The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 202
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES TAX SIMPLIFICATION LAW

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 202.13

202.13 Intent.—

(1) If the operation or imposition of the taxes imposed or administered under this chapter is declared invalid, ineffective, inapplicable, unconstitutional, or void for any reason, chapters 166, 203, 212, and 337, as such chapters existed before January 1, 2000, shall fully apply to the sale, use, or consumption of communications services. If any exemption from the tax is declared invalid, ineffective, inapplicable, unconstitutional, or void for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the taxes imposed or administered under this chapter, but such sale, use, or consumption shall be subject to the taxes imposed under this chapter to the same extent as if such exemption never existed.

(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to exempt from the taxes imposed or administered pursuant to this chapter only the communications services set forth in this chapter as exempt from such taxes, to the extent that such exemptions are in accordance with the constitutions of this state and of the United States.

(3) The tax on dealers of communications services authorized under this chapter, including the tax imposed by local governments under ss. 202.19 and 202.20, shall supersede the authority of local governments to levy franchise fees as set out in 47 U.S.C. s. 542 without regard to the fact that this is a tax of general applicability on all providers of communications services.

History.—ss. 5, 58, ch. 2000-260; s. 38, ch. 2001-140.

F.S. 202.13 on Google Scholar

F.S. 202.13 on Casetext

Amendments to 202.13

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 202.13

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 202.13.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

WENINGER, v. GENERAL MILLS OPERATIONS LLC,, 344 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (E.D. Wis. 2018)

. . . applied would be $183.75, and with the Wage Incentive Bonus added, the total compensation becomes $202.13 . . .

E. ANDERSON, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 711 F. App'x 796 (7th Cir. 2018)

. . . P, app. 2, Rule 202.13. The uncertainty about the meaning of Dr. . . .

MOODY, v. BERRYHILL,, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (C.D. Ill. 2017)

. . . Therefore, under Rules 202.13, 202.14, and 202.15 Plaintiff would be considered “not disabled.” . . .

M. BISCEGLIA, v. W. COLVIN,, 173 F. Supp. 3d 326 (E.D. Va. 2016)

. . . Pt. 404,- Subpt, P, App. 2, Rules 202.13-15. . . .

M. DENNIS, M. v. W. COLVIN,, 609 F. App'x 505 (9th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 404 app. 2 § 202.13; SSR 82-41. . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. D. P., 909 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (D.S.D. 2012)

. . . . § 202.13(a)(2) (Equal Credit Opportunity Act Regulation); 38 C.F.R. § 36.4501 (Regulation relating . . .

PHILLIPS, v. J. ASTRUE,, 671 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2012)

. . . Accordingly, the Council applied Rule 202.13 of the medical-vocational guidelines, which directed a finding . . . the time of the ALJ’s decision, and thus she was “closely approaching advanced age,” it applied Rule 202.13 . . .

NOBLE, v. J. ASTRUE,, 813 F. Supp. 2d 843 (N.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . limitations, in consideration of her exertional capacity and relevant vocational characteristics, then Rule 202.13 . . .

McCLENDON, a k a A. W. Sr. A. P. A. M. C. F. E. M. R. L. W. A. D. J. P. S. N. W. v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, 630 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2011)

. . . See 19-202 Moore’s Federal Practice § 202.13. . . .

ZHEJIANG NATIVE PRODUCE AND ANIMAL BY- PRODUCTS IMPORT EXPORT GROUP CORP. Co. L. C. M. Co. D. F. USA v. UNITED STATES,, 339 F. App'x 992 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 202.13[2] (3d ed.1997); see also Penn West Assocs., Inc. v. . . .

THORNTON, v. J. ASTRUE,, 337 F. App'x 600 (8th Cir. 2009)

. . . P, App. 2, Table 2, Rule 202.13; McGeorge v. . . .

BRAY, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,, 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009)

. . . transferable skills but rather whether placement of Bray into Rule 202.15 (or for that matter into Rules 202.13 . . .

In WORLDCOM, INC. MCI f k a v., 386 B.R. 496 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . Cross's rate is $202.13 per hour and the fee will be reduced accordingly by $404.26. . . . Cross’s rate is $202.13 per hour and the fee will be reduced accordingly by $404.26. . . . Cross's rate is $202.13 per hour and the fee will be reduced accordingly by $404.26. . . . Cross’s rate is $202.13 per hour and the fee will be reduced accordingly by $404.26. . . .

K. WILLIAMS, v. MBNA AMERICA BANK, N. A., 538 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

. . . conspicuous manner and, except for the disclosures required by § § 202.5 [requests for information] and 202.13 . . .

A. BRONSON, v. J. ASTRUE,, 530 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (D. Kan. 2008)

. . . in finding that there are jobs in the economy of which plaintiff is capable, and in using grid Rule 202.13 . . . He argues that the ALJ properly used grid Rule 202.13 as a framework for his step five determination, . . . Finally, plaintiff claims the ALJ erred in using grid Rule 202.13 because the ALJ found nonexertional . . . Finally, plaintiff claims the ALJ erred in using grid Rule 202.13 to determine that plaintiff is not' . . . The ALJ then explained that if plaintiff was able to perform the full range of light work, Rule 202.13 . . .

