STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

AIRCRAFT TRADING CENTER, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 94-5085

)

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to written notice, a formal hearing was held in this case before Errol H. Powell, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on February 15, 1995, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Robert O. Rogers, Esquire

Rogers, Bowers, Dempsey & Paladeno

505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1330 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

For Respondent: Lealand L. McCharen

Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for determination is whether Petitioner should be assessed sales and use tax by Respondent, and if so, how much and what penalty, if any, should be assessed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

As a result of a sales and use tax audit of Aircraft Trading Center, Inc. (Petitioner), performed by the Department of Revenue (Respondent) for the period 2/1/87-1/31/92, Respondent determined that Petitioner should be assessed sales and use tax in the amount of $147,711.77, including penalty and interest.

Petitioner protested the proposed assessment. By letter dated July 12, 1994, Respondent determined that Petitioner owed sales and use tax in the amount of

$147,711.77: sales and use tax $90,488.55; penalty $22,622.17; and interest through April 7, 1993, $34,601.05. (Interest accrues at 12 percent per annum or

$29.75 per day.) On September 8, 1994, Petitioner filed with Respondent a petition for hearing, protesting the assessment of sales and use tax.

On September 14, 1994, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. A formal hearing was scheduled on February 15, 1995, pursuant to written notice.

At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses and entered seven exhibits into evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of one witness and entered nine exhibits into evidence.

A transcript of the formal hearing was ordered. At the request of the parties, the time for filing post-hearing submissions was set for more than ten days following the filing of the transcript. The parties submitted proposed findings of fact which have been addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Aircraft Trading Center, Inc. (Petitioner), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, having its principal office at 17885 S.E. Federal Highway, Tequesta, Florida. Petitioner is engaged in the business of purchasing aircraft for resale.

   
   

2. During all times material hereto, Petitioner was registered as an aircraft dealer with the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and registered as a retail dealer with the State of Florida, Department of Revenue (Respondent). The selling price of Petitioner's aircraft range from one million to twenty-five million dollars and helicopters from two hundred thousand to three million dollars.

   
   

3. Normally, Petitioner purchases an aircraft, without having a confirmed buyer. Petitioner purchases an aircraft based upon in-house research which shows a likelihood that the aircraft can be resold at a profit.

   
   

4. Petitioner's aircraft is demonstrated to potential buyers/customers. The customers require a demonstration to determine if the aircraft meets the particular needs of the customer. The demonstration could take one day or as long as two weeks.

   
   

5. During the demonstration, the customer pays the expenses associated with flying the aircraft. Petitioner uses two methods to determine the costs of demonstration. In one method, the cost is determined from a reference source utilized in the industry to show the cost of operating a particular type of aircraft. In the other method, the customer pays Petitioner's actual out-of- pocket cost. No matter which method is used, the charges to the customers are listed as income on Petitioner's bookkeeping books and records, per the advice of Petitioner's certified public accounting (CPA) firm.

   
   

6. Petitioner remains the owner of the aircraft during the demonstration and until the sale. Also, during demonstration, Petitioner maintains insurance coverage on the aircraft and is the loss payee.

   
   

7. In an attempt to make sure "legitimate" customers are engaged in the demonstrations, Petitioner screens potential buyers to make sure that they have the resources to purchase one of Petitioner's aircraft.

   
   

8. For sales to buyers/customers residing out-of-state, Petitioner utilizes a specific, but standard procedure. Such customers are provided a copy of the Florida Statute dealing with exempting the sale from Florida's sales tax

   if the aircraft is removed from the State of Florida within ten (10) days from the date of purchase. Florida sales tax is not collected from the buyer if the buyer executes an affidavit which states that the buyer has read the Florida Statute and that the buyer will remove the plane from Florida within ten (10) days after the sale or the completion of repairs and if the bill of sale shows an out-of-state address for the buyer.

   
   

9. When an aircraft is sold, Petitioner's standard procedure is to prepare a purchase agreement and after receiving payment, Petitioner prepares a bill of sale. Petitioner sends the bill of sale to a title company in Oklahoma which handles all of Petitioner's title transfers. The title company records the bill of sale, registers the change of title with the FAA and sends Petitioner a copy of the title.

   
   

10. For all sale transactions, Petitioner maintains a file which includes the affidavit, the bill of sale, and a copy of the title.

    
    

11. Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner for the period 2/1/87- 1/31/92 to determine if sales and use tax should be assessed against Petitioner. All records were provided by Petitioner.

    
    

12. The audit resulted in an assessment of sales and use tax, penalty, and interest against Petitioner. Respondent assessed tax on the sale of a helicopter and on certain charges made by Petitioner to its customers as a result of demonstrations.

    
    

13. Regarding the helicopter, Respondent assessed tax in the amount of

    $18,000.00 for the helicopter transaction. By invoice dated 7/10/89, Petitioner sold the helicopter to Outerscope, Inc., for $300,000.00. Outerscope was an

    out-of-state company. Petitioner used its standard procedure for the sale of aircraft and sales to nonresidents. Petitioner did not obtain proof that the helicopter was removed from the State of Florida, and Petitioner has no knowledge as to whether it was removed.

    
    

14. As to the charges by Petitioner for demonstrations, Respondent assessed tax in the amount of $72,488.55. Respondent determined the tax by taking an amount equal to 1 percent of the listed value of the aircraft demonstrated and multiplying that number by 6 percent, the use tax rate. Respondent relied upon the records and representations provided by Petitioner's bookkeeper as to determining which aircraft were demonstrated, the value of the aircraft and the months in which the aircraft were demonstrated.

    
    

15. Several transactions originally designated as demonstrations have been now determined by Petitioner's bookkeeper not to be demonstrations:

    
    

    1. The February 4, 1987 transaction with Ray Floyd.

    2. The July 10, 1988 transaction involving Trans Aircraft.

    3. The May 2 and 12, 1989 items for Stalupi/Bandit.

    4. The July 12, 1989 item involving Bond Corp.

    5. The July 18, 1989 item involving Seardel.

    6. The November 28, 1990 item involving J. P. Foods Service.

16. Petitioner's CPA firm advises it regarding Florida's sales and use tax laws. At no time did the CPA firm advise Petitioner that its (Petitioner's) demonstrations were subject to sales and use tax and that it (Petitioner) was required to obtain proof that an aircraft had been removed from the State of Florida.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

17. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the parties thereto, pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

18. Section 212.05, Florida Statutes, entitled "Sales, storage, use tax," provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent that every person is exercising a taxable privilege who engages in the business of selling tangible personal property at retail in this state . . .

    1. For the exercise of such privilege, a tax is levied on each taxable transaction or

       incident, which tax is due and payable as follows: (a)1.a. At the rate of 6 percent of the sales price of each item or article of tangible personal

       property when sold at retail in this state, computed on each taxable sale for the purpose of remitting the amount of tax due the state, and including each and every retail sale.

       b. Each occasional or isolated sale of an aircraft, boat, mobile home, or motor vehicle of

       a class or type which is required to be registered, licensed, titled, or documented in this state or

       by the United States Government shall be subject

       to tax at the rate provided in this paragraph . . .

       1. This paragraph does not apply to the sale of a boat or airplane by or through a registered dealer under this chapter to a purchaser who,

          at the time of taking delivery, is a nonresident of this state, does not make his permanent place of abode in this state, and is not engaged in carrying on in this state any employment, trade, business, or profession in which the boat will be used in this state, or is a corporation none of the officers or directors of which is a resident of, or make his permanent place or abode in, this state. This exemption shall

          not be allowed unless:

          1. The purchaser removes the boat or airplane from this state within 10 days after the date

             of purchase or, when the boat or airplane is repaired or altered, within 20 days after completion of the repairs or alterations;

             
             

          2. The purchaser within 90 days from the

             date of sale provides the department with written proof that the purchaser licensed, registered,

             or documented the boat or airplane outside the state;

          3. The seller provides to the department a copy of the sales invoice and an affidavit signed by the purchaser that he has read the provisions of this section; and

          4. The seller makes the affidavit a part of his record for as long as required by s. 213.35.

       
       

       If the purchaser fails to remove the boat or airplane from this state within 10 days after purchase or, when the boat or airplane is repaired or altered, within 20 days after completion of such repairs or alterations, or permits the boat or airplane to return to this state within 6 months from the date of departure, the purchaser shall be liable for use tax on the cost price of the boat or airplane and, in addition thereto, payment of a penalty . . .

       (b) At the rate of 6 percent of the cost price of each item or article of tangible personal property when the same is not sold but is used, consumed, distributed, or stored for use or consumption in this state.

       * * *

    2. The tax shall be collected by the dealer, as defined herein, and remitted by him to the state at the time and in the manner as herein- after provided.

       
       

19. Section 212.02, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    (21) "Use" means and includes the exercise of any right or power over tangible personal property incident to the ownership thereof, or interest therein, except that it does not include the sale at retail of that property

    in the regular course of business.

