welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. Gerald J Donnini, II
Gerald J Donnini, II
Gerald J Donnini, II
Visitors: 90
0

Free consultations

Bar #91023(FL)     License for 14 years; Member in Good Standing
Tampa FL

Are you Gerald J Donnini, II? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

15-006108RU  FLORIDA BEE DISTRIBUTION, INC., D/B/A TOBACCO EXPRESS DISTRIBUTORS vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 28, 2015
The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco (the “Department”), is operating under an unadopted rule in its application of sections 210.276 and 210.30, Florida Statutes, which impose a surcharge and an excise tax, respectively, on tobacco products other than cigarettes or cigars, commonly known as other tobacco products (“OTP”), by calculating “wholesale sales price” as the full invoice price charged by OTP manufacturers to distributors, including any federal excise taxes (“FET”) and shipping charges reflected in the invoice price.The Department's statement of general applicability must be adopted as a rule. Petitioners are entitled to fees.
15-006148RU  PLANET TRADING, INC., AND MELBOURNE, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 30, 2015
The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco (the “Department”), is operating under an unadopted rule in its application of sections 210.276 and 210.30, Florida Statutes, which impose a surcharge and an excise tax, respectively, on tobacco products other than cigarettes or cigars, commonly known as other tobacco products (“OTP”), by calculating “wholesale sales price” as the full invoice price charged by OTP manufacturers to distributors, including any federal excise taxes (“FET”) and shipping charges reflected in the invoice price.The Department's statement of general applicability must be adopted as a rule. Petitioners are entitled to fees.
14-003496  BRANDY'S PRODUCTS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 24, 2014
The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, a licensed distributor of tobacco products, was required to pay an excise tax and surcharge, which the state levies on specified tobacco products, when it regularly brought into Florida shipments of a tobacco-containing product marketed as a cigar wrapper and known as a "blunt wrap."Petitioner was not required to pay the state excise tax and surcharge on specified tobacco products when it regularly purchased cases of a tobacco-containing cigar wrapper known as a "blunt wrap."
19-005900  SOUTHEAST PETRO DISTRIBUTORS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 06, 2019
The issues to be determined are whether Southeast Petro Distributors, Inc. (Petitioner or Southeast Petro), is entitled to a refund for taxes paid on its purchases of identified machinery and equipment based upon an exemption in section 212.08(5)(b), Florida Statutes; and, if so, whether Southeast Petro is entitled to statutory interest on the amount of any refund paid, pursuant to section 213.255, Florida Statutes.Petitioner did not establish it was entitled to a refund for purchase of dispensing pumps and underground tanks as a new or expanding business.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer