Belden v. Tampa Westshore Assoc. Limited Partnership
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
DOUG BELDEN, as Hillsborough
County Tax Collector,
)
)
)
Appellant,
)
)
v.
)
)
TAMPA WESTSHORE ASSOCIATES )
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a foreign
)
limited partnership,
)
)
Appellee.
)
________________________________ )
Case No. 2D07-3217
2D07-3218
2D07-3219
CONSOLIDATED
Opinion filed April 18, 2008.
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Hillsborough County;
James M. Barton, II, Judge.
Brian T. FitzGerald, Senior Assistant
County Attorney, Tampa, for Appellant.
Robert E.V. Kelley, Jr., and
Marie A. Borland of Hill, Ward &
Henderson, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.
CANADY, Judge.
In this case we consider the proper method for calculating the refund due
for the overpayment of real estate taxes. Doug Belden, as Hillsborough County Tax
Collector, appeals orders of the circuit court determining that refunds due to Tampa
Westshore Associates Limited Partnership (TWA) were improperly calculated by
Belden. For the reasons we explain, we conclude that the tax collector's calculation of
the refund amounts was proper and that the circuit court erred in ruling that the refunds
made by the tax collector were insufficient.
I. Background
TWA, the owner of the International Plaza Shopping Center in Tampa and
the lessee of the real property on which the shopping center is located, disputed the
assessed values and the resulting ad valorem taxes for the shopping center property for
the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Prior to filing suit to challenge the assessments
and taxes for each of those years, TWA elected to pay the full amount of taxes due in
November of each year rather than some lesser amount equivalent to the tax which
TWA admitted in good faith to be owing. See § 194.171(3), Fla. Stat. (2002-2005). The
full amount of taxes due in November is based on a discount for early payment at the
rate of 4 percent. See § 197.162, Fla. Stat. (2002-2005).
Ultimately, TWA and the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser reached
a settlement concerning the disputed assessments, lowering the assessment for each
of the years in question. Stipulated judgments consequently were entered directing the
property appraiser to issue "certificate[s] of correction to reflect the [revised]
assessments" and directing the tax collector to issue revised tax bills and appropriate
refunds.
The tax collector calculated the refund due for each year by determining
the amount of TWA's revised tax liability with the 4 percent November discount applied
-2-
and subtracting that amount from the amount of taxes actually paid by TWA for the
particular year. For the year 2002, for example, the property assessment was reduced
from $166,546,372 to $153,975,119. The gross tax—that is, the amount due in
March—based on the revised assessed value was $3,895,448.29. Reducing the
revised gross tax by 4 percent for the November discount ($3,895,448.29 LESS
$155,817.93) yields a revised November tax liability of $3,739,630.36. TWA had
actually paid the sum of $4,042,167.13, which constituted full payment based on the
original assessed value and with the November discount applied. Subtracting the
revised November tax liability from the tax payment actually made by TWA
($4,042,167.13 LESS $3,739,630.36) yields the refund amount of $302,536.77 for 2002,
which was paid by the tax collector.
Being dissatisfied with the refunds made by the tax collector, TWA filed
motions to enforce settlement. TWA contended that the tax collector's method for
calculating the refunds was flawed because it "eliminates any credit to [TWA] for paying
early for each of the years in question." TWA also argued that the tax collector's
method of calculating the refunds should be rejected because it was inconsistent with
the method utilized in Tampa Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Walden, 230 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1969), and Muckenfuss v. Miller, 421 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), for
determining the amount of property tax deficiencies. Based on these cases, TWA
argued and the trial court agreed that the refunds due to TWA should be determined by
subtracting the amount of the revised gross tax due from the amount of the original
gross tax due.
-3-
Under the method advocated by TWA and adopted by the trial court, the
refund amount for 2002, for example, is increased by $12,605.70, the refund being
$315,142.47 rather than the $302,536.77 calculated by the tax collector. The refund
amount of $315,142.47 ordered by the trial court is the difference between
$4,210,590.76 (the original gross tax amount) and $3,895,448.29 (the revised gross tax
amount). According to TWA, utilization of this method is necessary to give TWA full
credit for having satisfied the liability associated with the original tax assessment.
The tax collector argues on appeal—as he did before the trial court—that
the cases relied on by TWA are factually distinguishable and that use of the calculation
methodology advocated by TWA would result in TWA's paying an amount of taxes for
each year in question that is less than the November discounted amount based on the
revised assessments.
II. Analysis
At first blush, the refund calculation method adopted by the trial court
seems plausible. But upon closer examination, the trial court's method does not
withstand scrutiny. The flaw in the method is manifest once we consider that the
method leads to the net payment by TWA of taxes for each year in an amount less than
the November discounted amount based on the revised assessments.
In 2002, for example, the net taxes paid by TWA under the trial court's
refund calculation would be $3,727,024.66—the difference between the amount
originally paid by TWA ($4,042,167.13) and the refund ordered by the trial court
($315,142.47). The November discounted amount for the 2002 taxes based on the
revised assessment is $3,739,630.36, which exceeds the net taxes to be paid under the
-4-
trial court's calculation by $12,605.70. TWA has provided no satisfactory explanation
for why it should ultimately pay taxes in an amount that is less than the amount of the
revised November tax liability.
Contrary to TWA's contention, the tax collector's method of calculation
does give TWA full credit for having paid taxes in November of each year. The tax
collector calculated TWA's revised tax liability for each year based on the revised
assessment and with the 4 percent November discount applied. Under the tax
collector's refund calculations, the net amount of taxes paid by TWA for each year will
equal the amount payable in November to fully satisfy TWA's revised tax liability. Aside
from interest on its overpayments—to which TWA is not entitled1—the tax collector's
refund calculations put TWA in the same position it would have been in had the
assessments originally been made at the correct—i.e., revised—amount and the
resulting tax liability had been satisfied in November.
TWA's reliance on Tampa Coca-Cola and Muckenfuss is unwarranted.
Those cases involved disputes regarding underpayments of taxes. The methodology
used in those cases to determine the amount of the deficiency, including interest, owed
by the taxpayer is not applicable to the determination of the amount of a refund due to a
taxpayer on an overpayment.
1
TWA concedes that although taxpayers are required to pay interest on tax
underpayments, see § 194.192(2), taxpayers who make overpayments are not entitled
to recover interest.
-5-
III. Conclusion
The trial court erred in adopting a refund calculation method that would
result in an underpayment of taxes by TWA. We therefore reverse the orders on appeal
and remand for the entry of orders denying the relief sought by TWA.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
-6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
