For a dollar per year, appellant, Capital City Country Club (CCCC), leases a 192-acre tract of land from the City of Tallahassee (City) on which it operates and maintains a private golf course. First, CCCC asserts that the property is exempt from ad valorem taxation because it paid an intangible property tax for its leasehold interest in the property. Second, CCCC contends that even if the property is subject to ad valorem and intangible property taxes, the appraiser erred in failing to deduct the value of CCCC’s leasehold interest from the fair market value of the property for purposes of calculating the ad valorem tax. We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court and find that CCCC failed to show that the subject property was improperly taxed. See Section 196.199(2), Florida Statutes; Schultz v. TM Florida-Ohio Realty Ltd. Partnership, 577 So.2d 573 (Fla. 1991); Valencia Center v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214 (Fla. 1989); City of Orlando v. Hausman, 534 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), review denied, 544 So.2d 199 (Fla. 1989); In re Advisory Opinion of the Governor, 509 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Valencia Center, Inc. v. Publix Super Markets, 464 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 475 So.2d 696 (Fla. 1985); Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Bryant, 170 So.2d 822 (Fla. 1964).

AFFIRMED.

*790ON MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC OR MOTION TO CERTIFY THE QUESTION

Appellant’s motion for rehearing en banc filed April 30, 1991, is denied. Appellant’s motion for certification of a question of great public importance, also filed April 30, 1991, is granted in part and denied in part. We amend the original opinion in this case to include the following certified question as one of great public importance:

IF IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE TO EXEMPT A NON-GOVERNMENT LEASEHOLD (BEING USED FOR OTHER THAN TAXABLE PURPOSES) FROM AD VALOREM TAXATION (BY RECLASSIFYING IT AS AN INTANGIBLE), WHICH AD VA-LOREM TAX TREATMENT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY CORRECT WITH REGARD TO THE GOVERNMENTAL LEASED FEE: TO TAX THE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY USED FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES AS AN UNEMCUMBERED FEE INTEREST, OR TO TAX THIS PROPERTY AS A DIVIDED INTEREST, EXCLUDING THE LESSEE’S INTEREST?

ERVIN, JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.