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. 202.14

202.14 Credit against tax imposed.—To prevent actual multistate taxation of communications services subject to tax under this chapter, any taxpayer, upon proof that such taxpayer has paid a tax legally imposed by another state or local jurisdiction in such other state with respect to such services, shall be allowed a credit against the taxes imposed under this chapter to the extent of the amount of tax paid in the other state or local jurisdiction.

History.—ss. 6, 58, ch. 2000-260; s. 38, ch. 2001-140.

F.S. 202.14 on Google Scholar

F.S. 202.14 on Casetext

Amendments to 202.14

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 202.14

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 202.14.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

MIRACOLO, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 286 F. Supp. 3d 476 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . light work before January 17, 2015 (before the change in his age category), Medical-Vocational Rule 202.14 . . .

J. WILKERSON, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 278 F. Supp. 3d 956 (E.D. Mich. 2017)

. . . ), Plaintiff says.it is undisputed that her exertional .abilities fell somewhere between grid rules 202.14 . . . (sedentary) and - that grid, rule 201.14 directs a finding of not disabled whereas grid rule 202.14 directs . . . Despite this, plaintiff says that the ALJ provided absolutely no explanation why grid rule 202.14 was . . . clarification from the VE as to which grid rule most closely approximated the RFC and vocational factors,' rule 202.14 . . .

STOUT, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 696 F. App'x 838 (9th Cir. 2017)

. . . P, App. 2, 202.14 & 202.15; Lounsburry v. . . .

R. MYLES, v. A. BERRYHILL,, 691 F. App'x 339 (9th Cir. 2017)

. . . P, App. 2, Rules 201.14 & 202.14. Therefore, the ALJ properly relied on the testimony of a VE. . . .

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.” . . .

J QUINN, Jr. v. W. COLVIN,, 199 F. Supp. 3d 692 (W.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . Indeed, the correct Medical-Vocational Rule is 202.14, which directs a finding of not disabled. Id. . . .

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

. . . In this case, the ALJ found that Grid Rules 202.21 and 202.14 would direct a finding of “not disabled . . .

PUENTE, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 130 F. Supp. 3d 881 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rules 202.14, 202.15. . . .

JONES, v. W. COLVIN,, 610 F. App'x 755 (10th Cir. 2015)

. . . P, App. 2, rule 202.14 (the grids) as a framework, and considering the testimony of a vocational expert . . .

PADILLA- GOMEZ, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 88 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.P.R. 2015)

. . . Petitioner also argues that the final decision is predicated on the GRID, Rule 202.14, which considers . . . judge relied on was for a limited range of light, not sedentary, work and the corresponding GRID Rule 202.14 . . . In the case before the court, the administrative law judge correctly used Medical-Vocational Rule 202.14 . . .

R. BRANON, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 539 F. App'x 675 (6th Cir. 2013)

. . . Work Capability Limited to Light Work as a Result of Severe Medically Determinable Impairment(s), Rule 202.14 . . .

WELLS, v. W. COLVIN,, 727 F.3d 1061 (10th Cir. 2013)

. . . P, App. 2, rules 202.21 and 202.14 (the grids), the ALJ concluded that Ms. . . .

S. ANDERSON, v. ASTRUE,, 825 F. Supp. 2d 487 (D. Del. 2011)

. . . light” exertional level (although admittedly subject to additional limitations, which rendered Rule 202.14 . . .

VAN DER BOSCH, v. J. ASTRUE,, 728 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (D. Minn. 2010)

. . . Council adopted the ALJ’s decision with the additional finding that Plaintiff was not disabled under Rule 202.14 . . .

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

. . . transferable skills should be treated as if Bray had no transferrable skills, Bray would then fall within Rule 202.14 . . . skills but rather whether placement of Bray into Rule 202.15 (or for that matter into Rules 202.13 or 202.14 . . .

M. STREMPEL, v. J. ASTRUE,, 299 F. App'x 434 (5th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 404.1520(g) and Medical-Vocational Rules 202.14 and 202.15, and not “under a disability” as defined . . .

E. HOFER, v. J. ASTRUE,, 588 F. Supp. 2d 952 (W.D. Wis. 2008)

. . . 29, 2007 (his fifty-fifth birthday), he would be “not disabled” pursuant to Medical Vocational Rule 202.14 . . .

G. SMITH, v. J. ASTRUE,, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. Kan. 2007)

. . . P, App. 2 § 202.14); and (6) improperly relied on vocational expert testimony based upon a hypothetical . . . This is error, although it may be harmless because rule 202.14, if applied, would direct a finding of . . .

