Leon FL Administrative law and Privacy Lawyers | James Franc -- eLawyers

15-006901 GLOBAL HOOKAH DISTRIBUTORS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 08, 2015

The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the “Department”), appropriately and correctly assessed the taxes owed by Petitioner, Global Hookah Distributors, Inc. (“Global Hookah”), on other tobacco products (“OTP”) for the period January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2013. Global Hookah also asserts as an issue in this case whether it has a “substantial nexus” with Florida such that the Department may assess and collect taxes under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. See Art. I, § 9, U.S. Const. Unless otherwise stated herein, all references to Florida Statutes shall be to the 2016 codification.Petitioner proved that the tax assessment by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, was not correct.

16-003105RU GLOBAL HOOKAH DISTRIBUTORS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 06, 2016

The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and 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 utilization of “best available information” in lieu of actual documents submitted by the taxpayer when performing audits to establish a tax assessment. Unless otherwise stated herein, all references to Florida Statutes shall be to the 2016 codification.There is no proof that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, relied upon an unadopted rule.

17-001562 INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF DESIGN, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 15, 2017

The issue in this case is whether Petitioners qualify for an exemption from paying sales tax on the lease of real property under sections 212.0602 and 212.08(7), Florida Statutes (2013),1/ from July 1, 2010, through April 30, 2013.Petitioners proved that they qualified for an exemption from sales tax under section 212.0602.

17-001563 INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF MERCHANDISING AND DESIGN, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 15, 2017

The issue in this case is whether Petitioners qualify for an exemption from paying sales tax on the lease of real property under sections 212.0602 and 212.08(7), Florida Statutes (2013),1/ from July 1, 2010, through April 30, 2013.Petitioners proved that they qualified for an exemption from sales tax under section 212.0602.

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.

16-006333 130 NE 40TH STREET, LLC, D/B/A MICHAEL'S GENUINE FOOD AND DRINK vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 28, 2016

The issues to be determined in this proceeding are 1) whether Respondent, the Department of Revenue (Respondent or the Department), demonstrated that it made an assessment against the taxpayer, as well as the factual and legal basis for the assessment; 2) whether Petitioner, 130 NE 40th Street, LLC, d/b/a Michael’s Genuine Food and Drink (Petitioner or Michael’s), is entitled to enterprise zone job credits (EZ credits) claimed on its sales and use tax returns for the audited period; and whether the penalty and interest assessed in the August 18, 2016, Notice of Decision is justified.DOR could not revisit its approval of enterprise zone credits to disallow them, but could verify credits against actual wages paid. Recommend assessment be reduced accordingly.

95-004771 DAYTONA WHEELS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (1995)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 26, 1995

Whether Respondent Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR) is entitled to further remittance as a result of a waste tire fee audit of Petitioner Daytona Wheels covering the period of January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1992 (the "audit period").Used tire fee constitutes a "tax" to which general revenue laws, including Section 213.756, Florida Statutes, apply and undistinguished collections are to be remitted.

95-003038RX FDR SERVICES CORPORATION OF FLORIDA vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (1995)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 16, 1995

Is Department of Revenue Rule 12A-1.096(1)(b),(1)(d), (4), and (5)(e)1, Florida Administrative Code, an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority? See Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.Rule was valid in its language which conditioned tax exemption on offering property for sale.

95-003113 FDR SERVICES CORPORATION OF FLORIDA vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (1995)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 21, 1995

Should the Department of Revenue grant Petitioner's request for a temporary tax exemption permit and request for refund of sales and use tax which has been paid under protest? See Section 212.08(5)(a) and (b)3a, Florida Statutes.Tax exemption permit and refund denied because property processed was not for sale.

James Francis McAuley