STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PAN AMERICAN LAND DEVEL0PMENT ) CORPORATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 83-2156

)

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case is decided on the basis of the parties' Joint Stipulation of Fact, memorandum of law and proposed recommended orders. Hearing was waived for lack of an underlying dispute of fact. The parties are represented by counsel:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Francis Marion Pohlig, Esquire

2121 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 240 Coral Gables, Florida 33134

For Respondent: Linda Lettera, Esquire

Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

ISSUE

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.

BACKGROUND

By letter of June 29, 1983, Pan American Land Development Corporation. ("Petitioner") requested a Section 120.57 hearing to contest Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Revenue's ("Department") demand for payment of Intangible Taxes and Documentary Stamp Taxes relating to a "Consolidated and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement" between Petitioner (the borrower), Flagship National Bank of Miami (the lender), and Alberto Vadia and Rosario Vadia (the guarantors). On July 6, 1983, the Department forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer.

The Department thereafter moved to dismiss and Petitioner moved to amend (by adding the Comptroller as an additional party). The motion to dismiss was denied and the motion to amend was granted.

On August 5, 1983, the parties advised that there was no actual dispute, and that the sole issue was one of law, namely, the taxability of certain documents under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes--and that the case could be presented by stipulation and memoranda of law. By order of August 12, 1983, the parties were invited to file a schedule for submitting the stipulation and memoranda. No stipulation or schedule was filed.

On March 15, 1985, noting the lack of record activity, the undersigned asked for a case status report. The parties responded that the stipulation, then in its final stages, would be filed by April 10, 1985. After further inquiries, an executed "Joint Stipulation of Fact" was filed on December 30, 1985. Memoranda of law, including responses, were subsequently filed by March 5, 1986.

Based on the parties' "Joint Stipulation of Facts," which incorporated the "Consolidated and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement," the following facts are determined:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On October 1, 1981, a "Consolidated and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement" ("Agreement") was executed by Flagship National Bank of Miami ("Bank" or the "lender"), Petitioner (or the borrower), and Alberto Vadia and Rosario Vadia (the guarantors). The Documentary Stamp Tax consequences of this Agreement (and the obligation to pay money which it evidences) are what is at issue here.

   
   

2. By this Agreement, the Bank extended a loan, which Petitioner promised to repay, in the principal amount of $1,900,000.00, of which $818,624.69 remained outstanding under previous loans which the Bank had extended to Petitioner under 1971, 1975, and 1978 loan agreements. The balance of the loan

   -$1,081,375.31 - was a new or additional loan.

   
   

3. The Agreement, in pertinent part, provides:

   
   

   Bank, Borrower and Guarantors desire to enter into this Consolidated and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement and the various documents and instruments incorporated herein by reference to increase the maximum principal amount of the loan to One Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,900,000) and extend the term thereof, secured and guaranteed in the same manner as the prior loans and to consolidate into one document the 1971 Agreement, the 1975 Agreement and the 1978 Agreement. This Consolidated and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement and the documents and instruments incorporated herein by reference constitute a complete restatement, modification, amendment and consolidation of the prior agreements to reflect the parties present intentions and agreements regarding such existing debt and the readvance of a previously amortized portion thereof back to Borrower, and not a novation or substitution of a new debt or

   obligation for an existing debt or obligation.

   * * *

   1. Such advances as Bank shall elect to make pursuant to the credit facility herein agreed to (and all unpaid sums remaining from the 1971, 1975 and 1978 Agreements which indebtedness shall be represented and renewed by such Note) shall be evidenced by a Consolidated Master Revolving Credit Note in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "C," pursuant to which Borrower promises to pay Bank the sums set forth therein together with interest thereon in accordance with the repayment schedule set forth therein, all as more fully set forth therein, the provisions of which Note are incorporated herein by reference. (e.s.)

      
      

4. Documentary Stamp Tax in the amount of $1,622.10 has been paid on that portion of the Agreement representing a new loan or advance. (This represents tax at a rate of $.15 per hundred dollars on $1,081,375.31.)

