STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
VMOB, LLC,
vs.
Petitioner,
Case No. 18-5005
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Respondent.
/
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On March 28, 2019, Hetal Desai, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), held a final hearing in this cause by video teleconference with sites in Tampa and Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: William B. Meacham, Esquire
308 East Plymouth Street Tampa, Florida 33603
For Respondent: Mark S. Urban, Esquire
Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether factual and legal grounds support the Department of Revenue’s jeopardy findings and assessment, dated May 26, 2017.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On May 26, 2017, the Department of Revenue (Department), pursuant to section 213.732, Florida Statutes (2017), issued a Notice of Jeopardy Finding (Jeopardy Finding) and a Notice of Final Assessment (Assessment) to VMOB, LLC, d/b/a Cheap on Howard (VMOB). The Jeopardy Finding alleged collection of the associated tax, penalty, fees, and interest would be jeopardized by delay based on the dishonored checks issued for payment.1/ The Assessment was in the amount of $16,606.17.
On August 14, 2017, at 9:56 p.m., VMOB faxed to the Department a letter protesting the Jeopardy Finding and Assessment. The letter alleged VMOB did not receive adequate notice of the May 26, 2017, notices. The Department eventually allowed VMOB to pursue an administrative remedy.
On September 19, 2018, the Department transferred the matter to DOAH, where it was assigned to an administrative law judge and set for hearing. After one continuance, a final hearing was set for March 28, 2019.
An Order granting the Department’s Request to Take Judicial Notice was entered December 10, 2018, and the undersigned takes official recognition of a tax warrant recorded in the official records of Hillsborough County, Florida; and the Recommended Order and Final Orders in consolidated DOAH Case Nos. 17-3452
and 17-3630. A pre-hearing conference was held March 22, 2019, by telephone.
At the final hearing, the Department called one witness, Rolinda Smoak, and offered Respondent’s Exhibits 1 through 19, which were admitted into evidence. VMOB called one witness, Verna Bartlett, and admitted Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 5, which were admitted into evidence.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties indicated a transcript would be ordered. The parties agreed to submit their proposed recommended orders (PROs) 30 days after the filing of the transcript.
The Transcript was filed on April 11, 2019. Respondent requested an extension to file its PRO, which was granted. Both parties timely filed PROs on May 13, 2019, which have been considered.
Unless otherwise indicated, all rule and statutory references are to the 2017 versions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Parties and People
The Department is the state agency responsible for implementing and administering the revenue laws of the State of Florida, including the laws relating to the imposition and collection of the state’s sales and use tax, pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes.
VMOB is a Florida limited liability company with its principal address at 317 South Howard Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33606; and its mailing address and tax registration address as Post Office Box 342681, Tampa, Florida 33694. For the purposes of these proceedings VMOB is the taxpayer.
Verna Bartlett is, and has been since its inception, VMOB’s managing member responsible for collecting and remitting VMOB's sales and use tax.
Lewis Mustard became VMOB’s Power of Attorney (POA) in October of 2016.
Notice to VMOB
Pursuant to the Department’s “Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative” form submitted by VMOB (POA form), receipt of notices or other written communications “by either the representative or the taxpayer will be considered receipt by both.”
The POA form further provides that “[c]ertain computer- generated notices and other written communications cannot be issued in duplicate due to certain system constraints. Therefore, [the Department] will send these communications to only the taxpayer at his or her tax registration address.”
The notices of the Jeopardy Finding and Final Assessment in this case were mailed together to VMOB’s mailing address via certified mail and regular USPS mail. The certified
mailing was returned unclaimed; the regular USPS mailing was not returned.
Ms. Bartlett acknowledged receiving the notices and eventually brought this protest.
The undersigned finds VMOB received notice of the Jeopardy Finding and Assessment.
VMOB’s Electronic Filings
Beginning January 2016, VMOB was required to file and pay its sales tax electronically, unless it received a waiver. See § 213.755(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 12-24.003.
The Department established at the hearing that it repeatedly made VMOB aware of the electronic filing requirement. For example, each tax bill sent to VMOB indicated payment was to be made electronically; and Department staff explained the electronic filing and payment requirements to Ms. Bartlett on August 18, 2015.
