welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Jeanette Elizabeth Moffa
Jeanette Elizabeth Moffa
Jeanette Elizabeth Moffa
Visitors: 44
0
Bar #117849(FL)     License for 10 years; Member in Good Standing
Fort Lauderdale FL

Are you Jeanette Elizabeth Moffa? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

19-003639RU  1701 COLLINS (MIAMI) OWNER, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 08, 2019
The issue in this unadopted-rule challenge is whether Respondent, in connection with the administration of the stamp tax, has formulated a statement of general applicability for allocating undifferentiated, lump-sum payments made in purchase- and-sale transactions involving joint real estate/personal property transfers; which meets the statutory definition of a rule but has not been adopted pursuant to the rulemaking procedure; and, as used by Respondent, has the effect of creating an entitlement to collect tax on 100% of the undifferentiated consideration.Respondent, for purposes of the stamp tax, has formulated an unadopted rule for allocating undifferentiated lump-sum payments made in purchase-and-sale transactions involving joint real estate/personal property transfers.
19-001880  BAYFRONT HMA MEDICAL CENTER, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 11, 2019
These consolidated cases involve three issues: (1) whether the Department of Revenue's ("the Department") assessment against Bayfront HMA Medical Center, LLC ("Bayfront"), for sales tax on commercial rent payments is erroneous; (2) whether Bayfront is entitled to a refund for overpayment of sales tax on commercial rent payments from August 1, 2014, to July 31, 2017; and (3) whether Bayfront is entitled to a refund for overpayment of sales tax on commercial rent payments from August 1, 2017, to May 31, 2018.Bayfront Baby Place is not exempt from tax as a lease for re-lease or a space used exclusively as a dwelling unit. Recommend sustaining assessment and denying refund applications.
19-001881  BAYFRONT HMA MEDICAL CENTER, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 11, 2019
These consolidated cases involve three issues: (1) whether the Department of Revenue's ("the Department") assessment against Bayfront HMA Medical Center, LLC ("Bayfront"), for sales tax on commercial rent payments is erroneous; (2) whether Bayfront is entitled to a refund for overpayment of sales tax on commercial rent payments from August 1, 2014, to July 31, 2017; and (3) whether Bayfront is entitled to a refund for overpayment of sales tax on commercial rent payments from August 1, 2017, to May 31, 2018.Bayfront Baby Place is not exempt from tax as a lease for re-lease or a space used exclusively as a dwelling unit. Recommend sustaining assessment and denying refund applications.
19-001882  BAYFRONT HMA MEDICAL CENTER, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 11, 2019
These consolidated cases involve three issues: (1) whether the Department of Revenue's ("the Department") assessment against Bayfront HMA Medical Center, LLC ("Bayfront"), for sales tax on commercial rent payments is erroneous; (2) whether Bayfront is entitled to a refund for overpayment of sales tax on commercial rent payments from August 1, 2014, to July 31, 2017; and (3) whether Bayfront is entitled to a refund for overpayment of sales tax on commercial rent payments from August 1, 2017, to May 31, 2018.Bayfront Baby Place is not exempt from tax as a lease for re-lease or a space used exclusively as a dwelling unit. Recommend sustaining assessment and denying refund applications.
19-001879  1701 COLLINS (MIAMI) OWNER, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 11, 2019
The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund of nearly $500 thousand on an alleged overpayment of the stamp tax, where Petitioner paid the tax based on the entire undifferentiated consideration it had received, as a lump-sum payment, from the sale of an operating hotel business comprising real estate, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property.Petitioner is entitled to a refund of overpayment of the stamp tax because it paid the tax based on the entire undifferentiated consideration it had received for real estate, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property.
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.
18-002772  GBR ENTERPRISES, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 30, 2018
Whether Respondent, Department of Revenue's ("Department"), B03 assessment against Petitioner, GBR Enterprises, Inc. ("GBR"), for sales tax and interest is incorrect.Vending machine company's arrangement with schools is in the nature of a service contract and not a license fee for use of real property, and therefore, DOR's proposed assessment is incorrect.
18-004475RX  GBR ENTERPRISES, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 23, 2018
As to DOAH Case No. 18-4475RX, whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.044(5)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in violation of section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.1/ As to DOAH Case No. 18-4992RU, whether the Department of Revenue's ("Department") Standard Audit Plan, Vending and Amusement Machines--Industry Specific, section 1.1.3.3 ("SAP") is an unadopted rule in violation of sections 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes.DOR exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority as to existing rule and the rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes law implemented. However, agency statement is not a rule.
18-004992RU  GBR ENTERPRISES, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 17, 2018
As to DOAH Case No. 18-4475RX, whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.044(5)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in violation of section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.1/ As to DOAH Case No. 18-4992RU, whether the Department of Revenue's ("Department") Standard Audit Plan, Vending and Amusement Machines--Industry Specific, section 1.1.3.3 ("SAP") is an unadopted rule in violation of sections 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes.DOR exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority as to existing rule and the rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes law implemented. However, agency statement is not a rule.
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.

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