   
   

5. Documentary Stamp Tax has not been paid on that portion of the Agreement which restated, renewed, modified, and consolidated the existing debt or outstanding loan balance of $818,624.69 from the previous 1971, 1975 and 1978 loan agreements.

   
   

6. The Department claims Petitioner is obligated to pay Documentary Stamp Taxes in the amount of $1,227.90 (at the rate of $.15 per $100 of amount loaned), plus penalty and interest, on the amount of the outstanding loan balance of $818,624.69 from the 1971, 1975 and 1978 agreements. Petitioner claims that the Documentary Stamp Tax does not apply to the outstanding loan balances carried forward from the three prior agreements or notes. (Petitioner, however, no longer maintains that it is entitled to a refund of Documentary Stamp and Intangible Tax previously paid, as alleged in its initial request for hearing.)

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

7. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.

   
   

8. Section 201.08, Florida Statutes imposes a state Documentary Stamp Tax on written obligations to pay money, and for each renewal thereof:

   
   

   (1) On promissory notes, nonnegotiable notes, written obligations to pay money, or assignments of salaries, wages, or other compensation made, executed, delivered, sold, transferred, or assigned in the state, and for each renewal of the same, the tax shall be 15 cents on each $100 or fraction thereof of the indebtedness or obligation evidenced thereby. (e.s.)

   * * *

   
   

   A limited exemption to this tax is created by Section 201.09, Florida Statutes:

   
   

   1. When any promissory note is given in renewal of any existing promissory note, which renewal note only extends or continues the identical contractual obligations of the original promissory note and evidences part or all of the original indebtedness evidenced thereby, not including any accumulated interest thereon and without enlargement in any way of the original contract and obligation, such renewal note shall not be subject to taxation under this chapter if such renewal note has attached to it the original promissory note with canceled

   stamps affixed thereon showing full payment of the tax due thereon. (e.s.)

   
   

9. In the instant case, the Agreement not only restates and renews the original preexisting debt arising from the three previous loan agreements between the parties (in 1971, 1975 and 1978) but also extends a new and additional loan of $1,081,375.31. This amounts to an "enlargement" of the original, outstanding obligation(s) to pay and thus disqualifies the Agreement from the exemption created by Section 201.09(1), supra.

   
   

10. State, Dept. of Revenue v. Miami National Bank, 374 So.2d 1(Fla. 1979) is controlling. There, the parties stipulated to a hypothetical case which presented the Documentary Stamp Tax issue to the court:

    
    

    "A" borrows $10,000 from the bank. "A" signs a promissory note for $10,000 and affixes documentary stamps thereto representing the full $10,000. Subsequently, "A" borrows an additional $5,000 from the bank. "A" signs a promissory note for $15,000--the amount of the $15,000 representing the original borrowed amount of $10,000 plus the newly borrowed amount of $5,000. The bank attaches the old note for $10,000 to the new note and "A" affixes documentary stamps representing the $5,000 increase.

    
    

11. The trial court held, and the First District affirmed, that the original $10,000 portion of the taxed note fell within the exemption of Section

    201.09 and hence not subject to the Documentary Stamp Tax. The First District Court of Appeal reasoned that the intent of Section 201.09 was to exempt renewal notes from taxes, and that since taxes are paid both on the original note, and on the later addition to the original note, the taxpayer fully met his tax obligation. The question was certified as one of great public interest. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and reversed, stating:

    
    

    It is clear from a reading of these enactments that the legislature intended only to exempt renewal notes which do not enlarge the original indebtedness.

