vs.
Respondent.
) Case No. 03-0059
Pursuant to notice this cause came on for formal proceeding before P. Michael Ruff, duly-designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings in Pensacola, Florida, on July 16, 2003. The appearances were as follows:
For Petitioner: Harold L. Mitchell, pro se
For Respondent: Robert F. Langford
The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Department of Revenue (Department) has properly issued an assessment against Mitchell's Grocery and Seafood (Mitchell's) for additional sales and use tax, interest and
penalty; local government infrastructure surtax, interest and penalty; and school capital outlay surtax, interest and penalty; purportedly due in connection with business operations of Mitchell's relating to underreported taxable sales.
This case arose when the Department conducted an audit for the period of May 1, 1996 through April 30, 2001, of the Petitioner, Mitchell's. The audit concerning sales and use tax, resulted in an assessment being levied against Mitchell's for additional sales and use tax, interest and penalty; local government infrastructure surtax, and school capital outlay surtax with interest and penalty as to both categories concerning Mitchell's allegedly incorrect remittance and underreporting of taxable sales. Sampling was used by the Department in determining its position as to the amount of tax due because of the large volume of sales invoices maintained by the taxpayer Mitchell's.
The cause came on for hearing as noticed. The Petitioner was represented by its owner, Harold L. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell testified on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. Don Statum, testified on behalf of the Department as its tax auditor. The Petitioner offered as Exhibits A through F, being six months of cash register tapes representing the months of May, June, August, September, and October of 1999 as well as March of 2001.
These exhibits had originally been designated as Petitioner Exhibits A through E at the hearing, with the "A" being May 1999 through "E" which represents October 1999. The Department was given the responsibility, with agreement of the Petitioner at the conclusion of the hearing, to copy and reproduce these cash register tapes to be filed as a late exhibit. Subsequent to the hearing the Department moved for additional time to file the exhibits out-of-time, also with the Petitioner's agreement.
Thus, the late-filed exhibits were timely filed. They represent the period of time from June through October 1999 and the month of March 2001 in the form of cash register tapes of the Petitioner's business. Thus, what was originally at hearing designated Petitioner's Exhibit "A", the cash register tape from May 1999 in fact was incorrectly designated and Petitioner's Exhibit A is, in reality, the cash register tape for June of 1999. There is no cash register tape in evidence for May 1999.
The Respondent offered Exhibit Volumes I and II numbered serially 1 through 328, by document. Volume I with pages numbered 1 through 159 consists of the Department's audit file and Volume II, pages 160 through 328, consists of schedules prepared by Mitchell for the months of May, June, August, September and October, 1999. Additionally, the Department submitted pages number 329 through 336 as an addition to its
Exhibit Volume II, which documents were also accepted into evidence.
Mitchell's Grocery and Seafood is located at 8221 North Century Boulevard, Century, Florida. Mr. Harold Mitchell is the sole proprietor of that business and it is a retail sales business meeting the definition of the term "dealer" as defined in Section 212.06(2)(c)(d), Florida Statutes (2001).
The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administering and enforcing the tax laws of the State of Florida in accordance with Section 213.05, Florida Statutes.
Mitchell's is engaged in the business of operating a "general store," selling fresh seafood, fishing tackle, fish bait, animal feed and general grocery items during times relevant to the audit period.
On June 7, 2001 the Department sent Mitchell's a Form DR-840, being a Notice of Intent to Audit Books and Records. The audit was conducted between June 2001 and July 20, 2001. The purpose of the audit was to determine whether Mitchell's was properly collecting and remitting sales and use taxes to the State of Florida through the Department. The audit period with which the audit effort was concerned relates to May 1, 1996 through April 30, 2001 (audit period).
