden to show affirmatively by either testimony or evidence that it qualified for the 2013 Affordable Housing exemption per the mandates of Sections 196.1978 and 196.195, Florida Statutes. There is an unresolved factual issue as to - 15 -