[RPPTL LandTen] Sale of Ground Lessor's Position, but not the fee - structure and tax implications

George Pincus GPincus at stearnsweaver.com
Tue Jun 14 07:41:44 PDT 2011 

Manny:

Super helpful.  Thanks for point that out.



George A. Pincus, Esq.
Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler
  Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.
New River Center, Suite 2100
200 East Las Olas Boulevard
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954-766-9705
Facsimile:    954-766-9719
E-mail: gpincus at stearnsweaver.com<mailto:gpincus at swmwas.com>
www.stearnsweaver.com<http://www.stearnsweaver.com/>


From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:33 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Sale of Ground Lessor's Position, but not the fee - structure and tax implications

George,
I haven’t done that deal, but the First District recently held a similar type of transfer was a conveyance of a taxable fee interest; case is below. Just an issue to watch out for.
Manny


--- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 1496722 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.), 36 Fla. L. Weekly D856

Briefs and Other Related Documents<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?method=TNC&db=FL-CS&mt=Westlaw&ss=CNT&scxt=WL&rp=%2fsearch%2fdefault.wl&cxt=DC&fmqv=c&cfid=1&service=Search&rltdb=CLID_DB53254299146&rlti=1&cnt=DOC&query=LONG+%2fS+LEASE&vr=2.0&eq=search&fn=_top&origin=Search&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT3213853299146&sv=Split&n=3&sskey=CLID_SSSA5670052299146&rs=WLW11.04#IN;F1>
NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
Leonard J. ACCARDO and Lynn M. Accardo, et al., Appellants,
v.
Gregory S. BROWN, Property Appraiser for Santa Rosa County, Florida, and Stan C. Nichols, Tax Collector for Santa Rosa County, Florida, Appellees.
No. 1D10–4072.
April 21, 2011.
Background: Lessees of land pursuant to long-term leases from county brought action against county property appraiser and county tax collector seeking declaratory judgment and an injunction against the assessment of ad valorem taxes against the land and improvements. The Circuit Court, Santa Rosa County, Gary L. Bergosh<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=0110096101&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=PROFILER-WLD&tf=-1&findtype=h&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157>, J., awarded summary judgment to appraiser and tax collector. Lessees appealed.

Holdings: The District Court of Appeal, Davis<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=0256845301&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=PROFILER-WLD&tf=-1&findtype=h&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157>, J., held that:
(1)<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#F12025134157> lessees were the equitable owners of the improvements, and
(2)<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#F22025134157> lessees were the equitable owners of the land.

Affirmed.

West Headnotes

[1]<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#B12025134157> [cid:image001.png at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0]  KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote<http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?db=FL-CS&mt=Westlaw&sequencenum=1&locatestring=HD(001)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&serialnum=2025134157&method=TNC&cfid=1&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wl&eq=search&rlti=1&query=LONG+%2fS+LEASE&vr=2.0&fn=_top&service=Search&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT3213853299146&sv=Split&n=3&pbc=D270F073&rs=WLW11.04>

[cid:image002.gif at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0]<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073>371<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> Taxation
   [cid:image002.gif at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0] <http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371III&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> 371III<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371III&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> Property Taxes
     [cid:image002.gif at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0] <http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371III(C)&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> 371III(C)<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371III(C)&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> Liability of Private Persons and Property in General
       [cid:image002.gif at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0] <http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371k2186&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> 371k2186<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371k2186&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> Ownership or Possession of Property, and Persons to Whom Taxable
         [cid:image002.gif at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0] <http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371k2188&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> 371k2188<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371k2188&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> k. Particular estates or interests in property. Most Cited Cases<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371k2188&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=MCC&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073>
Lessees of land from county pursuant to long-term, renewable leases were the equitable owners of improvements on the land, and thus such improvements were subject to ad valorem taxation, rather than taxation as intangible personal property. West's F.S.A. § 196.199<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=FLSTS196.199&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=1000006&tf=-1&findtype=L&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157>(2)(b).

[2]<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#B22025134157> [cid:image001.png at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0]  KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote<http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?db=FL-CS&mt=Westlaw&sequencenum=2&locatestring=HD(002)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&serialnum=2025134157&method=TNC&cfid=1&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wl&eq=search&rlti=1&query=LONG+%2fS+LEASE&vr=2.0&fn=_top&service=Search&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT3213853299146&sv=Split&n=3&pbc=D270F073&rs=WLW11.04>

[cid:image002.gif at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0]<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073>371<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> Taxation
   [cid:image002.gif at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0] <http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371III&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> 371III<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371III&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> Property Taxes
     [cid:image002.gif at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0] <http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371III(C)&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> 371III(C)<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371III(C)&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> Liability of Private Persons and Property in General
       [cid:image002.gif at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0] <http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371k2186&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> 371k2186<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371k2186&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> Ownership or Possession of Property, and Persons to Whom Taxable
         [cid:image002.gif at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0] <http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371k2188&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> 371k2188<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371k2188&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> k. Particular estates or interests in property. Most Cited Cases<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371k2188&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=MCC&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073>
Lessees of land from county pursuant to long-term, renewable leases were the equitable owners of the land, and thus the leasehold interests were subject to ad valorem taxation; lessees enjoyed the capital appreciation and rental income derived from their interests, had the right to convey their interests or encumber their properties with mortgages, bore responsibility for insurance, maintenance, and repair, and were responsible, pursuant to the terms of their leases, for taxes imposed on their interests. West's F.S.A. § 196.199<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=FLSTS196.199&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=1000006&tf=-1&findtype=L&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157>(2)(b).

[3]<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#B32025134157> [cid:image001.png at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0]  KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote<http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?db=FL-CS&mt=Westlaw&sequencenum=3&locatestring=HD(003)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&serialnum=2025134157&method=TNC&cfid=1&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wl&eq=search&rlti=1&query=LONG+%2fS+LEASE&vr=2.0&fn=_top&service=Search&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT3213853299146&sv=Split&n=3&pbc=D270F073&rs=WLW11.04>

[cid:image002.gif at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0]<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073>371<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> Taxation
   [cid:image002.gif at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0] <http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371III&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> 371III<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371III&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> Property Taxes
     [cid:image002.gif at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0] <http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371III(C)&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> 371III(C)<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371III(C)&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> Liability of Private Persons and Property in General
       [cid:image002.gif at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0] <http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371k2186&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> 371k2186<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371k2186&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> Ownership or Possession of Property, and Persons to Whom Taxable
         [cid:image002.gif at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0] <http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371k2188&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> 371k2188<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371k2188&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=KEY&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073> k. Particular estates or interests in property. Most Cited Cases<http://web2.westlaw.com/digest/default.aspx?docname=371k2188&rp=%2fdigest%2fdefault.aspx&sv=Split&cmd=MCC&rs=WLW11.04&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073>
A lessee is deemed to be the leased property's equitable owner, for purposes of taxation, if the lessee holds virtually all the benefits and burdens of ownership of the leased property.

Danny L. Kepner<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=0175847001&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=PROFILER-WLD&tf=-1&findtype=h&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> of Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge, Pensacola; Talbot D'Alemberte<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=0350655301&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=PROFILER-WLD&tf=-1&findtype=h&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> and Patsy Palmer of D'Alemberte & Palmer, PLLC, Tallahassee, for Appellants.

Elliott Messer<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=0231481901&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=PROFILER-WLD&tf=-1&findtype=h&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> and Thomas M. Findley<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=0155228301&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=PROFILER-WLD&tf=-1&findtype=h&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> of Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A., Tallahassee; Roy V. Andrews<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=0129954301&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=PROFILER-WLD&tf=-1&findtype=h&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> of Lindsay, Andrews & Leonard, P.A., Milton, for Appellees.
DAVIS<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=0256845301&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=PROFILER-WLD&tf=-1&findtype=h&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157>, J.

*1 Appellants, those having leasehold interests in various properties located on Navarre Beach in Santa Rosa County, appeal the trial court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Entry of Final Judgment. Appellants challenge the trial court's conclusion that because they are the equitable owners of the real property and any improvements thereon, they are subject to ad valorem property taxes. They also contend that the trial court erred in concluding that the Santa Rosa County Tax Collector has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the tax exemption at issue and that the exemption is unconstitutional. Because we agree with the trial court that Appellants are the equitable owners of both the real property and improvements and are subject to ad valorem property taxes as such, we do not reach the issue of standing or the constitutionality of the tax exemption.

The land at issue was conveyed by the United States to Escambia County in 1947 through a Deed of Conveyance, which provided that although Escambia County could lease the land for such purposes as it deemed to be in the public interest, the land was “never to be otherwise disposed of or conveyed by it....” Escambia County leased the portion of Santa Rosa Island known as Navarre Beach to Santa Rosa County for ninety-nine years with automatic renewals for additional ninety-nine-year periods. Santa Rosa County later entered into leases with private individuals for development purposes. In Straughn v. Camp, 293 So.2d 689, 694 (Fla.1974)<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1974134949&referenceposition=694&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&tc=-1&ordoc=2025134157>, the supreme court held that the Legislature had the power to provide for the taxing of private leaseholds on Santa Rosa Island that had been previously exempt from ad valorem taxes. Thereafter, in Williams v. Jones, 326 So.2d 425, 429 (Fla.1975)<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1975141157&referenceposition=429&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&tc=-1&ordoc=2025134157>, the supreme court held that the Legislature had the power constitutionally to treat leasehold interests on Santa Rosa Island as real property for ad valorem tax purposes. When the Legislature subsequently passed a special act providing for a reduction in rent to be paid by leaseholders in an amount equal to the ad valorem taxes paid on the Santa Rosa Island leasehold interests during the previous year, the supreme court held that the special act was unconstitutional because it provided for an indirect exemption from ad valorem taxes that was not authorized by the Florida Constitution. See Archer v. Marshall, 355 So.2d 781, 781 (Fla.1978)<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1978112837&referenceposition=781&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&tc=-1&ordoc=2025134157>; see also Am Fi Inv. Corp. v. Kinney, 360 So.2d 415, 415–16 (Fla.1978)<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1978136889&referenceposition=415&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&tc=-1&ordoc=2025134157>.

In 1980, the Legislature enacted section 196.199(2)(b), Florida Statutes<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=FLSTS196.199&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=1000006&tf=-1&findtype=L&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157>, which provides in part that a “leasehold or other interest shall be taxed only as intangible personal property ... if rental payments are due in consideration of such leasehold” and that “[i]f no rental payments are due ... the leasehold or other interest shall be taxed as real property.” In 1982 and 1983, the improvements made by the lessees on Santa Rosa Island were assessed at the full real property rate. In Bell v. Bryan, 505 So.2d 690, 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1987051013&referenceposition=691&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&tc=-1&ordoc=2025134157>, rev. denied, 513 So.2d 1060 (Fla.1987)<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1987122855&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157>, we held that pursuant to section 196.199<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=FLSTS196.199&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=1000006&tf=-1&findtype=L&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157>(2)(b), the improvements should have been taxed at the intangible personal property rate. Approximately eighteen years later, we affirmed the trial court's ruling that the Navarre Beach leaseholders were not exempt from ad valorem property taxes pursuant to section 196.199<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=FLSTS196.199&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=1000006&tf=-1&findtype=L&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> because they were the equitable owners of the property improvements. See Ward v. Brown, 919 So.2d 462, 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2006811328&referenceposition=463&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&tc=-1&ordoc=2025134157>, rev. denied, 923 So.2d 1165 (Fla.2006)<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2008493689&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157>.

*2 Following the issuance of Ward,<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2006811328&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> the Santa Rosa County Property Appraiser assessed ad valorem property taxes not only on the improvements located on Appellants' leaseholds but also on the underlying land. Appellants filed their First Amended Complaint in March 2007, seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction. Appellants attached copies of six leases to their Complaint, explaining that those leases had provisions that were common to most of the leases at issue. Each of the attached leases was for a ninety-nine-year term, and the lessees had the option to renew for another term of ninety-nine years.