On September 4, 2001, as a result of its audit, the Department sent a "Notice of Proposed Assessment" (Assessment) to Mitchell's indicating that it believed Mitchell's owed additional sales and use taxes in the amount of $50,864.13 with a related penalty of $25,138.96, with interest through September 4, 2001 in the amount of $15,950.65, for a total amount of
$91,953.74. It also assessed a local government infrastructure surtax amount allegedly due of $8,477.43, with related penalty of $4,126.79, with interest through September 4, 2001, of
$2,658.39, as well as additional school capital outlay tax allegedly due $2,934.02, with related penalty of $1,505.55, with interest through September 4, 2001 of $637.96.
The taxpayer, the Petitioner chose to contest this assessment and filed a protest letter, dated August 18, 2001. The Petitioner submitted financial information in an additional letter submitted to by the Department during its informal protest.
Mitchell's filed a formal protest by letter dated April 23, 2002. The Petitioner availed itself of the reconsideration process by the Department and a Notice of Reconsideration dated October 16, 2002, was issued by the Department. This was done after the Department's representatives visited the Petitioner's place of business on July 9, 2002, reviewed the taxable "markup" percentages and the
exempt markups and elected to reduce its total tax assessment from $62,275.58 to $58,371.47 and, concomitantly, the related penalty and interest sought as to the amount of the reduction.
The Department conducted the audit of the books and records of Mitchell's from June 5, 2001 through July 10, 2001. The necessary documentation was provided by the Petitioner for the Department to make its assessment. With Mitchell's concurrence, the Department's auditor determined that Mitchell's records were voluminous and on June 21, 2001, due to the voluminous nature and substance of the records, the Department and Mitchell's agreed to a two-month sale sampling period, representing the months of July 1999 and March 2001, being used for purposes of the audit. The Department followed a regular audit program it has developed for convenience stores similar to Mitchell's which it used in conducting the audit.
Upon concluding the audit, the auditor determined a proper ratio of taxable sales to gross sales should be 53 percent. He used invoices from the two months representing the Petitioner's purchases for re-sale, as a sample in determining the ratio of taxable sales to gross sales. The auditor found that during the audit period the reported taxable sales were an average of 26 percent of the invoice-supported purchases for re- sale and that after the audit period Mitchell's reported taxable
sales rose to approximately 43 percent of taxable sales in ratio to the total purchases for re-sale.
The auditor found that during the audit period Mitchell's purchased between $20,000.00 to $27,000.00 of taxable items to sell at retail while reporting, on a monthly basis to the Department, taxable sales of between $12,000.00 to
$15,000.00. The Department's auditor found the taxpayer to be knowledgeable about the items that were taxable that he carried in inventory for sale in his store.
The Department's auditor used the Petitioner's purchases supported by purchase invoices in the sample months, to determine the tax liability because of the inherent inability to determine what Mitchell's actually sold, since the cash register tapes do not show the items sold; they only show the amount and the category of the item sold. Moreover, the cash register tapes would not reflect what happened to inventory that was not sold (for instance the owner "eating out of the store"), would not show cash sales which were not "rung up" on a cash register and would not reflect items stolen. This is the procedure that the Department has determined from long practice to be the most effective in ascertaining tax liability resulting from an audit.
The auditor's determination of the amount of tax actually owed by Mitchell's was not based upon what Mitchell's
purchased. Rather, the auditor used the purchases to determine the proper taxable ratio of taxable items purchased for re-sale to apply in determining Mitchell's proper tax remittance to the Department. The most reliable records used by the Department to determine the tax liability were the taxpayer's own invoices of purchased inventory.
Because the taxpayer's records are voluminous the Department exercised its discretion under the law and entered into a sampling agreement with Mitchell's, wherein it made a good faith effort to reach an agreement on a sampling procedure, as required by law. The records shows that Mitchell's provided documentation during the protest period which the Department also considered and analyzed, resulting in a small reduction to the assessment. The Department's assessment is based upon the average, initially 53 percent, of Mitchell's taxable purchases for re-sale. Through the Department's Notice of Reconsideration process this percentage was reduced to 51 percent.
