The issue in this case is whether proposed amendments to Rule 12A-1.070 are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Petitioners and Intervenors challenge Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(1) and (4)(a) and (b). Respondent published the amendments in the Florida Administrative Law Weekly on March 18, 1994 and June 10, 1994. As described in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, the proposed rule amendments address, among other things, the taxation of payments to airport authorities from concessionaires like rental car companies and airport restaurants. The law imposes a sales tax on payments for the use or occupancy of real property, whether the agreement consists of a lease or a license to use real property. The main dispute in these cases is whether the proposed rule amendments illegally extend the sales tax to payments for intangibles like a concession, franchise, or privilege to do business.Proposed rule invalidly extended sales tax to non-rent payments for concessions.

This proceeding arises out of the Department of Revenue (Department) audit of the Petitioner, Co-Op Oil Company, Inc. (Co-Op), regarding the reporting and payment of motor fuel and special fuel taxes under Chapter 206, Chapter 212, Part II, and Chapter 336, Florida Statutes, for the period from January 1, 1986, through December 31, 1989. As reflected in the following preliminary statement, the parties have had several opportunities to discuss, argue and narrow the issues in this case through informal proceedings. There is no genuine dispute as to the applicable taxes or tax rates. At some points in the informal proceedings, Co-Op seemed to question the Department's decision to compute motor fuel and special fuel taxes on the "gross" gallons sold to Co-Op's consumers. But it is now clear that Co-Op concedes the Department's determination that those taxes are based on "gross" gallons. Co-Op now contends, in the alternative, either (1) that reporting and paying those taxes on Co-Op's purchases for later resale results in the same tax consequences or (2) that, by paying tax on its purchases, Co-Op actually overpaid its taxes. In addition, Co-Op makes the argument that, in the event Co-Op underpaid its taxes, the Department should be estopped from seeking payment of those taxes. There are no other genuine disputed issues in this case.Taxpayer reported and paid motor and special fuel tax on purchases, and collected on sales, which were larger due to expansion gains. No estoppel. Penalty.

Whether the rental payments for the use of property being used for bona fide agricultural purposes but not classified as agricultural property under Section 193.461, Florida Statutes, are exempt from the imposition of sales tax under Section 212.031(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes. Whether the property in question was granted agricultural classification under Section 193.461, Florida Statutes by the Property Appraiser of Sarasota County, Florida during the period in question, thereby exempting the rental payments for the use of such property from the imposition of sales tax under Section 212.031(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes.To be entitled to exemption from sales tax on the rental of agricultural, the property must be classified as agricultural property under 193.461.

At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner owes respondent a tax and surcharge, together with interest, on account of an unlawful sale, use, consumption, distribution, manufacture, derivation, production, transportation or storage of cannabis.Petitioner's conspiracy with another to purchase and sell marijuana rendered him liable for taxes and penalties incident to such transaction.

Whether Petitioner engaged in conduct that constitutes a taxable event under Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes.Tax assessment separate from criminal case; sale was unlawful sale as opposed to retail sale.

By stipulation of the parties, at issue is whether the definition of "amusement machine operator" in Emergency Rule 12AER91-2(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and the effective tax rate prescribed in Emergency Rule 12AER91-2(2), Florida Administrative Code, constitute invalid exercises of delegated authority.Definition of amusement machine operator in rule not invalid exercise of delegated authority.