FIRMANSJAH, v. R. GONZALES,, 424 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 202.13(c)(2)(i)(B) (2000) (stating that for asylum applications filed before April 1, 1997, an immigration . . .

R. FOSHA, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 372 F. Supp. 2d 948 (S.D. Tex. 2005)

. . . limitations do not allow him to perform the full range of light work, using Medical-Vocational Rule 202.13 . . . Fosha apparently reads the ALJ’s decision as applying Grid Rule 202.13 to direct a finding of “not disabled . . . A finding of “not disabled” is therefore reached within the framework or Medical-Vocational Rule 202.13 . . . erred by classifying him as “closely approaching advanced age,” and using the “framework” of Grid Rule 202.13 . . . Pt. 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Table 2, § 202.13. . . .

GRAVEL, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 360 F. Supp. 2d 442 (N.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . Gravel observes that were she found capable of performing light work, Rule 202.13 would direct a finding . . . The ALJ made this determination using the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, Rules 202.20 and 202.13 of Table . . . P, App. 2, Table No. 2, Rules 202.13, 202.20. . . . .

WOODS, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 121 F. App'x 381 (10th Cir. 2005)

. . . P, App. 2, Rule 202.13 (the grids) as a framework, the ALJ concluded that appellant was not disabled . . . Applying Rule 202.13 and Rule 202.20 of the grids as a framework, and relying on VE testimony, the ALJ . . .

Y. HARRISON, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (N.D. Ala. 2004)

. . . Work Capability Limited To Light Work As a Result of Severe Medically Determinable Impairment(s), Rule 202.13 . . .

LOWERY, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 342 F. Supp. 2d 694 (E.D. Mich. 2004)

. . . The plaintiff apparently reads the ALJ’s decision as applying Grid Rule 202.13 to direct a finding of . . . There was no error in referencing Grid Rule 202.13 as a framework for the decision. . . .

A. SCHWABE, v. Jo BARNHART,, 338 F. Supp. 2d 941 (E.D. Wis. 2004)

. . . Grid rule 202.13, which the ALJ used as a “framework” for his decision (Tr. at 27), holds that a person . . . P, App. 2 § 202.13. . . .

O. WILLIAMS, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 338 F. Supp. 2d 849 (M.D. Tenn. 2004)

. . . The framework of Rules 202.20, 202.21 (before she turned age 50) and Rules 202.13 and 202.14 (after she . . .

L. HECTOR, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 337 F. Supp. 2d 905 (S.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . vocational profile and mental and physical RFC within the framework of medical-vocational guideline 202.13 . . .

DELGADO, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 305 F. Supp. 2d 704 (S.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . only Grid Rules that are suitable as a framework for decision-making are Rules 202.09, 202.10, 202.11, 202.13 . . . was not properly assessed at the administrative level and therefore remains undetermined, Grid Rules 202.13 . . .

JOHNSON, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 312 F. Supp. 2d 415 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . “[a] finding of ‘not disabled’ is therefore reached within the framework of Medical-Vocational Rule 202.13 . . .

YOUNG, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 287 F. Supp. 2d 905 (N.D. Ill. 2003)

. . . work in the national economy, Young is “not disabled” in the framework of the Medical-Vocational Rule 202.13 . . . P, App. 2 (a claimant “closely approaching advanced age” classified as not disabled under Rule 202.13 . . .

ARMSTRONG, v. Jo BARNHART,, 287 F. Supp. 2d 881 (N.D. Ill. 2003)

. . . The ALJ applied Rule 202.13, which assumes an individual with a high school education. . . .

CASEY, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 76 F. App'x 908 (10th Cir. 2003)

. . . See id. at § 202.13. Thus, SSR 83-12 provides guidance in determining Mr. . . .

UNITED STATES v. ROMERO- BUSTAMENTE,, 337 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 202.13(a)(2) (Equal Credit Opportunity Act regulation) (“Dwelling means a residential structure that . . .

S. HILL, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 250 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (D. Kan. 2003)

. . . work, and claimant’s age, education and work experience, Section 416.969 and the framework of Rule 202.13 . . .

THOMAS, v. Jo BARNHART,, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002)

. . . P, app. 2, § 202.13. Ms. . . .

ABDILLE, v. ASHCROFT,, 242 F.3d 477 (3d Cir. 2001)

. . . . § 202.13(c)(2)(i)(B) (2000) (stating that for asylum applications filed before April 1, 1997, an immigration . . .

CLAY, v. S. APFEL,, 64 F. Supp. 2d 774 (N.D. Ill. 1999)

. . . the capacity to perform the full range of light work, section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16 and rule 202.13 . . . the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16 and Rule 202.13 . . . and the claimant's age, education and work experience, section 416.929 of Regulations No. 16 and Rule 202.13 . . .