The Petitioner contends that the auditor's approach of using invoices of purchased inventory to determine the proper taxable ratio of the taxable items purchased for resale, fails to take into account that just because items come into inventory does not mean they are sold or does not mean they are sold during the period the auditor is sampling. In this regard, however, the auditor found that Mitchell's has sold essentially
the same inventory mix of items, over the time period since the audit period, as was typically sold during the audit period (i.e. the mix of nontaxable to taxable items). Moreover, the auditor examined and compared Mitchell's federal tax returns and concluded that the taxpayer's inventory did not radically change during the audit period. He also determined that the inventory did not build up and remain unsold over several months, but rather tended to turn over and be completely sold on a monthly basis. He determined this by examination of the taxpayer's own yearly inventory records.
Mr. Mitchell testified that his sales had not increased since the end of the audit period. The auditor for the Department testified that he determined the mark-up ratio from each invoice provided to him from the taxpayer or after talking with the taxpayer concerning his practice on determining mark-up. Based upon this determination of information by the auditor, the mark-up ratio or percentage was entered into the Department's computer program to calculate the retail price of the taxable items purchased.
The mark-up is the difference between the cost of the item when purchased and the price of the item when sold by the Petitioner at retail. For each transaction reflected in the invoices provided by the Petitioner to the Department, the auditor calculated the average taxable ratio for the Petitioner.
The taxable ratio is based upon an analysis of Mitchell's gross sales, exempt sales, taxable sales, tax collected and the tax rate. The taxable ratio is determined by dividing the gross purchases for re-sale at retail made by Mitchell's in a particular month, divided by the taxable purchases for re-sale at retail.
The taxable amount owed by the Petitioner is calculated by a computer program. The retail mark-up for each transaction is examined to derive the taxpayer's taxable ratio for each transaction. The computer program then calculates the average taxable ratio for all of the transactions. The taxable amount owed by the Petitioner is then calculated by multiplying the taxable ratio by the amount of gross sales.
At the end of each day the taxpayer finalizes the total number of sales by "zeeing it off" at the cash register. This procedure allows the taxpayer to ascertain the taxable merchandise sold and the total income. The "zee tapes" break down the transactions into the various categories of the items sold by the taxpayer, including sales of non-taxable items.
The taxpayer records the total taxable sales in a journal at the end of each day. This journal and the sales invoices are sent to the taxpayer's accountant who figures out the taxpayer's monthly remittance of tax to the Department.
Mr. Mitchell did not submit into evidence the journals used by the accountant to ascertain Mitchell's monthly tax liability.
Mr. Mitchell contends that "to meet Mr. Statum's (the Department's auditor) expectations of the assessment, I would have to have approximately nine hundred dollars a day in taxable sales 30 days a month." The taxpayer stated that $900.00 in taxable sales is achieved only a "few days."
The Petitioner retained the summary tapes that break down each category of items sold by the Petitioner. The summary tapes were not made available to the auditor during the audit period, nor placed into evidence.
The Petitioner contends that the sampling period did not account for changes in inventory. He noted that inventory fluctuations occurred, especially with respect to fish bait and tackle. Records of spoiled inventory (fish bait) during the audit period were provided to Mitchell's accountant. The spoilage was taken into account by Mitchell's as a tax deduction. Mitchell's accountant prepared the federal income tax returns based upon journals provided by Mitchell's. The Petitioner signed those tax returns prepared by his accountant and found them to be acceptable.
Mr. Mitchell testified that his accountant prepared his personal tax returns for the years 1996 through 2001 during the audit period. He testified that the inventory figures on
the "Schedule C's" for the years 1996 through 2001 during the audit period, were accurate.
The taxpayer's accountant, Better Business Services, also prepares a monthly income statement which shows Mitchell's gross sales, purchases, expenses, gross profit and net profit. Mr. Mitchell testified that his accountant provided him with accurate information on the income statements for the years 1996 through 2001.