On April 29, 2016, the Department sent a fax to
Ms. Bartlett, which included a reminder of the electronic filing and payment requirement. In response, Ms. Bartlett stated, “I will begin filing electronically with the May [2016] sales tax return.”
On December 29, 2016, the Department also notified VMOB’s POA of the electronic filing and payment requirement.
Ms. Bartlett believed that as long as she paid a penalty, she did not have to file tax returns or tax payments electronically. However, there was insufficient evidence to support this belief.
The undersigned finds VMOB has never filed or paid its sales tax electronically.
VMOB’s Tax Jeopardy
VMOB issued worthless checks for sales tax due for the periods of June 2016, July 2016, and September 2016 through February 2017. As of May 26, 2017, the date of the Jeopardy Finding, the dishonored checks for these time periods had not been satisfied, and VMOB had an outstanding tax liability totaling $104,853.60.
VMOB’s April 2017 sales tax payment was due no later than May 20, 2017. See § 212.15(1), Fla. Stat. The April 2017 payment had not been received by the Department as of May 26, 2017.
The competent and credible evidence establishes that as of May 26, 2017, payment of the March 2017 and April 2017 sales tax was jeopardized by delay. Payment of VMOB’s sales tax remains in jeopardy given that VMOB has yet to submit payment requirements through electronic filing, and as of the date of the hearing, these liabilities were still outstanding.
As a result, the undersigned finds the Department properly issued the Jeopardy Finding.
VMOB’s Tax Liability
The sales tax reporting periods at issue in the Jeopardy Findings and Assessment are March 2017 and April 2017.
The total tax due for the March 2017 reporting period, as reflected on VMOB’s sales tax return and as reflected on the Assessment, is $6,668.73.
The total tax due for the April 2017 reporting period, as established at the hearing, is $5,651.75.2/
VMOB issued check number 40552 in the amount of
$6,668.73 from a Suntrust Bank account on April 20, 2017.
VMOB issued check number 40553 in the amount of
$5,651.75 from a Suntrust Bank account on May 22, 2017.
Both of these checks (for VMOB’s March and April 2017 sales tax payments) were dishonored by Suntrust Bank with the notation “Return Reason – Unable to Locate Account.”
Ms. Bartlett contends she was unaware worthless checks were being issued for the June 2016 through April 2017 periods until late May or early June of 2017. Given the undisputed evidence regarding the efforts by the Department to obtain payment, this contention is implausible. For example, for each returned check (June 2016, July 2016, September 2016 through February 2017, March 2017 and April 2017), the Department
automatically mailed out a bill to VMOB at its mailing address. There was no evidence VMOB did not receive these bills.
On November 28, 2016, the Department explained to VMOB’s POA that VMOB was writing worthless checks to the Department. On December 28, 2016, the Department informed VMOB’s POA that Ms. Bartlett continued to pay with worthless checks.
Even if it is true that Ms. Bartlett was not aware of the worthless checks being used to pay VMOB’s taxes, any lack of knowledge was due to her own misfeasance. Ms. Bartlett admits that from October 2016 through April 2017, she did not have adequate oversight over or involvement with VMOB. She did not monitor its checking accounts or finances; she left pre-signed blank checks for her staff, and she did not ask staff for an accounting.
Ms. Bartlett’s testimony is further undermined by her own correspondence to the Department, dated January 30 and February 27, 2017, in which Ms. Bartlett acknowledges notices of assessment of personal liability and personal jeopardy. She, therefore, had to be aware at that point there was a problem with VMOB’s banking accounts and the methods of paying its tax liabilities.
Even after Ms. Bartlett discovered the checks used to make the March and April 2017 tax payments had not been honored
by the bank, VMOB made no efforts to pay the tax liability
amount.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties pursuant to section 120.569, Florida Statutes.
The Department is an agency of the State of Florida lawfully created and organized pursuant to section 20.21, Florida Statutes, and is vested with the responsibility of implementing and administering the revenue laws of the State of Florida. This includes the laws relating to the imposition and collection of the state’s sales and use tax, pursuant to chapter 212.