    Respondents' attempted construction of the scope of the exemption afforded by section

    201.09 ignores the plain language of that section as well as section 201.08(1). By its express terms section 201.08(1), Florida Statutes (1975), imposes a documentary stamp tax "[o]n promissory notes. . . and for each renewal of the same "This

    straightforward and unambiguous declaration of the objects of documentary

    stamp taxation adopted in 1931 was followed in 1937 by equally clear language now appearing in section 201.09, Florida Statutes

    (1975), which provided exemption for a renewal promissory note which "only extends or continues the identical contractual obligations of the original promissory note

    . . . and without enlargement in any way of said original contract and obligation

    . . . ." (Emphasis supplied.) The present renewal note in the amount of $15,000 increased the original $10,000 note by

    $5,000. Consequently, the renewal portion of the note does not fall within the exemption provided by section

    201.09, Florida Statutes (1975). This conclusion is supported by the title of chapter 17890, Laws of Florida (1937), which act has been unchanged in substance in the forty-one years since its enactment. The title reflects that a renewal note is excepted from documentary stamp tax "when such renewal only extends or continues the identical contractual obligation of the original note and evidences part or all of but not more than the original indebtedness

    . . . ." (e.s.)

    
    

    Miami National Bank, supra at 2.

    
    

12. The conclusion that Documentary Tax is due on that part of the Agreement representing a renewal or restatement of the outstanding debt or obligation to pay arising out of the three prior loan agreements is fortified by Department Rule 12B-4.54, Florida Administrative Code:

    
    

    12B-4.54 Exempt Transactions.

    (1) Renewal Notes: Mortgages, Trust Deeds, Security Agreements, or other Evidences of Indebtedness: When any note, mortgage, trust deed, security agreement, or other evidence or indebtedness is given in renewal of the note, mortgage, trust deed, security agreement, or other evidence of

    indebtedness, the document shall not be subject to stamp tax provided the total amount of the obligation does not exceed the total unpaid balance of the original

    note or other security document, and further provided that all stamp taxes due

    have been paid in full and evidence of payment is affixed to the original document. (e.s.)

    * * *

    
    

13. In the instant case, the total amount of the obligation evidenced by the Agreement--$1,900.000.00--exceeded "the total unpaid balance of the original note[s] or other security document[s]," supra, thus rendering inapplicable the exemption of Section 201.09, Florida Statutes. See, also 53 Fla. Jur. 2d, Taxation, Section 29.120 ("Caution: A note which represents both a renewal of the original debt and an additional loan is taxable on the entire amount, not just the amount of the additional loan.") Since the entire amount of the Agreement is subject to the Documentary Stamp Tax, not just the new or additional loan, Petitioner is liable for an additional Documentary Stamp Tax in the amount of $1,227.90, plus statutory penalties and interest.

    
    

14. Petitioner contends that Miami National Bank is not "on point" because it involved a hypothetical example, and because the instant case is "more complicated," involving a multi-million dollar financial agreement taking place over more than ten years. This argument fails because the operative facts are analogous and the statutory provision being applied is identical. Petitioner also relies on the exemption granted by Section 210.08(4), Florida Statutes, but this provision, by its terms, applies only to supplements or amendments (to a mortgage, deed of trust, indenture, or security agreement) filed or recorded "in connection with a new issue of bonds," supra. Petitioner's other arguments are also unavailing. The fact that the Agreement was a secured transaction involving a mortgage on real property is not legally relevant. Section 201.21, Florida Statutes is inapplicable since the Agreement has not been shown to be a "wholesale warehouse mortgage agreement." Petitioner's characterization of the new loan of $1,081,375.31 as a "future advance" for which tax was due on October 1, 1981, does not support a conclusion that the preexisting and renewed obligation to pay is exempt from the Documentary Stamp Tax assessed by Section 201.08(1), Florida Statutes.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:

That the Department enter a final order assessing Documentary Stamp Tax in the amount of $1,227.90, plus penalties and interest authorized by statute.

DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida.

R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1986.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Francis Marion Pohlig, Esquire 2121 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 240

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Linda S. P. Lettera, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

PAN AMERICAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 83-2156

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

This Cause came on to be heard before Randy Miller, Executive Director of the Department of Revenue, at a hearing on June 10, 1986, at 10:00 A.M. in Room

103 Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida.

