The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1913-09-26


city of Ocala, and the amounts of
such license taxes shall be fixed by
city ordinances, which amounts of
such taxes shall not be dependent
upon the general state revenue law"
1t will therefore be observed that
the legislature of the state of Florida
authorizes the municipality of the
city of Ocala to impose license taxes
on privileges, business, professions
or occupations, independent of the
amount fixed by the general state
revenue law.
From a casual observation, section
of the acts of the legislature of
1907, referred to in the passage of
the mayor, construed alone and with
out taking it in connection with other
sections of the act, leads to an erron-
eous conclusion. Section 16 of the
same act from which section 2 is
quoted by the mayor (of the acts of
1900 reads as follows:
Section 16. That nothing in this
act shall be construed as in any way
abridging or limiting the powers
which have been granted or may be-
granted to any municipal corporation
by special act or charter act for the
purpose of requiring the payment of
license taxes"
1t will, therefore, be observed that
the acts of the legislature, passed in
1907, do not repeal the special act
passed in 1901.
l am therefore of the opinion that
the position of the mayor, viz: That
the city council of the city of Ocala
cannot impose an occupation license
in excess of fifty per cent of that
which is imposed by the general
state revenue law is erroneous.
The city council, under the special
acts of 1901, is authorized to impose
an occupation or license tax indie
pendent of the amount fixed by the
general SIdI0 revenue law.
l am satisfied that the mayor or
his legal adviser overlooked section
10 of the acts of 1907, referred to in
his message.
Respectfully submitted.
Carlos l.. Sistrunk, City Atty.
Attorney Sistrunk's Opinions
Ocala, Fla, Sept. Is. 1913.
Mr.. B. A Weathers, President City
Council, Ocala.
Dear Sir: l beg to acknowledge
receipt of your communication, re-
questing an opinion relative to the
mayors veto message relating to a
certain portion of an ordinance PRO
viding for and regulating the license
tax to be paid by all persons, firms,
corporations or associations, engaged
in any business, profession or occu-
patton, in the city of Ocala, for
which license is required, and pro-
viding for the collection and transfer
OF same, which reads as follows: Il
am of the opinion that the city of
Ocala is without power or authority
to impose a privilege tax on railroads
for maintaining a freight Office or
passenger office as above. Such Of
fees are essential to the proper con-
duct of railroad business as common
carriers and they are, under the law,
required to maintain such offices and
not only for their own convenience,
but for the accommodation and con-
venience of the travelling public"
The mayor in his message then
proceeds to discuss this matter at
considerable length. That part of
the ordinance under consideration is
sub-paragraph three under article R,
section of said ordinance, which
reads as follows:
Railroads, freight office, $50;
freight and passenger office, $780,"
The supreme court expressly au-
thorizes the legislature to pass spe-
cial laws, comforting powers upon
municipalities and the legislature
may authorize municipalities to inn
pose license taxes, and the legislature
in 1901 having enacted law, that
the city council of the city of Ocala
be and it is hereby empowered to i'm
pose license taxes on such privileges,
business, professions or occupations,
as areIor shall be taxed by the state
and upon such other as may be en-
gagged in, or managed, within said
city of Ocala; and the amounts of
such license taxes shall be fixed by
city ordinance, which amounts of
such taxes shall not be dependent
upon the general state revenue law,
and =