Whether the underlined portions of Respondent's proposed Rule 12D-10.0044(4)(b) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority: (b) If the property appraiser does not provide the information within the time required by subsection (3) and at least five calendar days before the hearing, the taxpayer shall be entitled to reschedule the hearing. If the property appraiser provides the information within the time set forth in subsection (5) but less than five calendar days before the hearing, the petitioner's submission of the information shall qualify as a written request for rescheduling as provided in subsection (9). In such circumstances, the clerk shall reschedule the hearing upon being so advised by the petitioner. Whether the underlined portion of Respondent's proposed Rule 12D-10.0044(5) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority: (5)(a) The exchange in subsection (2) and (3) shall be delivered by regular or certified U.S. mail, personal delivery, overnight mail, FAX or email. It shall be sufficient if at least three FAX or email attempts are made to such address (sic). If more than one FAX number is provided, three (3) attempts must be made for each number to satisfy this requirement. The taxpayer and property appraiser may agree to a different timing and method of exchange. "Provided" means made available in the manner designated by the property appraiser or by the petitioner in his/her submission of information, as via email, facsimile, U.S. mail, or at the property appraiser's office for pick up. If the petitioner does not designate his/her desired manner for receiving the property appraiser's information, the information shall be provided by the property appraiser by depositing it in the U.S. mail. Whether Respondent's proposed Rule 12D-10.0044(8) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority: (8) The information shall be in writing and may be delivered by regular or certified U.S. mail or personal delivery so that the information shall be received timely.The challenged portions of the proposed rule pertaining to evidence swap between the taxpayer and the property appraiser in the value adjustment board hearings are not invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.

Whether Petitioner is liable for use tax as a result of the entry and participation in a fishing tournament of one of its yachts held in inventory for resale.Use of boat in fishing tournament to promote business other than sale of boat subjected dealer to use tax.

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner should be assessed for use taxes, interest and penalties related to the purchase of certain fuel-pumping equipment, on which sales tax was allegedly unpaid to the supplier. It must also be determined whether the placement of storage tanks, pumps, and appurtenant fueling equipment at the Destin Marina constituted a license or lease of the real property upon which that equipment was placed and, therefore, whether the $.15 per gallon fee paid to the marina owner for pumping and selling the Petitioner's fuel should have been the subject of sales tax or, conversely, whether the placement of the pumping equipment and fuel at the marina site was a bailment, for purposes of the rule cited below and, therefore, a non-taxable transaction.Recommend Agency upholding the assessment of Petitioner for sales and use tax, as well as applicable interest and penalties.

The issue presented is whether HMY New Yacht Sales, Inc., is liable for the payment of use tax, together with penalty and interest, on a yacht which it purchased for resale and for use as a demonstrator.Registered boat dealer not subject to use tax on vessel purchased for resale and used only as a demonstrator despite change in treatment on its books.

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner owes additional sales and use tax, plus penalties and interest, on the purchase of bowling equipment during the audit period August 1, 1987 to July 31, 1992.Petitioner proved it paid sales tax on purchase of equipment with written offer indicating tax included and testimony offer was accepted.

On June 24, 1992, Petitioners Kenneth and Tina Blume (Petitioners) recorded a quit claim deed at the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Santa Rosa County, Florida. Respondent Department of Revenue (Respondent) subsequently assessed Petitioners additional documentary stamp taxes pursuant to Sections 201.01 and 201.02, Florida Statutes (1991), and Rules 12B-4.004 through 12B-4.014, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners protested the assessment and filed a Petition for administrative hearing on March 7, 1995. Respondent referred the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer on March 13, 1995.Respondent properly assessed additional tax on quit claim deed transferring an interest in real property from husband to husband and wife.

The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner owes sales, use, intangible taxes, penalties and interest; and, if so, the amount.Assessment must be considered correct where taxpayer failed to substantiate otherwise.

At hearing, Mr. Porter, as sole stockholder and owner of the two corporate entities, Gary Porter, Inc. and Gary, Inc., the petitioners in these two consolidated cases, testified in behalf of both petitioners. Mr. Porter joined with Respondent in the introduction of a joint exhibit. Accepted into evidence, Joint Exhibit No. 1, is a composite of stipulated findings of fact together with an attachment of six exhibits, A through F. Neither party offered any other exhibits.Purchaser of boats in isolated sales owe sales tax, penalities and interest when seller failed to pay tax as he had agreed to do.

Whether Petitioner owes the State of Florida additional tax, penalties and interest.Sales of cookies by shops in malls were not for consumption off the premises. Therefore not exempt from sales tax.

As presented in the petition to determine the invalidity of a proposed rule filed on February 14, 1992, and as refined in the parties' joint stipulation filed at hearing on September 14, 1992, the issue presented for disposition is the validity of proposed amendments to rules 12D-6.001(3) and 12D-6.002(1)(d)1. and 2., F.A.C.Rules that add no requirements to the law implemented are valid in spite of Petitioner claim that both law and rules are unconstitutional.