- 12 -
sidewalks, streets, etc.).” Sec. 1.103-1(b), Income Tax Regs.
But, as we noted in Hernandez I, the Pasco County tax
certificates in issue in the case at hand “`are only a means
of evidencing unpaid taxes and to enable the sale thereof for
the purpose of realizing funds or current governmental
expenditures’”. Hernandez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-46
(quoting Smith v. City of Arcadia, 185 So. 2d 762, 767 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 1966)). In short, the tax certificates in issue
are not issued to finance public improvements. In each of the
above-cited special assessment cases, municipal obligations were
issued to finance particular public improvement projects. See,
e.g., Independent Gravel Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 705 ("We
have on many occasions in the past dealt with the exemption of
interest paid on instruments issued by a governmental unit in
consideration for municipal improvements") (street and sewer
improvements); Estate of Shamberg v. Commissioner, supra (bridges
and tunnels); Riverview State Bank v. Commissioner, supra (street
improvements); Carey-Reed Co. v. Commissioner, supra (street,
paving, and sewer improvements); Pontarelli v. Commissioner, 35
B.T.A. 872 (1937)(sewer improvements). In Florida, however, tax
certificates are sold solely as a means of collecting delinquent
real property taxes. Fla. Stat. Ann. sec. 197.432 (West 1989 &
Supp. 1997).
Conclusion
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011