Appellees, the Santa Rosa County Property Appraiser and Tax Collector, asserted as their first affirmative defense that Appellants were subject to ad valorem taxation because they were the equitable owners of the underlying land and any improvements. Appellees included an Affirmative Defense of the Tax Collector, challenging the tax exemption sought by Appellants as being unconstitutional. Appellants moved to strike this affirmative defense, arguing that the Tax Collector was a ministerial public officer who lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of statutes defining property for purposes of taxation.

Both sides subsequently moved for summary judgment. In its order, the trial court found in part:

All of the Plaintiffs' interests at issue in this action are used for purely private purposes. The Plaintiffs enjoy the capital appreciation and rental income derived from these interests. The Plaintiffs have the right to convey their interests without restraint; they have the right to encumber their properties with mortgages; they bear all of the risks of ownership; they bear the responsibility for insurance, maintenance and repair; and they are typically responsible by the terms of their lease documents for taxes imposed upon their interests. The County, in contrast, does not does [sic] bear any of the burdens typically associated with ownership of real property.

The court noted that the only difference between the assessments at issue and the assessments in previous cases was the inclusion of raw land and land underlying improvements. The court determined that Ward<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2006811328&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> dictated that Appellants were to be considered the equitable owners of the improvements and the land for ad valorem property tax purposes. It ruled that the Tax Collector had standing to challenge the constitutionality of section 196.199<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=FLSTS196.199&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=1000006&tf=-1&findtype=L&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157>(2)(b) and that Appellants' interpretation of the statute as imposing only an intangible tax upon their interests would be unconstitutional. This appeal followed.
Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000)<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2000356033&referenceposition=130&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&tc=-1&ordoc=2025134157>. The standard of review is de novo. Id.<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2000356033&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> In this case, the parties agree that there are no genuine issues of material fact. The issue is, therefore, whether Appellees are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

*3 [1]<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#F12025134157> [cid:image001.png at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0] <http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?db=FL-CS&mt=Westlaw&locatestring=HD(001)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&serialnum=2025134157&method=TNC&cfid=1&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wl&eq=search&rlti=1&query=LONG+%2fS+LEASE&vr=2.0&fn=_top&service=Search&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT3213853299146&sv=Split&n=3&pbc=D270F073&rs=WLW11.04>  Appellants first argue that Bell,<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1987051013&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> not Ward,<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2006811328&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> controls the taxation of improvements. As stated, this Court in Bell<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1987051013&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> held that the improvements on the leased property on Santa Rosa Island were subject only to intangible personal property taxes pursuant to section 196.199<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=FLSTS196.199&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=1000006&tf=-1&findtype=L&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157>(2)(b). 505 So.2d at 692.<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1987051013&referenceposition=692&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&tc=-1&ordoc=2025134157>Thereafter, in Ward,<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2006811328&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> the majority held that the appellants were the equitable owners of the improvements and subject to ad valorem taxation by relying on several factors: (1) the appellants had the right to perpetual lease renewals; (2) they had the right to use or rent the improvements; (3) they had the right to encumber their interests; (4) they had the right to transfer their property rights; (5) they had the right to realize any appreciation in value from sale or rental income; (6) they had to insure and maintain the improvements; and (7) they were responsible for the payment of any taxes. 919 So.2d at 463.<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2006811328&referenceposition=463&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&tc=-1&ordoc=2025134157> Importantly, the majority determined that Bell<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1987051013&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> was not controlling because the issue of equitable ownership was not addressed therein. Id. at 464 n. 2.<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2006811328&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> As such, we reject Appellants' argument that Bell<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1987051013&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> controls the taxation of the improvements. In accordance with Ward,<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2006811328&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> we affirm the trial court's order as to the ad valorem taxation of those improvements.