This case is decided on the basis of the parties' Joint Stipulation of Fact, memorandum of law and proposed recommended orders. Bearing was waived for lack of an underlying dispute of fact. The parties are represented by counsel:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Francis Marion Pohlig, Esquire

2121 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 240 Coral Cables, Florida 33134

For Respondent: Linda Lettera, Esquire

Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

ISSUE

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 pre- existing debt to the same lender, where another part of the written obligation to pay money makes a new or additional loan to the borrower.

BACKGROUND

By letter of June 29, 1983, Pan American Land Development Corporation ("petitioner") requested a Section 120.57 hearing to contest Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Revenue's ("Department) demand for payment of Intangible Taxes and Documentary Stamp Taxes relating to a "Consolidated and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement" between Petitioner (the borrower), Flagship National Bank of Miami (the lender), and Alberto Vadia and Rosario Vadia (the guarantors). On July 6, 1983, the Department forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer.

The Department thereafter moved to dismiss and Petitioner moved to amend (by adding the Comptroller as an additional party). The motion to dismiss was denied and the motion to amend was granted.

On August 5, 1983, the parties advised that there was no actual dispute, and that the sole issue was one of law, namely, the tax-ability of certain documents under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes-- and that the case could be presented by stipulation and memoranda of law. By order of August 12, 1983, the parties were invited to file a schedule for submitting the stipulation and memoranda. No stipulation or schedule was filed.

On March 15, 1985, noting the lack of record activity, the undersigned asked for a case status report. The parties responded that the stipulation, then in its final stages, would be filed by April 10, 1985. After further inquiries, an executed "Joint Stipulation of Fact" was filed on December 30, 1985. Memoranda of law, including responses, were subsequently filed by March 5, 1986.

Based on the parties' "Joint Stipulation of Facts," which incorporated the "Consolidated and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement," the following facts are determined:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On October 1, 1981, a "Consolidated and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement' ("Agreement") was executed by Flagship National Bank of Miami ("Bank" or the "lender"), Petitioner (or the borrower), and Alberto Vadia and Rosario Vadia (the guarantors). The Documentary Stamp Tax consequences of this Agreement (and the obligation to pay money which it evidences) are what is at issue here.

   
   

2. By this Agreement, the Bank extended a loan, which Petitioner promised to repay, in the principal amount of 51,900,000.00 of which $818,624.69 remained outstanding under previous loans which the Bank had extended to Petitioner under 1971, 1975, and 1978 loan agreements. The balance of the loan $1,081,375.31 was a new or additional loan.

   
   

3. The Agreement, in pertinent part, provides:

   
   

   Bank, Borrower and Guarantors desire to enter into this Consolidated and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement and the various documents and instruments incorporated herein by reference to increase the maximum principal amount of the loan to One Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,900,000) and extend the term thereof, secured and guaranteed in the same manner as the prior loans and to consolidate into one document the 1971 Agreement, the 1975 Agreement and the 1978 Agreement. This Consolidated and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement and the documents and instruments incorporated herein by reference constitute a complete restatement, modification, amendment and consolidation of the prior agreements to reflect the parties present intentions and agreements regarding such existing debt and the readvance of a previously amortized portion thereof back to Borrower, and not a novation or substitution of a new debt or obligation for an existing debt or obliga- tion.

   * * *

   1. Such advances as Bank shall elect to make pursuant to the credit facility herein

      agreed to (and all unpaid sums remaining from the 1971, 1975 and 1978 Agreements which indebtedness shall be represented and renewed by such Note) shall be evidenced by a Consol- idated Master Revolving Credit Note in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "C," pursuant to which Borrower promises to pay Bank the sums set forth therein together with interest thereon in accordance with the repayment schedule set forth therein, all as more fully

      set forth therein, the provisions of which Note are incorporated herein by reference

      
      

4. Documentary Stamp Tax in the amount of $1,622.10 has been paid on that portion of the Agreement representing a new loan or advance. (This represents tax at a rate of $.15 per hundred dollars on $1,081,375.31.)