    
    

20. Respondent's Rule 12A-1.007, Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    (10) Aircraft.

    1. The tax applies to all sales of aircraft in this state unless the selling dealer is the holder of a valid dealer's Certificate of Registration which authorizes the dealer to sell aircraft and the sale is made under the conditions specified in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) . . .

    2. Prior to September 1, 1992, tax applies to all sales of aircraft in this state unless the selling dealer is the holder of a valid dealer's Certificate of Registration and the sale is made under the following conditions:

    1. The purchaser removes such aircraft from this state within 10 days after the date of

       purchase. It shall be the duty of the dealer who sells the aircraft to obtain from the purchaser, and retain in his records, written proof, prescribed in subparagraph 4., that the aircraft was in fact removed from this state within 10 days after the date of purchase.

    2. In the event the aircraft is altered or repaired after the sale, such 10 day period shall not begin until after completion of such repairs and alterations; however, the purchaser shall remove the aircraft from this state within

       10 days after completion of such repairs or alterations and in no event shall the aircraft remain in this state more than 90 days after date of purchase. When the aircraft is altered or repaired, whether by the dealer who sold the aircraft or by a repair facility registered with the Department of Revenue, it shall be the selling dealer's or the repairing dealer's responsibility to obtain from the purchaser and retain in his records, written proof, prescribed in subparagraph 4., that the aircraft was in fact removed from this state within 10 days after completion of the repairs or alterations and that the aircraft did not remain in this state more than 90 days after the date of purchase.

    3. Invoices for fuel, tie-down charges, or hanger charges issued by out-of-state vendors which specifically identify the aircraft, including the FAA registration number, constitute evidence that the aircraft was removed from Florida within the 10 day period specified in subparagraphs 1. and 2., and will be acceptable proof for purpose of those paragraphs.

    4. The exemption specified in subparagraphs

    1. and 2. shall not be allowed unless the selling dealer:

       1. Obtains from the purchaser, and makes part of his permanent records, within 90 days from the date of sale, written proof that the purchaser licensed, registered, or documented the aircraft outside this state; and

       2. Obtains from the purchaser, and makes

    it a permanent part of his records, an affidavit, executed at the time of sale, in which the purchaser attests to the fact that he has read

    s. 212.05(1)(a)2., F.S., that he will remove the aircraft from this state within the time limit set in this paragraph, that no use will

    be made of the aircraft in this state other than to move the aircraft expeditiously from the point of delivery to the repair facility, and that

    the aircraft will be removed from this state within 10 days after completion of the repairs or alterations. . . .

    1. If the selling dealer fails to obtain or

       the purchaser fails to furnish the selling dealer with the documents required under this paragraph, the Department may proceed against either the dealer, the purchaser, or both for payment of

       the tax.

    2. Any purchaser who claims exemption from payment of the tax under this paragraph and who fails to remove the aircraft from this state within the time specified in this paragraph, or who permits the aircraft to return to this state within 6 months from the date of departure from this state, shall be liable for payment of the tax, plus interest and the mandatory penalty equal to the tax . . .

    * * *

    (h)l. Registered aircraft dealers who purchase aircraft for resale are exempt from the payment of tax on the purchase price at the time of purchase but shall pay a use tax computed on 1 percent of the value of the aircraft each calendar month that the aircraft is used by the dealer.

    1. The payment of such use tax shall commence in the month during which the aircraft is first used for any purpose for which income is received by the dealer for its use, including charter, rental, flight training, and demonstration where a charge is made.

    2. A dealer may pay the sales tax on the purchase of the aircraft in lieu of the monthly use tax.

    3. The value of the aircraft shall be deter- mined by adding to acquisition costs the cost of reconditioning, if any, and shall generally be the value reflected upon the books of the dealer in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

    
    

21. Section 212.05(1)(a)2 provides an exemption from Florida's sales tax and is to be strictly construed against the taxpayer (Petitioner). State ex rel. Szabo Food Services, Inc. v. Dickinson, 286 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1973); Capital City Country Club v. Tucker, 613 So.2d 448 (Fla. 1993). Moreover, doubtful language in exemption statutes are construed against the taxpayer. United States Gypsum Co. v. Green, 110 So.2d 409 (Fla. 1959). Strictly construing Section 212.05(1)(a)2, Petitioner must show its entitlement to the exemption which is applicable only if four requirements are satisfied: (1) the helicopter Petitioner sold to the nonresident purchaser was removed from the State of Florida by the purchaser within (10) days from the date of purchase,

    (2) the purchaser, within 90 days of the purchase, provides Respondent proof that the purchaser licensed, registered, or documented the helicopter out-of- state, (3) Petitioner provides Respondent a copy of the sales invoice and an affidavit that the purchaser has read Section 212.05, and (4) Petitioner maintains the affidavit as part of its permanent records.