E. WILLIAMS, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. s Co., 504 F. Supp. 2d 176 (S.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . 9.101 et seq; breached their fiduciary duty; violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 12 C.F.R § 202.14 . . . appraisal report to an application for credit that is to be secured by a lien on a dwelling.” 12 C.F.R. § 202.14 . . .

MILLER, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 241 F. App'x 631 (11th Cir. 2007)

. . . Miller admits that the ALJ would have been correct in finding him not disabled under Rule 202.14, as . . . Id. at §§ 202.14, 202.15. . . .

A. PERBECK, a k a A. v. J. ASTRUE,, 487 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (D. Kan. 2007)

. . . work experience, and residual functional capacity, the ALJ directly applied Medical-Vocational Rule 202.14 . . . Finally, he argues that the ALJ properly applied Medical-Vocational Rule 202.14 because she properly . . . She claims the ALJ erred in relying upon Grid Rule 202.14, without supporting vocational expert testimony . . . The Commissioner argues that the ALJ properly determined Grid Rule 202.14 directs a finding of “not disabled . . .

CHRISMAN, v. J. ASTRUE,, 487 F. Supp. 2d 992 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

. . . At the final step of the disability analysis, the ALJ relied on vocational grid rule 202.14, 20 C.F.R . . . P, App. 2 § 202.14, to find Claimant not disabled. R. IS. . . . , education, work experience, and ability to perform a full range of light work activity, grid rule 202.14 . . . of jobs in the national economy, and was therefore “not disabled within the framework” of grid rule 202.14 . . .

C. MARTIN, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 501 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Ind. 2007)

. . . capacity for light work, and the claimants age, education and work experience, Medical-Vocational Rules 202.14 . . . sedentary work, and the claimants age, education and work experience, Medical-Vocational Rules 201.14 and 202.14 . . . and limitations do not allow her to perform the full range of light work, using Rules 201.14, 201.21, 202.14 . . . Accordingly, using Rules 202.14, 202.21, 202.14 and 202.21 as a framework for decisionmaking, she is . . .

LUCAS, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 184 F. App'x 204 (3d Cir. 2006)

. . . The relevant Grid rule, 202.14, holds that individuals closely approaching advanced age (50 to 54) are . . . Looking at Lucas’s chronological age along with his background, Rule 202.14 indicated a finding of no . . . Rule 202.06 is identical to Rule 202.14, except that it applies where the individual is of “advanced . . . The government and the District Court conflate the necessary analysis under Rule 202.14— whether Lucas . . .

A. CHARLTON, v. B. BARNHART,, 398 F. Supp. 2d 295 (D. Del. 2005)

. . . P, App. 2, Tbl. 2, R. 202.14. . . .

M. PORTWOOD, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 396 F. Supp. 2d 799 (E.D. Mich. 2005)

. . . Based on that finding and using Medical Vocational Rule 202.14 as a framework, the ALJ found that the . . .

M. BREWSTER, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 145 F. App'x 542 (6th Cir. 2005)

. . . As part of that analysis, Judge Gajewski would have consulted Grid Rule 202.14, set forth at 20 C.F.R . . .

S. LONGWORTH, v. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,, 402 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2005)

. . . non-transferable), the administrative law judge consulted the Medical Vocational Guidelines, specifically Rule 202.14 . . .

D. MONROE, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 372 F. Supp. 2d 976 (S.D. Tex. 2005)

. . . Based on the testimony of the vocational expert, and using Rules 202.14 and 202.21, Appendix 2, Sub-part . . .

J. ROLAND, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 111 F. App'x 865 (8th Cir. 2004)

. . . P, App. 2, Rule 202.14 (2004). . . .

K. EISELER, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1019 (E.D. Mich. 2004)

. . . Using Medical-Vocational Rule 202.14 as a framework for decision-making, he found a significant number . . .

F. GUTIERREZ, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 109 F. App'x 321 (10th Cir. 2004)

. . . P, App. 2, Table No. 2, Rule 202.14. . . .

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 . . .

W. JACOBY, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 93 F. App'x 939 (7th Cir. 2004)

. . . P, App. 2 §§ 202.14, 202.15 (2002). . . .

BAGWELL, Jr. v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 338 F. Supp. 2d 723 (S.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . Considering the claimant’s medical-vocational profile within the framework of Rules 202.21 and 202.14 . . .