The Department’s burden of proof “shall be limited to a showing that an assessment has been made against the taxpayer and the factual and legal grounds upon which the applicable department made the assessment.” § 120.80(14)(b)2., Fla. Stat. “Once the Respondent has met this initial burden of proof, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment is incorrect.” IPC Sports, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Rev., 829 So. 2d 330, 332 (Fla. 3d DCA
2002).
In accordance with sections 212.15(1) and (2), the taxes imposed pursuant to chapter 212 become state funds at the
moment of collection, and the intentional failure to remit these taxes constitutes theft of state funds.
Section 212.15(1) also requires that dealers collect and remit to the Department the tax imposed by chapter 212 on a monthly basis. The collected taxes are due on the first day of the succeeding calendar month and are considered late if not paid to the Department by the 20th day of the month when due.
Pursuant to section 213.755(1), and the Department’s rules, VMOB was required to file returns and remit payments by electronic means, unless first obtaining a waiver. Because VMOB failed to do so and, thus, violated this requirement, the Department was justified in issuing the Jeopardy Finding.
The Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that the sales and use taxes owed by VMOB were in jeopardy at the time of issuance of the notice and, accordingly, the Department’s Jeopardy Finding and Assessment for this period are sustained. See § 213.732(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R.
12.21.005(1).
The total tax due for the March 2017 reporting period, as reflected on VMOB’s sales tax return and as reflected on the Assessment, is $6,668.73.
The total tax due for the April 2017 reporting period, as reflected on the Assessment, is $8,258.92. Because the April 2017 sales tax return and payment were late, the Department,
pursuant to section 212.14, estimated the total tax due at
$8,258.92. However, the actual amount of tax due, as reflected on VMOB’s late-filed sales tax return, is $5,651.75.
The total tax amount VMOB owes, without penalties or interest, for March and April 2017 is $12,320.48.
The Department is entitled to impose an additional amount for the penalties and interest that have accrued on the outstanding March and April 2017 tax amount. §§ 213.235 and 213.24, Fla. Stat.; Dep’t of Revenue Tax Information Publication No. 17ADM-02 (November 15, 2017).
Due Process
VMOB alleges a due process violation because the Jeopardy Finding and the Assessment were contained within the same mailing. More specifically, VMOB contends that because the time to review the Jeopardy Finding and the time to challenge the Assessment started running at the same time, VMOB would conceivably not have the results of the jeopardy review before the time to challenge the Assessment had lapsed. Regardless, Petitioner has not been prejudiced because nothing prohibits VMOB from informally or formally challenging the Assessment prior to receiving the results of a jeopardy review. Finally, the issue is moot because VMOB has had the opportunity to challenge the Assessment, and a formal administrative hearing has been conducted. Thus, it was not a violation of VMOB’s due
process rights for the Department to send the notices for the Jeopardy Finding and the Assessment in the same mailing.
See generally, Gosciminski v. State, 262 So. 3d 47, 59 (Fla.
2018)(finding no procedural due process violation where defendant was given notice and had an opportunity to be heard).
Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order: (1) Sustaining the May 26, 2017, Notice of Jeopardy Finding; and (2) Issuing an Assessment for March and April 2017 in the amount of $12,320.48 with penalties and interest.
DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
HETAL DESAI
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 2019.
ENDNOTES
1/ The Notice of Jeopardy Finding alleged the following facts:
The collection of the amount the Department has determined to be due will be jeopardized by delay.
The taxpayer has failed to satisfy a dishonored check and/or failed electronic payment transaction.
2/ The April 2017 tax figure is different than what is reflected on VMOB’s April 2017 sales tax return, because the return was filed late by VMOB. The Department is authorized to estimate any unpaid deficiencies in tax to be assessed against the sales tax dealer upon such information as may be available to it, and to issue a delinquent tax warrant for the collection of such tax, interest, or penalties estimated to be due and payable, and such assessment is deemed prima facie correct, but the testimony at the hearing established the actual amount. § 212.14, Fla.