Turning to the taxation of the underlying property, an issue which was not addressed in Ward,<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2006811328&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157>Appellants first contend that the Deed of Conveyance prohibits ownership of the property at issue by private persons. While Appellants are correct, the issue presented in this case is not whether they are the legal owners of the property. Instead, the issue is whether they are the equitable owners of the property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Deed of Conveyance has no bearing on this issue.

Appellants next assert that the underlying property is immune from taxation. See Fla. Dept. of Revenue v. City of Gainesville, 918 So.2d 250, 256 (Fla.2005)<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2007833653&referenceposition=256&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&tc=-1&ordoc=2025134157> (noting that the State and counties are immune from ad valorem taxation). We reject this argument as well given that Appellants' focus is again on the legal ownership of the property. As we stated with respect to the previous argument, the issue is whether Appellants are the equitable owners of the property for ad valorem taxation purposes. Whether Escambia County is immune from taxation has no bearing on this issue either.

[2]<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#F22025134157> [cid:image001.png at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0] <http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?db=FL-CS&mt=Westlaw&locatestring=HD(002)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&serialnum=2025134157&method=TNC&cfid=1&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wl&eq=search&rlti=1&query=LONG+%2fS+LEASE&vr=2.0&fn=_top&service=Search&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT3213853299146&sv=Split&n=3&pbc=D270F073&rs=WLW11.04> [3]<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/%0a%09%09%09%09%09%09#F32025134157> [cid:image001.png at 01CC2A7F.A7A7B1A0] <http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?db=FL-CS&mt=Westlaw&locatestring=HD(003)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&serialnum=2025134157&method=TNC&cfid=1&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wl&eq=search&rlti=1&query=LONG+%2fS+LEASE&vr=2.0&fn=_top&service=Search&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT3213853299146&sv=Split&n=3&pbc=D270F073&rs=WLW11.04>  With respect to equitable ownership, Appellants argue that they have no such interest in the real property. We disagree. A lessee is deemed to be the leased property's equitable owner if the lessee holds “ ‘virtually all the benefits and burdens of ownership’ ” of the leased property. Robbins v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., Inc., 748 So.2d 349, 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1999274867&referenceposition=351&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&tc=-1&ordoc=2025134157> (citation omitted). Valid burdens and benefits that have been considered by Florida courts include a lessee's obligation to insure, maintain, and pay taxes on the leased property along with the lessee's option to purchase the leased property at the end of the lease term. Id.<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=1999274867&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157>

*4 As the trial court found in this case, Appellants enjoy the capital appreciation and rental income derived from their interests, they have the right to convey their interests without restraint, and they have the right to encumber their properties with mortgages. In addition to these benefits of ownership, Appellants bear the responsibility for insurance, maintenance and repair, and they are typically responsible by their lease terms for taxes imposed upon their interests. These factors, which the majority relied upon in Ward,<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?serialnum=2006811328&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> apply to the taxation of the underlying property as much as they do to the property improvements. Although Appellants are correct that their leases contain no option to purchase, Escambia County is, as Appellants argue on appeal, prohibited through the Deed of Conveyance from selling the property. Thus, instead of having an option to purchase at the end of their lease terms, the majority of Appellants have the option to renew their leases for additional ninety-nine-year terms. All of these factors lead us to the conclusion that the trial court properly determined that Appellants are the equitable owners of the real property at issue for ad valorem taxation purposes. As such, the exemption found in section 196.199<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=FLSTS196.199&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=1000006&tf=-1&findtype=L&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157>(2)(b) is inapplicable to Appellants. See Hialeah, Inc. v. Dade County, 490 So.2d 998, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1986131363&referenceposition=1000&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=735&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&tc=-1&ordoc=2025134157> (“[P]roperty is not government owned under applicable taxing statutes where the government merely holds legal title as security and a taxpayer is the beneficial owner in equity.”).

We accordingly affirm the trial court's order. Given the significance of the issues presented herein, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following as a question of great public importance:

WHETHER SECTION 196.199(2)(b), FLORIDA STATUTES<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tc=-1&docname=FLSTS196.199&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=1000006&tf=-1&findtype=L&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157>, IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE REAL PROPERTY AT ISSUE BECAUSE APPELLANTS ARE THE EQUITABLE OWNERS OF THAT PROPERTY?