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

. . . that are suitable as a framework for decision-making are Rules 202.09, 202.10, 202.11, 202.13, and 202.14 . . . properly assessed at the administrative level and therefore remains undetermined, Grid Rules 202.13 and 202.14 . . .

TIDWELL, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 88 F. App'x 82 (6th Cir. 2004)

. . . and had non-transferable work skills, which would dictate a finding of “not disabled” under MVG Ride 202.14 . . . P, app. 2, Rule 202.14, at 528 (2003). . . . perform in the national economy to make a finding of “ ‘not disabled’ ... within the framework of [Rule 202.14 . . .

CROOK, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 244 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (N.D. Ala. 2003)

. . . residual functional capacity to perform a full range of “light work” based on Medical-Vocational Rule 202.14 . . . P, App. 2, Table 2, Rule 202.14 in determining that plaintiff was not disabled. . . .

R. BATES, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 222 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (D. Kan. 2002)

. . . functional capacity, age, education and past relevant work experience, the framework of Rules 202.21 and 202.14 . . .

H. KIESER v. Jo BARNHART,, 222 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . Based on this RFC, the ALJ determined that the Medical-Vocational Guideline Rules 201.28 and 202.14 warranted . . .

GILLEN v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,, 199 F. Supp. 2d 900 (W.D. Wis. 2001)

. . . capacity for light work, and the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, section 404.1569 and Rule 202.14 . . . Considering the claimant’s additional nonexertional limitations within the framework of the above-cited rule 202.14 . . .

A. FAULKNER, v. R. GLICKMAN,, 172 F. Supp. 2d 732 (D. Md. 2001)

. . . . § 202.14(c), a creditor’s failure to comply with § 202.9 “is not a violation if it results from an . . . not in any event an actionable violation because it was the result of an “inadvertent error” under § 202.14 . . .

D. S. EDWARDS, v. COMMUNICATIONS,, 189 F.R.D. 433 (D. Nev. 1999)

. . . . § 202.14, and various analogous state statutes. . . .

ELIAS, v. S. APFEL,, 54 F. Supp. 2d 172 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . Furthermore, the ALJ cited Rule 202.14 of Table No. 2, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Part 404 of the Regulations . . . The ALJ also held that “the claimant is not disabled within the framework of Rule 202.14 of Table No. . . . Further, the ALJ held that Rule 202.14 of Table No. 2, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Part 404 of the Regulations . . .

A. BARRETT, v. S. APFEL,, 40 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D. Mass. 1999)

. . . Pt. 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Table 2, § 202.14. . . .

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

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

DANIELS, v. S. APFEL,, 154 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 1998)

. . . capacity for light work, and the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, section 404.1569 and Rule 202.14 . . .

LATIMORE, v. CITIBANK FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Ed, 151 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 1998)

. . . . § 202.14(c). So the presumption did not attach. Cf. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. . . .

In FARRIS, FARRIS, v. JEFFERSON BANK,, 194 B.R. 931 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1996)

. . . Reserve are codified in Regulation B at Title 12 Code of Federal Regulations (“C.F.R.”) parts 201.1-202.14 . . .

J. FRANKL, v. E. SHALALA,, 47 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. 1995)

. . . Therefore, the ALJ found that Frankl was not disabled, citing Rule 202.14, Table No. 2 of Appendix 2, . . .

FOWLER, v. E. SHALALA,, 46 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 1995)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Table 2, Rule 202.14. On Mr. . . .

DISTASIO, v. E. SHALALA,, 47 F.3d 348 (9th Cir. 1995)

. . . available to Distasio, but only produced evidence of sedentary work available to him, the use of grid rule 202.14 . . .

CLINE, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 875 F. Supp. 435 (N.D. Ohio 1995)

. . . capacity for light work, and the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, section 404.1569 and Rule 202.14 . . .

SIBLEY, v. SHALALA,, 863 F. Supp. 801 (N.D. Ill. 1994)

. . . capacity for light work along with plaintiffs age, education, and work experience, the ALJ consulted Rule 202.14 . . .

SILVERMAN v. EASTRICH MULTIPLE INVESTOR FUND, L. P., 857 F. Supp. 447 (E.D. Pa. 1994)

. . . . §§ 202.1-202.14, states that: a creditor shall not require the signature of an applicant’s spouse or . . .

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. A. SKOTZKE, E., 881 F. Supp. 364 (S.D. Ind. 1994)

. . . . § 202.14(b)(2). . . .