Stat.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Mark S. Hamilton, General Counsel Department of Revenue
Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
Verna Bartlett VMOB, LLC
Post Office Box 342681 Tampa, Florida 33694
Mark S. Urban, Esquire
Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
William B. Meacham, Esquire
308 East Plymouth Street Tampa, Florida 33603 (eServed)
James a Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue
Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 (eServed)
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jul. 11, 2019 | Agency Final Order | STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 
VMOB, LLC, 
Petitioner, DOAH Case Number: 18-5005 VS BP Number:4432631 DOR 2019-004 -FoF DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, FILED Department of Revenue -Agency Clerk
'Fited:J
Respondent. 
oate tlll¿ ll r?,,Dlq . :Iu,),QANLFA2(I¡><)* 
FINAL ORDER 
This cause came before the State of Florida, Department of Revenue ("Department") for the purpose of issuing a Final Order. The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") heard this cause and submitted a Recommended Order ("Order") to the Department. A copy of the Order, issued on May 22,2019 by Judge Hetal Desai, is attached to this order and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein as Exhibit L 
The deadline for filing exceptions to the Order with the Department was June 6,2019. A 
copy of Petitioner's Exceptions to Recommended Order (excluding attachments) is attached to 
this order as Exhibit 2. Petitioner's exceptions were timely filed. Respondent did not file 
exceptions, or responses to Petitioner's exceptions. The Department has jurisdiction in this 
cause 
RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS 
On May 31,2019, Petitioner filed its exceptions to the Order with the Department. Pursuant to subsection 120.57(1Xk), Florida Statutes ("F.S."), a Final Order issued as a result of a Recommended Order: 
[S]hall include an explicit ruling on each exception, but an agency need not rule on an exception that does not clearly identify the disputed portion of the recommended order by page number or paragraph, that does not identify the legal basis for the exception, or that does not include appropriate and specific citations to the record. (Emphasis added) 
This statutory pleading requirement provides a three-prong threshold for exceptions to a recommended order that must be explicitly ruled upon in a Final Order. Petitioner's exceptions have been properly identified as required by the aforementioned statute, and must be ruled upon. 
Pursuant to subsection 120.57(1)(1), F.S., when issuing a Final Order based upon a Recommended Order: 
The agency may adopt the recommended order as the final order of the agency. The agency in its final order may reject or modify the conclusions of law over which it has substantive jurisdiction and interpretation of administrative rules over which it has substantive jurisdiction. When rejecting or modifying such conclusion of law or interpretation of administrative rule, the agency must state with particularity its reasons for rejecting or modifying such conclusion of law or interpretation of administrative rule and must make a finding that its substituted conclusion of law or interpretation of administrative rule is as or more reasonable than that which was rejected or modified. Rejection or modification of conclusions of law may not form the basis for rejection or modification of findings of fact. The agency may not reject or modify the findings of fact unless the agency first determines from a review of the entire record, and states with particularity in the order, that the findings of fact were not based upon competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings were based did not comply with essential requirements of law. The agency may accept the recommended penalty in a recommended order, but may not reduce or increase it without a review of the complete record and without stating with particularity its reasons therefor in the order, by citing to the record in justifying the action. 
In De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1957), the Florida Supreme Court defined 'competent substantial evidence' as "...such evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred" or such evidence that is "sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the conclusion reached." 95 So.2d at 916. Heifetz v. Department ofBusiness Regulation, Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla P1 DCA 1985); J.S. v. Dept. ofChildren & Families, 18 So.3d 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). 