AFFIRMED.

WOLF AND PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

Fla.App. 1 Dist.,2011.
Accardo v. Brown
--- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 1496722 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.), 36 Fla. L. Weekly D856


Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top)<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?method=TNC&db=FL-CS&mt=Westlaw&ss=CNT&scxt=WL&rp=%2fsearch%2fdefault.wl&cxt=DC&fmqv=c&cfid=1&service=Search&rltdb=CLID_DB53254299146&rlti=1&cnt=DOC&query=LONG+%2fS+LEASE&vr=2.0&eq=search&fn=_top&origin=Search&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT3213853299146&sv=Split&n=3&sskey=CLID_SSSA5670052299146&rs=WLW11.04#IN;B1>

• 1D10-4072<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?docname=LINK-GUID(IB47C5EBD9F9411DFA765BD122EA7DC89)&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=177756&findtype=%23&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&pbc=D270F073&ordoc=2025134157> (Docket) (Aug. 2, 2010)
END OF DOCUMENT



[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]



Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Office:561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct:561.803.3501

Email:MFarach at richmangreer.com

www.richmangreer.com<http://www.richmangreer.com/>


[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]


To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

This message contains confidential information and is intended for landten at lists.flabarrpptl.org. If you are not landten at lists.flabarrpptl.org you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach at richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of lesstevens
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:25 AM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Sale of Ground Lessor's Position,but not the fee - structure and tax implications

Hey George:

Sounds like an assignment of rents in exchange for the present value payment of the rents….I think the issue would be what if the tenant under the ground lease defaults and the assignee cannot recover any funds, what is the liability to the original ground lessor…..may be adding more issues, but I think the assignment/pledge is the form of documentation you may be looking for.


Les H. Stevens, Esquire
Les H. Stevens, P.A.
5301 North Federal Highway
Suite 130
Boca Raton, Florida 33487
Tel. - (561) 989-9797
Fax - (561) 989-8484
E-Mail - lesstevens at earthlink.net

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMITTAL IN ERROR, PLEASE DELETE IT AND NOTIFY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY



From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of George Pincus
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:17 AM
To: 'landten at lists.flabarrpptl.org'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Sale of Ground Lessor's Position, but not the fee - structure and tax implications

Has anyone done this deal:


•         Long term ground lease for a commercial property between Ground Lessor and Ground Lessee

•         A purchaser comes along and want to buy the Ground Lessor’s position under the Ground Lease, but not the fee.

•         Essentially, the purchaser wants to buy the cash flow under the Ground Lease for the term of the Ground Lease for a present value (let the business people figure that calculation out) and, at the end of the term, the original Ground Lessor still has the reversionary interest and ends up owning the property and the leasehold improvements (large commercial building), free and clear of the ground lease and any subleases that the Ground Lessee entered into during the term of the Ground Lease.

I would be interested in talking with you about structure and tax implications, if any (for some reason I think there are as this looks a lot like some tax shelter structures I saw the aftermath of in the 80’s and 90’s).

If you have any relevant experience, please shoot me an e-mail or give me a call to discuss.


Thanks very much.

George A. Pincus, Esq.
Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler
  Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.
New River Center, Suite 2100
200 East Las Olas Boulevard
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954-766-9705
Facsimile:    954-766-9719
E-mail: gpincus at stearnsweaver.com<mailto:gpincus at swmwas.com>
www.stearnsweaver.com<http://www.stearnsweaver.com/>



________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this E-mail message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender by reply E-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
________________________________
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with recently-enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, is not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties that may be imposed by the federal government or for promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/private/landten/attachments/20110614/0956889e/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 896 bytes
Desc: image001.png
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/private/landten/attachments/20110614/0956889e/attachment-0001.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: image002.gif
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/private/landten/attachments/20110614/0956889e/attachment-0001.gif

More information about the landten mailing list