1(1) 2The Legislature finds that the Florida Supreme Court opinion in 12Crescent Miami Center, LLC v. Florida Department of Revenue, 21903 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 2005), interprets s. 29201.0230in a manner that permits tax avoidance inconsistent with the intent of the Legislature at the time the statute was amended in 1990.
53(2) 54The Legislature finds that the opinion of the District Court of Appeal for the Third District of Florida in 73Crescent Miami Center, LLC v. Florida Department of Revenue, 82857 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2003), interprets s. 92201.0293in a manner that prevents tax avoidance consistent with the intent of the Legislature at the time the statute was amended in 1990.
116(3) 117The Legislature recognizes that the Supreme Court’s opinion in 126Crescent127is limited to the facts of the case and accepts the court’s interpretation of s. 142201.02143that no consideration exists when owners of real property unencumbered by a mortgage convey an interest in such property to an artificial entity whose ownership is identical to the ownership of the real property before conveyance. The Legislature expressly rejects any application of the court’s interpretation where the facts are not comparable to the facts in 199Crescent200. However, because the Supreme Court’s interpretation, combined with other settled law regarding the application of s. 217201.02, 218allows for the tax-free transfer of ownership interests in real property from one owner to another through the use of artificial entities, it is the Legislature’s intent by this act to impose the documentary stamp tax when the beneficial ownership of real property is transferred to a new owner or owners by the use of techniques that apply the Supreme Court’s decision in 281Crescent282in combination with transfers of ownership of, or distributions from, artificial entities.