   
   

5. Documentary Stamp Tax has not been paid on that portion of the Agreement which restated, renewed, modified, and consolidated the existing debt or outstanding loan balance of $828,624.69 from the previous 1971, 1975 and 1978 loan agreements.

   
   

6. The Department claims Petitioner is obligated to pay Documentary Stamp Taxes in the amount of $1,227.90 (at the rate of $.15 per $100 of amount loaned), plus penalty and interest, on the amount of the outstanding loan balance of $818,624.69 from the 1971, 1975 and 1978 agreements. Petitioner claims that the Documentary Stamp Tax does not apply to the outstanding loan balances carried forward from the three prior agreements or notes. (Petitioner, however, no longer maintains that it is entitled to a refund of Documentary Stamp and Intangible Tax previously paid, as alleged in its initial request for hearing.)

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

7. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.

   
   

8. Section 201.08, Florida Statutes imposes a state Documentary Stamp Tax on written obligations to pay money, and for each renewal thereof:

   
   

   (1) On promissory notes, non-negotiable notes, written obligations to pay money, or assignments of salaries, wages, or other compensation made, executed, delivered, sold, transferred, or assigned in the state, and for each -renewal

   of the same, the tax shall be 15 cents on each

   $100 or fraction thereof of the indebtedness or obligation evidenced thereby. (e.s.)

   * * *

   
   

   A limited exemption to this tax is created by Section 201.09, Florida Statutes:

   
   

   1. When any promissory note is given in renewal of any existing promissory note, which renewal note only extends or continues the identical contractual obligations of the original promissory note and evidences part or all of the original indebtedness evidenced thereby, not including any accumulated inter- est thereon and without enlargement in any way of the original contract and obligation, such renewal note shall not be subject to taxation under this chapter if such renewal note has attached to it the original promis- sory note with canceled stamps affixed there- on showing full payment of the tax due there-

   on. (e.s.)

   
   

9. In the instant case, the Agreement not only restates and renews the original pre-existing debt arising from the three Previous loan agreements between the parties (In 1971, 1975 and 1978) but also extends a new and additional loan of $1,081,375.31. This amounts to an "enlargement" of the original, outstanding obligation(s) to pay and thus disqualifies the Agreement from the exemption created by Section 201.09(1), supra.

   
   

10. State, Dept. of Revenue v. Miami National Bank, 374 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1979) is controlling. There, the parties stipulated to a hypothetical case which presented the Documentary Stamp Tax issue to the court:

    
    

    "A" borrows $10,000 from the bank. "A" signs a promissory note for $10,000 and affixes documentary stamps there to representing the full $10,000. Subsequently, "A" borrows an additional $5,000 from the bank. "A" signs a promissory note for $15,000--the amount of the 515,000 representing the original bor- rowed amount of $10,000 plus the newly bor- rowed amount of $5,000. The bank attaches the old note for $10,000 to the new note and 'A' affixes documentary stamps representing the $5,000 increase.

    
    

11. The trial court held, and the First District affirmed, that the original $10,000 portion of the taxed note fell within the exemption of Section

    201.09 and hence not subject to the Documentary Stamp Tax. The First District Court of Appeal reasoned that the intent of Section 201.09 was to exempt renewal notes from taxes, and that since taxes are paid both on the original note, and on the later addition to the original note, the taxpayer fully met his tax obligation. The question was certified as one of great public interest. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and reversed, stating:

    
    

    It is clear from a reading of these enact- ments that the legislature intended only to exempt renewal notes which do not enlarge the original indebtedness. Respondents' attempt- ed construction of the exemption afforded by Section 201.09 ignores the plain language of that section as well as section 201.08(1). By its express terms section 201.08(1), Florida Statutes (1975), imposes a documentary stamp tax "[o]n promissory notes . . . and for

    each renewal of the same . . .