GULO, v. S. APFEL,, 58 F. Supp. 2d 907 (N.D. Ill. 1999)

. . . Plaintiff waived her third argument regarding whether the ALJ should have assessed her case under Rule 202.13 . . .

DIVIRGILIO, v. S. APFEL,, 21 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D. Mass. 1998)

. . . . §§ 202.13, 202.14 and 202.15. . . .

HARDAWAY, v. CHATER,, 21 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (C.D. Cal. 1996)

. . . P, App. 2, Rule 202.13, the ALJ determined, at step five, that commencing on July 4, 1992, plaintiff . . . Section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16 and Rule 202.13, Table No. 2 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations . . .

S. DELYRIA, v. E. SHALALA,, 856 F. Supp. 1432 (D. Or. 1994)

. . . .-1569 and Rule 202.13, Table No. 2, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4 would direct a conclusion . . . Residual Functional Capacity Grid for Light Work, to determine that claimant was not disabled under Rule 202.13 . . . The ALJ found that claimant satisfied these requirements which are the same under Rules 202.13 and 201.12 . . . difference in these rules is that a person who can perform "light work” is not disabled under Rule 202.13 . . .

J. STATHIS, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 964 F.2d 850 (8th Cir. 1992)

. . . P, App. 2 Rules 202.20 and 202.13. . . .

MILLER, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 769 F. Supp. 1073 (E.D. Mo. 1991)

. . . Applying Rules 202.13 and 202.14 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4 of the Medical-Vocational . . .

WARSCHAUER SICK SUPPORT SOCIETY, v. STATE OF NEW YORK,, 754 F. Supp. 305 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . Cemetery Board Directive 202.13 requires a cemetery to give written notice to the Division of Cemeteries . . .

WILLIAMS, v. SULLIVAN,, 717 F. Supp. 639 (N.D. Ill. 1989)

. . . The issue of transferability of work skills is immaterial as Rules 202.17 and 202.13 would direct a finding . . .

M. COOPER, v. M. SULLIVAN,, 880 F.2d 1152 (9th Cir. 1989)

. . . . § 202.00(b) and Rule 202.13. The record in this case does not make clear whether Mrs. . . .

H. DESROSIERS, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 846 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1988)

. . . P, app. 2, rule 202.13 (1987). The same male would be disabled were he limited to sedentary work. . . .

B. KONING v. R. BOWEN,, 675 F. Supp. 452 (N.D. Ind. 1987)

. . . Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16, and Rules 202.13, Table . . .

DUNCAN, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 801 F.2d 847 (6th Cir. 1986)

. . . Considering Duncan’s work capacity, age, education and prior work experience, the AU determined that Rules 202.13 . . .

BULPETT, v. HECKLER,, 617 F. Supp. 850 (D. Mass. 1985)

. . . (Tr. 69) The Administrative Law Judge then applied Rule 202.13, which directs a conclusion of “not disabled . . .

BROWN, v. HARRIS,, 548 F. Supp. 399 (W.D. Mo. 1982)

. . . The AU stated that he was applying Rule 202.13, Table No. 2 of Appendix 2, Subpart P. . . . Rule 202.13, however, is for persons closely approaching advanced age. . . . Under either Rule 202.13 or 202.20, plaintiff would not be under a disability. . . . .

GAGNON, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 666 F.2d 662 (1st Cir. 1981)

. . . Second, Gagnon argues that Rule 202.13 does not compel an automatic finding of no disability in his case . . .

H. GAINES, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 657 F.2d 99 (6th Cir. 1981)

. . . Regulations 416.913 and 404.1513 and Rule 202.07, Table 2, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4 and Rule 202.13 . . .

CHERRY, v. AMOCO OIL COMPANY,, 490 F. Supp. 1026 (N.D. Ga. 1980)

. . . . § 202.13. . . .

SMITH, v. LAKESIDE FOODS, INC., 449 F. Supp. 171 (N.D. Ill. 1978)

. . . entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief, or punitive damages and costs, pursuant to regulation 202.13 . . .

YOUNGER, v. GLAMORGAN PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, a, 418 F. Supp. 743 (W.D. Va. 1976)

. . . white counterparts salary of claimant $5,532.19 salary of white counterparts $5,734,32 differential 202.13 . . .

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. POOL MANUFACTURING CO., 339 U.S. 577 (U.S. 1950)

. . . See § 202.13 of the Board’s earlier regulations regarding the Labor Management Relations Act, 12 Fed. . . .

HART GLASS MANUFACTURING CO. v. THE UNITED STATES, 73 Ct. Cl. 32 (Ct. Cl. 1931)

. . . Hart Paper Company_ 36,. 202.13' The commissioner’s letter of December 27, 1926, explaining the basis . . .

THE A. A. RAVEN, 231 F. 380 (3d Cir. 1916)

. . . , 1914, to September 10, 1914, date of decree...................................................... 202.13 . . .