Florida Eliminates Sales Tax on Commercial Rent: What Tenants and Landlords Need to Know

A major change is coming to Florida’s commercial real estate market—and it’s great news for both tenants and landlords. Starting October 1, 2025, businesses leasing commercial space in Florida will no longer have to pay state or local sales tax on their rent. This long-awaited move, signed into law by Governor DeSantis on June 30, 2025, is set to bring significant savings and simplify leasing for everyone involved.

Here’s what you need to know about this new law and how it will affect your lease, payments, and responsibilities.

What’s Changing?

Florida has been the only state in the nation to tax commercial lease payments. With the passage of House Bill 7031, that’s finally ending. Effective October 1, 2025, all state and local sales tax on commercial rent will be eliminated. This applies to office, retail, and industrial leases across the state.

What Tenants Should Know

Immediate Savings:
If you’re renting commercial space, your monthly rent just got less expensive. For example, a business paying $5,000 a month in rent and previously paying a 2% state sales tax (plus any local surtax) will save at least $100 a month, or $1,200 a year. In some counties, the savings will be even greater.

Lease Agreements:
Review your lease. Any clauses that reference “applicable sales tax” on rent will no longer apply after October 1, 2025. If you have automated payments set up, make sure you update them to remove the tax portion for rent due after that date.

Subleases:
If you sublease your space, let your subtenants know that sales tax will no longer be added to their rent payments after the change goes into effect.

What Landlords and Property Managers Should Do

Update Invoices and Billing:
Remove sales tax from rent invoices for occupancy periods starting October 1, 2025. Update your billing systems and templates to prevent accidental overcharging.

Remit Pre-Repeal Taxes:
Sales tax is still due for rent covering periods through September 30, 2025—even if tenants pay late. Make sure you remit all taxes collected for those periods.

Communicate with Tenants:
Let your tenants know about the change so there’s no confusion. Clear communication will help ensure a smooth transition.

Sales Tax Accounts:
After you’ve remitted all required taxes, you can close your sales tax account with the Florida Department of Revenue if you don’t have other taxable activities.

What’s Not Changing

Not all leases are covered by this repeal. The following will still be subject to sales tax in Florida:

·         Short-term residential rentals (leases under six months)

·         Parking facilities

·         Boat slips and docking

·         Self-storage units and aircraft hangars

Also, if you receive late payments for periods before October 1, 2025, those payments are still taxable—even if paid after the repeal date.

The Bottom Line

This repeal is a big win for Florida’s business community. Tenants will see real savings, and landlords will enjoy simpler billing and compliance. Both should review their leases, update their systems, and communicate with each other as the October 1, 2025, effective date approaches.

Florida’s commercial leasing landscape is about to get a lot more business-friendly. Get ready to take advantage of the change!

Have an Florida Department of Revenue Problem? 

    

Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini & Associates, P.A. 

 

 

for a FREE Tax HELP contact us at:

www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com 
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

Sources:

1.       https://www.gunster.com/newsroom/publications/florida-repeals-sales-tax-on-commercial-leases 

2.      https://www.bilzin.com/insights/publications/2025/07/fl-eliminates-state-sales-tax-on-commercial-rent      

3.      https://kaufmanrossin.com/blog/florida-bill-eliminates-sales-tax-on-commercial-rent-what-tenants-and-landlords-need-to-know/               

4.      https://www.deanmead.com/a-win-for-florida-businesses-property-owners-florida-ends-sales-tax-on-commercial-leases/ 

5.       https://roireal.estate/florida-commercial-rent-tax-repeal-2025/ 

6.      https://www.handfirm.com/blog/florida-to-eliminate-sales-tax-on-commercial-leases-what-property-owners-and-tenants-need-to-know/ 

7.       https://www.siegfriedrivera.com/blog/florida-eliminates-sales-tax-on-commercial-real-estate-leases/    

8.      https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2025/6/florida-legislature-repeals-sales-tax-on-commercial-leases     

9.      https://www.gulatilaw.com/florida-repeals-sales-tax-on-commercial-leases-what-property-owners-and-tenants-need-to-know/

10. https://www.kbgrp.com/individual-and-business-tax-consulting/sales-tax-on-commercial-rents-eliminated-under-new-florida-law-update-for-landlords-and-tenants.html

Tax Court Confirms: Partnership Penalties Can Survive Even If the Underlying Tax Is Abated

The recent Tax Court decision in Moxon Corporation v. Commissioner delivers a significant message for anyone involved with partnership tax matters: partnership-level penalties can be assessed and collected even if the underlying tax deficiency is wiped out due to a procedural error.

Background: What Happened?

Moxon Corporation was a partner in a fund that generated substantial losses from complex foreign currency transactions. The IRS challenged these losses and, after years of litigation, issued notices of deficiency (SNODs) to Moxon for both back taxes and hefty penalties. However, the IRS mailed these notices to the wrong address—a critical procedural misstep. As a result, the underlying tax deficiencies were abated; in other words, Moxon didn’t owe the tax because the IRS didn’t follow the proper process.

