Filed: Apr. 26, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 26, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. _ No. 3D16-1549 Lower Tribunal No. DOR-14-109-AAAC _ Copper Chimney, Inc., Appellant, vs. State of Florida Department of Revenue, Appellee. An Appeal from the State of Florida Department of Revenue. Kogan Prober, P.A., and Pavel Kogan (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Ryann E. White (Tallahassee), Assistant Attorney
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 26, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. _ No. 3D16-1549 Lower Tribunal No. DOR-14-109-AAAC _ Copper Chimney, Inc., Appellant, vs. State of Florida Department of Revenue, Appellee. An Appeal from the State of Florida Department of Revenue. Kogan Prober, P.A., and Pavel Kogan (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Ryann E. White (Tallahassee), Assistant Attorney G..
More
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 26, 2017.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D16-1549
Lower Tribunal No. DOR-14-109-AAAC
________________
Copper Chimney, Inc.,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida Department of Revenue,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the State of Florida Department of Revenue.
Kogan Prober, P.A., and Pavel Kogan (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Ryann E. White (Tallahassee),
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LAGOA, SALTER, and LOGUE, JJ.
LOGUE, J.
Appellant, Copper Chimney, Inc., seeks review of the Department of
Revenue’s Final Order revoking its Certificate of Registration for failure to remit
sales taxes collected from its customers. The appellant argues that his due process
rights were violated. “A quasi-judicial hearing generally meets basic due process
requirements if the parties are provided notice of the hearing and an opportunity to
be heard.” Jennings v. Dade Cty.,
589 So. 2d 1337, 1340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
Given our review of the record, and under the facts of this case, there was no
violation of the appellant’s due process rights.
Affirmed.
2