Judkins v. Dep’t of Revenue and Jose Briceno
Case No. 4D10-4579

We represented a mother in her appeal from the Department of Revenue’s child support order. The mother had sought an order requiring the father of her child to pay child support. Specifically, the mother’s application for child support enforcement sought financial contribution from the father for the child’s uncovered medical expenses. At the hearing, the mother introduced evidence that she paid over $10,000 in expenses due to the child’s severe asthma. The Department of Revenue order only awarded the mother $2,800 for this expense. Additionally, the hearing officer’s orally pronounced ruling stated that the mother was entitled to $26,368.00 in retroactive child support, but the written order erroneously stated that the mother was only entitled to $23,368.00.

On appeal, we argued that the Department had erred in failing to properly consider the child’s uncovered medical expenses and include those expenses in the child support calculation or order Briceno to pay them in accordance with his percentage of child support. We also argued that the written order should be amended to conform to the hearing officer’s oral pronouncement that awarded the mother $26,368.00 instead of $23,368.00. The Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed. The court reversed and remanded the award regarding medical expenses pursuant to section 61.30(8) Florida Statutes (2010), to provide for future uncovered expenses. The court also remanded for the lower tribunal to conform the final order to its oral pronouncement.

**[Note: At the time of this posting, the Fourth DCA mandate has not issued. The decision will not be final until disposition of a timely filed motion for rehearing.] **

Florida Dep’t of Revenue v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 4D10-456
June 22, 2011

The issue of the taxability of gasoline sales to the Seminole Tribe made off the reservation was presented to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.  The trial court granted the Seminole Tribe’s motion for summary judgment while denying the Department of Revenue’s (“DOR”) motion for summary judgment.  The trial court held that the Indian Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution prohibited the State of Florida from taxing any fuel consumed by the tribe on the reservation.
The Fourth DCA performed a de novo review of the matter and held that the Seminole Tribe was not entitled to a refund for taxes on gasoline purchased off the reservation, regardless of where or how it was used. The Court relied on Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005), where the Supreme Court upheld a motor-fuel tax imposed on non-Indian distributers who purchased the fuel off the reservation but ultimately delivered it to gas stations owned by the tribe and located on tribal lands.  In contrast, this case dealt with the purchase of gasoline outside of tribal lands by members of the Seminole Tribe. The Fourth DCA noted that it would be impossible to track the usage of the fuel.  Also, the Court acknowledged that because the tribe reaps the benefit of untaxed gasoline purchased on the reservation regardless of where it is used, common sense would suggest that fuel purchased off the reservation should be subject to the fuel tax, regardless of where it is used.  As a result, the Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Seminole Tribe and held that “off-reservation transactions, even by tribal members, are susceptible of taxation without running afoul of the Indian Commerce Clause.”