This case involves the issue of whether the Petitioner, Robert P. Herring, should be required to pay documentary tax and documentary surtax on three quitclaim deeds transferring his ex-wife's interest in jointly owned property to the Petitioner. On May 3, 1982, the Department of Revenue, by letter, notified Mr. Robert P. Herring, through his counsel, Mr. Frank M. Townsend, that the Department intended to make an audit change pursuant to Chapter 201 of the Florida Statutes based upon a mortgage executed by Mr. Herring and recorded at Official Record Book 439, Page 654 of the Official Records of Osceola County. This mortgage was given by Mr. Herring in exchange for his ex-wife's transfer of her interest in the three parcels, which were the subject of the three quitclaim deeds referred to above. In response to the audit report, the Petitioner, on November 1, 1982, filed his request for a formal hearing and his written objection to the audit change. At the formal hearing in this matter, the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and called no other witnesses. The Respondent called as its only witness, Mr. John H. McCormick, a tax auditor for the Department of Revenue. The Petitioner offered and had admitted seven exhibits and the Respondent offered and had admitted nine exhibits. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the undersigned Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not adopted in this order, they were considered by the Hearing Officer and determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.Consideration exchanged hands in quitclaim deed where mortgage and promissory note were exchanged, therefore, surtax and stamp tax are due.

This concerns the issue of whether wooden stakes utilized in the growing of tomatoes in the State of Florida are exempt from the Florida State sales tax under Florida Statute 212.08(5)(a). At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses James Felix Price and George Marlowe, Jr. The Respondent called no witnesses. The Petitioner offered and had admitted three exhibits and the Respondent offered and had admitted into evidence two exhibits. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are consistent with the findings herein they were adopted by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions in this Order, they were considered by the Hearing Officer and rejected as being not supported by the evidence or unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.Tomato stakes are not included in statutory exemption for sales tax and should be taxed.

Petitioner didn't submit exemption certificate and tax remittance nor prove equitable estoppel. There was no transaction or statement and no exceptional circumstances.

Petitioner fails to prove that not paying certain intangible taxes was reasonable and that it was not due to willful neglect or fraud. Estoppel is inapplicable.

7 Whether Documentary Stamp Taxes pursuant to Section 201.08(1), Florida Statutes, are due on that part of a written obligation to pay money which purports to renew, extend, restate, modify and consolidate the borrower's preexisting debt to the same lender, where another part of the written obligation to pay money makes a new or additional loan to the borrower.Loan which renewed pre-existing debt & extended additional loan was an enlargement of original loan. Doc stamps due on both new & original loan.

Sales and use tax assessment on rental payments pursuant to a long-term, sophisticated sale and lease-back arrangement upheld.

Petitioner bid knowing it would be liable for taxes on final conveyance to Dade County by warranty deed. Petitionerdoesn't fall within any exemptions and must pay taxes.

Petitioner did not timely file petition to challenge tax. Audit is prima facie correct and Petitioner has burden to rebut.

Petitioner wants electricity used in producing products to be tax free part of products. Recommend denial. Insufficient evidence presented.

Sale of postal service uniforms is not sales-tax exempt because federal government is not a direct purchaser, but rather a third party payor.