    
    

22. Section 212.05(1)(a)(2) is silent as to how Petitioner can show that it has satisfied the first requirement. Through rule, Rule 12A-1.007(10)(b), Respondent has enunciated what will be accepted as proof that the requirement

    has been satisfied. Generally, an agency's interpretation of statutes it administers is accorded great deference and should not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Pan American World Airways v. Florida Public Service Commission, 427 So.2d 716 (Fla. 1983); Maclen Rehabilitation Center v.

    Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 588 So.2d 12, 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Moreover, an agency's interpretation need not be the only possible interpretation or the most desirable one; it need only be within the range of possible interpretations. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine v. Durrani, 455 So.2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Furthermore, doubtful language in a rule interpreting or implementing an exemption statute is construed in favor of the agency. United States Gypsum Co., supra.

    
    

23. Petitioner has failed to show that it is not clearly erroneous for Respondent to accept, as proof of removal of an aircraft (here a helicopter) from Florida within ten (10) days from the date of purchase, the documents or items enumerated in Rule 12A-1.007(10)(b)3. Further, Petitioner has failed to, show that it is clearly erroneous for Respondent to require the seller (Petitioner) to obtain the enumerated documents or items in order for the seller to take advantage of the exemption.

    
    

24. Regarding the assessment of use tax on the demonstrations of Petitioner's aircraft, Petitioner's demonstrations constitute "use." Section 212.02(21). Potential buyers who express an interest in purchasing the aircraft are permitted by Petitioner to engage in demonstrations which may take a week or longer only after the potential buyers are screened by Petitioner. Also, during the demonstration of an aircraft, Petitioner maintains insurance and is the loss payee.

    
    

25. Petitioner's argument is not persuasive that money paid to it by potential buyers/purchasers for expenses associated with demonstrations is not income even though such money is listed as income in Petitioner's records and books.

    
    

26. Section 212.05(1)(b) provides for the levying of use tax at the rate of 6 percent of the cost price of the property which is being used. The term "cost price" is defined by Section 212.02(4), Florida Statutes, as "the actual cost of articles of the tangible personal property without any deductions therefrom on account of the cost of materials used, labor or service costs, transportation charges, or any expenses whatsoever." Actual cost is not defined by Section 212.02. Taxing statutes are to be construed in favor of the taxpayer. United States Gypsum Co., supra. Respondent's Rule 12A-1.007(10)(h) provides for use tax to be calculated on "1 percent of the value of the aircraft each calendar month the aircraft is used by the dealer." It is not clearly erroneous for Respondent to develop a formula for determining the actual cost for property which is not intended for "use" but becomes "use" on an occasional or temporary basis.

    
    

27. Additionally, in assessing the use tax, the transactions found not to constitute demonstrations in Finding of Fact 15 are to be considered.

    
    

28. Regarding penalty, no persuasive arguement has been presented to suggest that a penalty should not be assessed and that a penalty at 12 percent per annum is inappropriate or unreasonable.

29. Petitioner's argument is not persuasive that a rule challenge, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, to Rule 12A-1.007(10)(b)3 and Rule 12A-1.007(10)(h) should be addressed in this recommended order. No rule challenge has been filed.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order assessing

sales and use tax for the period 2/1/87 - 1/31/92 against Aircraft Trading Center, Inc., consistent herewith.

DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of July 1995.

ERROL H. POWELL

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July 1995.

APPENDIX

The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner

1. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2.

2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3.

3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3.

4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4.

5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5.

6. Rejected as subordinate.

7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14.

8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15.

9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 14.

10. Rejected as subordinate.

11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8 and 9.

12 and 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13.

14. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 16.

Respondent

1. Partially accepted in findings of fact 11 and 12.

2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12.

3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13.

4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Also, see Conclusion of Law

   20.

5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4.

6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5.

7 and 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6.

9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7.

10 and 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14.

12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5.

13-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9.