The Big Question: What About the Penalties?

Moxon argued that if the tax was abated, the penalties should be too. They pointed to the fact that the IRS initially included penalties in the same deficiency notices and argued that a penalty can’t stand if there’s no collectible tax.

The Court’s Take: Penalties Stand Alone

The Tax Court disagreed. Here’s why:

·         Penalties from Partnership Proceedings Are Different: Under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA), partnership-level penalties aren’t subject to the same “deficiency procedures” as regular tax assessments. The law specifically says these penalties can be assessed directly, even if the IRS messes up the mailing of a deficiency notice.

·         “Tax Imposed” Still Means Something: The Court said that even if the IRS can’t collect the tax because of a procedural error, the tax was still “imposed” for purposes of calculating penalties. The penalty is based on what the correct tax would have been, not what the IRS can actually collect.

·         Procedural Errors Don’t Save You from Penalties: Mailing the notice to the wrong address meant the tax couldn’t be collected, but it didn’t erase the penalty liability that was determined at the partnership level.

What This Means for Taxpayers

This decision is a wake-up call for anyone involved in partnerships facing IRS scrutiny. 

Even If You Escape The Underlying Tax Because of a Technicality, Partnership-Level Penalties Can Still Stick.

Your main recourse to challenge these penalties is either through a refund suit or by raising specific defenses during a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing.

Have an IRS Tax Problem? 

    

Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini & Associates, P.A. 

 

 

for a FREE Tax HELP contact us at:

www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com 
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions: What You Need to Know & Impact on IRS Firings

In a decision with major implications for American law and government, the Supreme Court recently put a sharp check on the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The ruling, handed down in June 2025, didn’t ban these sweeping orders outright, but it made clear they should be used only in the rarest of circumstances. Here’s what happened and what it means for you.

The Basics: What Are Nationwide Injunctions?
A nationwide injunction is a court order that stops the federal government from enforcing a law, policy, or executive order anywhere in the United States, not just for the people who brought the lawsuit, but for everyone. Over the past several years, these injunctions have become a go-to tool for groups opposing presidential or federal agency actions, allowing a single judge to put the brakes on major policy changes across the entire country.

The Case That Sparked the Change
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA came in response to lawsuits challenging a Trump-era executive order on birthright citizenship. The lower courts had blocked the order nationwide, but the Supreme Court didn’t rule on the constitutionality of the policy itself. Instead, it focused on whether judges have the authority to issue such broad injunctions.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, said that nationwide injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority” given to federal courts by Congress. 

In Most Cases, Judges Should Only Grant Relief To The
Actual Plaintiffs In A Case, Not To Everyone In The Country.

The Court left open the possibility of a broader injunction if it’s absolutely necessary to provide “complete relief” to the plaintiffs, but this exception is expected to be very rare.

What Happens Now?
This decision means that federal judges can no longer routinely block federal policies nationwide. If you want to challenge a federal law or policy on behalf of a large group of people, you’ll probably need to file a class action lawsuit, a more complicated and time-consuming process than simply asking for a nationwide injunction. The ruling is seen as a win for the executive branch, which has long argued that nationwide injunctions give too much power to unelected judges. On the other hand, advocacy groups worry that it will be much harder to stop controversial federal policies quickly, potentially leaving some people without protection while cases wind their way through the courts.

The Bigger Picture

This ruling isn’t just about birthright citizenship, it’s about who gets to decide the reach of federal power. 

By Limiting Nationwide Injunctions, The Supreme Court
Has Shifted The Balance Away From The Courts
And Toward The Executive Branch.

While the door isn’t completely closed to broad injunctions, they’ll now be the exception, not the rule. Expect future legal battles to focus more on class actions and specific, case-by-case relief.

Bottom Line
The Supreme Court has made it much harder for federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This change will have a big impact on how quickly new federal policies can be challenged and stopped, and it’s likely to shape the way future presidents, judges, and advocates approach major legal fights.

Impact on IRS Layoffs
On March 25, 2005 we posted The IRS ‘Reinstated’ 7,000 Workers, But They Are Not Returning To Work where we discussed that the District Court determined that probationary employees are being rehired but then placed on administrative leave "en masse," the order said. 

“This is not allowed by the preliminary injunction, for it would not restore the services the preliminary injunction intends to restore.” Both judges ordered that the agencies offer to reinstate any probationary employees who had improperly been terminated. 

Neither order was a final decision in the case and the federal government will pay about 7,000 IRS probationary employees, who were laid off less than a month ago, not to work while lawsuits over layoffs wind their way through the court system, the agency said in an email.  

Now it appears that under this Supreme Court ruling, the District Court injunction only applies to those individuals who are parties to the case and the remaining 7000 workers can be fired.

Have an IRS Tax Problem? 

    

Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini & Associates, P.A. 

 

 

for a FREE Tax HELP contact us at:

www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com 
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243