Exception Number One 
Petitioner's exception number one is denied, as there is competent, substantial evidence to support the ALJ' s statement in the second sentence of the 1st paragraph under Preliminary Statement. Jeopardy exists when a dishonored check remains unsatisfied following a long history of non-compliance that includes an existing liability. The determination that the state's money was in jeopardy was ultimately substantiated by the fact that the Petitioner still had not satisfied the March and April2017 dishonored check 'payments' as of the date ofthe disputed fact hearing in March 2019. [Transcript pages 31-32] 
Exception Number Two 
Petitioner's exception number two is denied, as there is competent, substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding of fact in paragraph 14 that Ms. Bartlett believed she did not have to file and pay her sales tax collections electronically as long as she paid the penalty. Ms. Bartlett testified " ... I have a penalty if I choose not to do electronic, but it's another way to pay." [Transcript pages 64, 87-88] 
Exception Number Three 
Petitioner's exception number three is denied, as there is no evidence (competent or 
otherwise) to support a finding of fact that the requirements of Rule 12-21.005, Florida 
Administrative Code ("F.A.C.") were not met. Petitioner did not inquire of the witness that 
made the jeopardy determination the extent of her reliance upon the factors found in Rule 12
21.005(2), F.A.C. Dishonored checks (some still unpaid two years later), history of non
payment and untimely payment, unclaimed certified mail, refusal to comply with statutory 
electronic filing and payment requirements, and failure to file a timely return for April2017 
substantiate the jeopardy finding based upon both delay and the dishonored check not only by 
clear and convincing evidence, but also beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Exception Number Four 
Petitioner's exception number four is denied, as there is competent, substantial evidence 
to support the ALJ' s finding of fact in paragraph 18 that the state's money remains in jeopardy 
due to Petitioner's refusal to abide by statutory filing and payment requirements, and failure to honor previously dishonored checks submitted to the Department. This finding (the second sentence in paragraph 18 of the Order) relates to the current status of the Petitioner's alleged attempts to satisfy her debt to the state and comply with the law based upon evidence adduced at the disputed fact hearing herein. The first sentence in paragraph 18 relates to the underlying jeopardy finding, and is also supported by competent, substantial evidence. [Transcript pages 18, 26, 28-29, 31-32, 34, 48-49] 
Exception_ Number Five 
Petitioner's exception number five is denied, as there is competent, substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding offact in paragraph 26 that "Ms. Bartlett contends she was unaware worthless checks were being issued for the June 2016 through April2017 periods until late May or early June 2017." This is the testimony provided by Ms. Bartlett shortly after having her credibility impeached [Transcript pages 79-80] regarding the timing of her knowledge regarding the electronic filing and payment requirement. [Transcript pages 80-81] Evidence established Petitioner's submission of worthless checks as early as the October 2014 collection period [Transcript page 28], and Ms. Bartlett testified she was unaware until May or June 2017 [Transcript pages 81-82, 84]. That is a period of over 30 months. As a practical matter, it is unlikely that Ms. Bartlett's neglect of her business and its statutory duty to refrain from conversion/theft of state funds for 7 months versus 11 months is even relevant. 
Exception Nwnber Six 
Petitioner's exception number six is denied, as there is competent, substantial evidence to 
support the ALJ' s finding of fact in paragraph 3 0. It is clear from the context of the first clause 
of the single sentence that constitutes paragraph 30 that the ALI's finding therein relates to 
Petitioner's failure to make any effort to honor the March and April2017 checks once Ms. 
Bartlett became aware of them. [Transcript pages 31-32, 48-49] Petitioner cites its Exhibit 4 
(four letters from Petitioner to the Department) to support its position that Petitioner made efforts 
to pay its tax liability: 
A) The letter dated August 4, 2017 was identified as a protest, and included no effort to pay or payment for prior dishonored checks. Ms. Bartlett claimed she was not notified; 
B) The letter dated May 26, 2017 included no effort to pay or payment for prior dishonored checks. Ms. Bartlett requested information and "patience"; 
C) The letter dated May 22, 2017 was identified as a protest, discussed continuing to file and pay each month as well as making the monthly payment, but included no effort to pay or payment for prior dishonored checks; and 
D) The letter dated May 1, 2017 was identified as a protest, included no effort to pay or payment for prior dishonored checks. 
None of these letters indicate inclusion of a payment, and none of these letters document a payment made or effort to pay Petitioners liabilities. 