NOTE: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or conclusion of law.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Robert O. Rogers, Esquire

Rogers, Bowers, Dempsey & Paladeno

505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1330 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Lealand L. McCharen Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General The Capitol-Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Larry Fuchs Executive Director

Department of Revenue

104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100

Linda Lettera General Counsel

Department of Revenue

104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this recommended order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER

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

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

AIRCRAFT TRADING CENTER, INC.,

Petitioner,

v. D.O.A.H. CASE NO.: 94-5085

DOR NO.: DOA 95-10-FOF

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

This cause came before me for the purpose of issuing a final order. The Hearing Officer assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings submitted a Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached. Respondent timely filed Respondent's Exceptions to Recommended Order and Proposed Additional Conclusion of Law, a copy of which is attached.

Pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the Department of Revenue has jurisdiction of this cause.

The Department adopts the Statement of the Issue, Preliminary statement and the Findings of Fact as recommended by the Hearing Officer. The Department also adopts the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law - with one exception. The Department rejects the Hearing Officer's recommended Conclusion of Law Number 28.

Findings of Fact

The Department adopts the Hearing Officer's recommended findings of fact.

However, review of the entire record shows the need for the Department to clarify Finding number fifteen (15) so as to describe the amounts to be subtracted from the assessment. In finding number 15, the Hearing Officer determined that several transactions scheduled as demonstrations by the auditor were not subject to taxation as demonstrations. The amount of tax assessed will be reduced by the amount ascribed to these transactions and the corresponding amount of interest imposed will be recalculated accordingly. The assessment as revised will be for Tax: $80,833.04; Penalty: $20,208.32; and Interest:

$53,212.33; for a total assessment upheld of $154,253.69.

Conclusion of Law

The Department rejects Conclusion of Law 28 in the Recommended Order and adopts the proposed substitute appearing in Respondent's Exceptions to Recommended Order and Proposed Additional Conclusion of Law. The Hearing Officer recommended the following finding:

Regarding penalty, no persuasive argument [sic]

has been presented to suggest that a penalty should not be assessed and that a penalty at 12 percent per annum is inappropriate or unreasonable.

The Department rejects this conclusion because section 212.12(2)(a), Florida statutes, provided during the relevant period for penalty to be assessed at the rate of 5 percent for each 30 days up to a maximum total penalty of 25 percent. Therefore, the Department concludes that no persuasive argument is presented by Petitioner to suggest that a penalty equal to twenty-five percent (25 percent) of the unpaid tax is inappropriate or unreasonable. The amount of penalty assessed will be calculated accordingly.

The Department must also add a new conclusion of law - number 30 - consistent with the addition suggested in Respondent's Exceptions to Recommended Order and Proposed Additional Conclusion of Law. Section 212.12(3), Florida Statutes, provides for the accrual of interest on the balance of an unpaid tax at the rate of 1 percent per month. Therefore, the Department concludes that interest on the assessment is imposed at the rate of twelve percent (12 percent) per annum on the amount of tax found due and owing from the date of the assessment until paid. The amount of interest assessed will be calculated accordingly.

Ruling on Respondent's Exceptions

The Department adopts Respondent's exception to conclusion number 28 as it was recommended by the Hearing Officer and the Department adopts Respondent's new conclusion of law number 30.

Conclusion

The Department adopts the Hearing Officer's recommended disposition of the Petition.

WHEREFORE it is ORDERED:

The recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the Department enter a final order assessing sales and use tax against the Petitioner for the period 2/1/87 to 1/31/92 is sustained as revised herein.

Notice of Rights

Any party to this Final Order has the right to seek judicial review of the Final Order as provided in Section 120.68, Florida statutes, by filing a Notice of Appeal as provided in Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the Agency Clerk of the Department in the Office of General Counsel, Post Office Box 6668, Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 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 must be filed within 30 days from the date this Final Order is filed with the Clerk of the Department.

DONE AND ENTERED IN TALLAHASSEE, LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

this 23rd day of August, 1995.

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

L. H. FUCHS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Certificate of Filing

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing FINAL ORDER has been filed in the official records of the Department this 23rd day of August, 1995.

COPIES TO:

L. H. FUCHS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ROOM 104

CARLTON BUILDING

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0100

ERROL H. POWELL HEARING OFFICER

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS THE DESOTO BUILDING

1230 APALACHEE PARKWAY

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1550

JARRELL L. MURCHISON, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS THE CAPITOL - TAX SECTION

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1050

ROBERT O. ROGERS, ESQUIRE

505 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE SUITE 1330

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401

LINDA LETTERA, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

201 CARLTON BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0100

ATTACHMENTS:

Hearing Officer's Recommended Order

Respondent's Exceptions to Recommended Order and Proposed Additional Conclusion of Law

Docket for Case No: 94-005085

Orders for Case No: 94-005085