The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 213
STATE REVENUE LAWS: GENERAL PROVISIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 213.12

213.12 Certain state-chartered financial institutions; immunity from certain state and local taxes.—

(1) All banks, trust companies, and Morris Plan banks now or hereafter chartered under the laws of the state shall have the same immunity from state and local taxation that national banking associations have from time to time under the statutes of the United States.

(2) All credit unions now or hereafter chartered under the laws of the state shall have the same immunity from state and local taxation that federally chartered credit unions have from time to time under the statutes of the United States.

(3) No tax may be imposed by the state or any of its political subdivisions on any savings and loan association or its franchise, surplus, deposits, assets, reserves, loans, or income which is greater than the least onerous imposed by the state on any other financial institution as defined in chapter 658.

History.—s. 1, ch. 72-153.

F.S. 213.12 on Google Scholar

F.S. 213.12 on Casetext

Amendments to 213.12

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 213.12

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 213.12.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE POYMANOV, a, 571 B.R. 24 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017)

. . . plan for Poymanov’s debts was received by the Russian Court within the term established under Article 213.12 . . .

UNITED STATES v. K. BEHNEZHAD,, 907 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 1990)

. . . Shayesteh was also ordered to make restitution to the securities brokerage firm in the amount of $17,-213.12 . . .

ARIZONA STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, MARICOPA COUNTY LEGAL AID CLIENTS, v. ARIZONA STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, 449 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1971)

. . . . § 213.12, and that the hearing examiner violated that regulation in doing so instead. . . . Since Arizona does not make that argument, we decline to discuss it. . “§ 213.12 — Time of Hearing. . . .

JOHN J. STARZEC v. THE UNITED STATES, 145 Ct. Cl. 25 (Ct. Cl. 1959)

. . . amounts of interest from his income tax returns, $57.14 in 1952, $106.89 in 1953, $134.58 in 1954, and $213.12 . . .

WICHITA COCA COLA BOTTLING CO. v. UNITED STATES, 61 F. Supp. 407 (N.D. Tex. 1945)

. . . 4,702.47 4.575.50 7,657.41 (126.97) 1932 3,226.87 3,319.37 7,749.91 92.50 1933 4,494.90 4,707.02 7.962.03 213.12 . . .