~ xception Number S ven 
Petitioner's exception number seven to conclusion oflaw paragraph number 33 is denied, as ajeopardy finding and assessment is governed by s. 213.732, F.S., and taxpayer contest of an assessment provided for under Chapter 213 is authorized pursuant to section 72.011(1)(a), F.S. Even if Petitioner's position were valid and the language ins. 120.80(14)(b)2., F.S. were not applicable to this matter, the burden of proof that would be applicable is preponderance ofthe evidence as set forth ins. 120.57(1)(j), F.S. As ALJ Desai applied a clear and convincing evidence standard to the Department's burden of proof when sustaining the jeopardy finding and assessment, Petitioner's exception is without merit, as a matter of law. [Recommended Order paragraph 3 7] 
Exception Number Eight 
Petitioner's exception number eight to conclusion of law paragraph number 36 is denied, 
as an ALJ is authorized to consider ongoing statutory non-compliance, existing liabilities-a 
taxpayer's entire history-when determining whether the Department's jeopardy finding and 
assessment is justified. The Department's jeopardy notice (as indicated in Rule 12-21.005(2)(a), 
F.A.C.) identifies dishonored checks (for payment of tax money that never belonged to 
Petitioner), and the factual determination that delay will cause or create jeopardy as the basis for 
the jeopardy notice. While Petitioner is correct that the Department's jeopardy notice could have 
listed numerous other factual bases supporting the jeopardy finding (extensive history of 
dishonored checks, non-payment of taxes collected, unclaimed Department notices sent by certified mail, refusal to comply with statutory electronic filing and payment requirements despite agreeing in writing to do so, and failure to file a timely return for April 2017), the factual bases listed on the notice are sufficient to sustain the jeopardy finding and assessment by clear and convincing evidence. [Recommended Order paragraph 37; Rule 12-21.005(2)(a), F.A.C.] 
xception Number Nine 
Petitioner's exception number nine to conclusion oflaw paragraph number 37 is denied, as a jeopardy notice must allege sufficient facts to sustain the finding, not every possible fact that may support the finding, as argued by Petitioner. As Petitioner indicates, Rule 12-21.005(2)(a), F.A.C., provides that a taxpayer's prior history will be considered when a jeopardy finding is made. All of the facts Petitioner alleges should have been included in the jeopardy notice constitute Petitioner's prior history of non-compliance with statutory requirements for reporting and remitting any tax, and a taxpayer is placed on notice, by virtue of the aforementioned rule, that its history will be reviewed when a jeopardy determination is considered. [Recommended Order paragraph 37; Rule 12-21.005(2)(a), F.A.C.] 
Petitioner has repeatedly made an issue regarding its alleged failure to receive 
Department notices. The Department refers Petitioner to review Shelley v. Department of 
Financial Services, 846 So.2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). In this case, the court found that 
unclaimed certified mail, combined with regular mail that was not returned undeliverable, met 
due process requirements for service of notice for purposes of initiating an administrative 
proceeding 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
The Department adopts and incorporates in this Final Order the Findings of Fact set forth in the Recommended Order as if fully set forth herein. 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 
The Department adopts and incorporates in this Final Order the Conclusions of Law set forth in the Recommended Order as if fully set forth herein. 
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the May 26, 2017 Notice of Jeopardy Finding and Notice of Final Assessment are hereby sustained, with statutory interest thereon continuing to accrue until the amount due is paid in full. 
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW 
Any party to this Order has the right to seek judicial review of the Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by filing a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110 Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Revenue in the Office ofthe General Counsel, P.O Box 6668, Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 [FAX (850) 4887112], AND by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate District Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Department. 
DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida this \ t1:tt day of 
__J-=----=----=...::,;;---ZO I 01 .
u,ty --' 
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 
CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing FINAL ORDER has been filed in the official records of the Department of Revenue and that a true and correct copy of the Final Order has been furnished by United States mail, both regular first class and certified mail return receipt requested, to Petitioner at POB 342681, Tampa, Florida 33694; and C/0 William B. Meacham at 308 East Plymouth Street, Tampa, Florida 33603 this __l_l!_ day of______,J""'--"-\My ___.
...:...-:::,___ 
2.-0I . 
Agency Clerk 
opies f-urnished to: 
Hetal Desai Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 
MarkS. Urban Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Revenue Litigation Bureau The Capitol-Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 
Dr. James Zingale Executive Director Department of Revenue POB 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 |
| May 22, 2019 | Recommended Order | DOR proved jeopardy finding was appropriate and taxpayer failed to satisfy tax obligations when it failed to file electronically and checks used for tax payment were dishonored by bank.
 |