    
    

    "This straightforward and unambiguous decla- ration of the objects of documentary-stamp taxation adopted in 1931 was followed in

    by equally clear language now appearing in section 201.09, Florida Statutes (1975), which provided exemption for a renewal prom- issory note which `only extends or continues the identical contractual obligations of the original promissory note . . . and without enlargement in any way of said original con-

    tract and obligation (Emphasis

    supplied.) The present renewal note in the amount of $15,000 increased the original

    $10,000 note by $5,000. Consequently, the renewal portion of the note does not fall within the exemption provided by section 201.09, Florida Statutes (1975). This con- clusion is supported by the title of chapter 17890, Laws of Florida (1937), which act has been unchanged in substance in the forty-one years since its enactment. The title re- flects that a renewal note is excepted from documentary stamp tax "when such renewal only extends or continues the identical contractual obligation of the original note and evidences part or all of but not more than the original indebtedness . . ." (e.s.)

    
    

    Miami National Bank, supra at 2.

    
    

12. The conclusion that Documentary Tax is due on that part of the Agreement representing a renewal or restatement of the outstanding debt or obligation to pay arising out of the three prior loan agreements is fortified by Department Rule 12B-4.54, Florida Administrative Code:

    
    

    12B-4.54 Exempt Transactions.

    
    

    (1) Renewal Notes: Mortgages, Trust Deeds, Security Agreements, or other Evidences of Indebtedness: When any note, mortgage, trust deed, security agreement, or other evidence of indebtedness is given in renewal of the note, mortgage, trust deed, security agree- ment, or evidence of indebtedness, the document shall not be subject to stamp tax provided the total amount of the obligation does not exceed the total unpaid balance of the original note or other security document, and further provided that all stamp taxes due have been paid in full and evidence of pay- ment is affixed to the original document. (e.s.)

    * * *

    
    

13. In the instant case, the total amount of the obligation evidenced by the Agreement--$1,900,000.00--exceeded the "total unpaid balance of the original note[s] or other security document[s]," supra, thus rendering inapplicable the exemption of Section 201.09, Florida Statutes. See, also 53 Fla. Jur. 2d, Taxation, Section 29.120 ("Caution: A note which represents both a renewal of the original debt and an additional loan is taxable on the entire amount, not just the amount of the additional loan.") Since the entire amount of the Agreement is subject to the Documentary Stamp Tax, not just the new or additional loan, Petitioner is liable for an additional Documentary Stamp Tax in the amount of $1,227.90, plus statutory penalties and interest.

    
    

14. Petitioner contends that Miami National Bank is not "on point" because it involved a hypothetical example, and because the instant case is "more

complicated," involving a multi-million dollar financial agreement taking place over more than ten years. This argument fails because the operative facts are analogous and the statutory provision being applied is identical. Petitioner also relies on the exemption granted by Section 201.08(4)[sic], Florida Statutes, but this provision, by its terms, applies only to supplements or amendments (to a mortgage, deed of trust, indenture, or security agreement) filed or recorded "in connection with a new issue of bonds," supra.

Petitioner's other arguments are also unavailing. The fact that the Agreement was a secured transaction involving a mortgage on real property is not legally relevant. Section 201.21, Florida Statutes is inapplicable since the Agreement has not been shown to be a "wholesale warehouse mortgage agreement." Petitioner's characterization of the new loan of $1,081,375.31 as a "future advance" for which tax was due on October 1, 1981, does not support a conclusion that the pre-existing and renewed obligation to pay is exempt from the Documentary Stamp Tax assessed by Section 201.08(1), Florida Statutes.

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the Department enter this Final Order assessing Documentary Stamp Tax in the amount of $1,227.90, plus penalties and interest authorized by statute.

DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1986, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

RANDY MILLER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF FLORIDA

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above Final Order was entered in the Official Records of the

Department of Revenue this 12th day of June, 1986.

Mary L. Ford Agency Clerk

Docket for Case No: 83-002156

Orders for Case No: 83-002156