FARBAKHSH, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,, 20 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 1994)

. . . . § 202.14 (1993) (effective Oct. 1, 1990). . . .

E. JONES v. CITIBANK, FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK,, 844 F. Supp. 437 (N.D. Ill. 1994)

. . . . § 202.14(b)(2). . . .

J. PIERCE, v. CITIBANK SOUTH DAKOTA N. A. a a, 843 F. Supp. 646 (D. Or. 1994)

. . . issue of fact as to whether the failure to notify was due to inadvertent error excusable under Section 202.14 . . . Section 202.14(c) provides that “[a] creditor’s failure to comply with Sections ... 202.9, 202.10 ... . . . as to the defense of inadvertent error because Citibank did not satisfy the requirement of Section 202.14 . . . specific reasons after the written request of Linda Pierce constituted inadvertent error under Section 202.14 . . .

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 . . .

R. HARRELL, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 862 F.2d 471 (5th Cir. 1988)

. . . P, App. 2, Rule 202.14. . . .

M. STUNKARD v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. STUNKARD, 841 F.2d 57 (3d Cir. 1988)

. . . was 52 years old and had a high school diploma at the time of the AU’s decision, the AU applied Rules 202.14 . . . P., Appendix 2, prior to the AU’s reaching his conclusion, on the basis of Rules 202.14 and 202.15, Table . . .

R. WHITING, v. R. BOWEN, J. POLUS, v. R. BOWEN,, 671 F. Supp. 1219 (W.D. Wis. 1987)

. . . The administrative law judge proceeded to apply Rule 202.14 of 20 C.F.R. . . . law judge was careful to mention the evidence on the record in his decision, his application of Rule 202.14 . . .

E. GAMER, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 815 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir. 1987)

. . . C.F.R., Pt. 404, App. 2, §§ 201.10 and 201.14 (1984) with 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, App. 2, §§ 202.11 and 202.14 . . .

T. TALBOT, v. M. HECKLER,, 814 F.2d 1456 (10th Cir. 1987)

. . . He concluded that Rule 202.14 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines promulgated by the SSA provided the . . . P, app. 2, § 202.00, Table No. 2, Rule 202.14. . . . .

D. LEWIS, v. M. HECKLER,, 808 F.2d 1293 (8th Cir. 1987)

. . . ” category, had a high school education, and had previous work experience of a skilled nature, Rule 202.14 . . .

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

. . . ’s work capacity, age, education and prior work experience, the AU determined that Rules 202.13 and 202.14 . . .

T. COOPER, Jr. D. P. M. E. D. P. M. v. FORSYTH COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, INC. P. F. P. J. H. A. G. D. J. F. M. D. M. D. F. M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. B. M. D. E. M. D. G. M. D. T. M. D. P. M. D. G. M. D. M. D. E. M. D. a, 789 F.2d 278 (4th Cir. 1986)

. . . . §§ 90-202.2 to -202.14 (1985). . . . .

A. SRYOCK, v. M. HECKLER,, 764 F.2d 834 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . . § 404.1567), except for work involving a “heavily polluted environment”; and that, under Rule 202.14 . . .

F. SALISBURY v. HECKLER,, 601 F. Supp. 516 (D. Md. 1985)

. . . (Tr. 12 citing to CFR § 404.1569 and to Rule 202.14, Table No. 2 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations . . . Appeals Council wrote: Based on the claimant’s exertional limitations only, Section 404.1569 and Rule 202.14 . . .

W. GUTHRIE, v. M. HECKLER,, 587 F. Supp. 1471 (M.D.N.C. 1984)

. . . Appendix 2 indicates that plaintiff was disabled as of his 55th birthday (June 18, 1980), but that Rule 202.14 . . . The defendant has not contended that Rule 202.14 should apply conclusively in the case or that vocational . . .

COCA- COLA COMPANY, a v. GEMINI RISING, INC., 346 F. Supp. 1183 (E.D.N.Y. 1972)

. . . Section 202.14(c), pertaining to Class K in which defendant’s certificate was issued, distinctly provides . . .

ROTH GREETING CARDS, v. UNITED CARD COMPANY,, 429 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970)

. . . . § 202.14. . . .

BUTLER v. UNITED STATES WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION, 68 F. Supp. 441 (E.D. Pa. 1946)

. . . . § 4529 is hereby granted and the damages are fixed at $202.14, with interest and costs to be paid by . . .