The Petitioner accounted for the fact that purchases of inventory on a monthly basis are greater than the taxable sales reported to the Department by stating that he has unsold inventory in his store including a lot of nails, wine, cigarettes, fishing tackle, fishing rods and reels, high powered rifle cartridges, and shotgun shells, as reflected in the inventory figures shown on his Schedule C's of his federal tax returns for the years 1996-1998.
The Petitioner also contended that the auditor's mark- up prices for soda pop, potato chips (which are delivered pre- priced) and animal feed were not correct. He also contends that the auditor's mark-up prices do not reflect inflation and thus that the auditor's wrongly assessed the cost value of his inventory at 2001 prices when he bought some of it as far back as 1996 at cheaper prices.
For the two months that the auditor sampled, July 1999 and March 2001, the tax liability was computed by applying the taxable ratio of 53 percent to Mitchell's gross sales. The auditor then input over 100 transactions of items sold by Mitchell in June, 2001 into a computer program in order to compute the "effective rate" of tax, taking into account the statutorily mandated "bracket" rates for taxable transactions in accordance with Section 212.12, Florida Statutes.
Concerning the auditor-sampled month of July 1999, the Petitioner agreed with the "mark-up" figures as reflected in "Exhibit A01, Sales Exhibit" with regard to cigarettes, fishing tackle, and Baldwin Snacks. The taxpayer agreed with the cost figures put forth by the auditor as reflected in that exhibit. The Department's auditor determined that for the month of July 1999 the Petitioner would have more taxable merchandise sold than he reported.
Concerning the sample month of March 2001, the auditor determined that the Petitioner would have more taxable merchandise sold than he reported. The Petitioner agreed that the total figure for the inventory purchases reflected in the above referenced exhibit, was accurate.
The auditor examined the taxpayer's exhibits (see exhibit volume II pages 160-327) and found that purchases for the months represented in those exhibits, May, June, August,
September and October, 1999, were well in excess of taxable sales reported to the Department.
The auditor found that Mitchell's reported taxable sales to the Department increased by approximately 75 percent after the audit period. The records of the two sample months from the audit period show a taxable sales amount reported that is comparable to the taxable sales reported to the Department after the audit period, specifically during the month of July 2003. The Department's Exhibit, pages 335-336, shows that during months after conclusion of the audit, beginning in September 2001 through December 2002 the Petitioner had more taxable sales reported to the Department than before the audit, showing an average increase of almost 75 percent after the audit period. Indeed, for several days examined for July of 2003 (immediately prior to the hearing) the taxable sales ratio was running in the range of approximately 50 percent of gross sales.
The Petitioner contends that the difference in the taxable sales ratio as reported during the audit period, with the taxable sales ratio reported after the audit period, was because, as to the months of July 2002 and July 2003, he sells more fish bait, ice and beer in the month of July. He also stated that the more outdoor-oriented workforce in the area depends on good weather to achieve a steady income, which results in his July sales being inordinately high compared to
other months. The Petitioner contends that July sales do not represent an average month.
In summary, the Department's audit and the method it employed in its audit was shown to be reasonable under the circumstances and in accord with the statutory authority cited below. The result of that audit, culminating in the testimony and evidence adduced by the Department, shows that the Petitioner under-reported taxable sales to the Department during the audit period. The testimony of the Petitioner concerning such matters as inventory spoilage, climatic and seasonal weather changes and their effect on the local economy and therefore sales, and discrepancies with the Department's auditor over the mark-up prices of certain items sold in the store does not constitute sufficient evidence to overcome the preponderant showing that the Department's assessment is correct.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2003).
Every person exercises a taxable privilege who engages in the business of selling tangible personal property at retail in this state. § 212.05, Fla. Stat. (2001).
A tax at the rate of six percent of sales price of each item of tangible personal property is levied on each
taxable transaction when sold at retail in Florida, computed on each taxable sale for the purpose of remitting the amount of tax due to the state, and including every retail sales.
§ 212.05(1)(a)1.a, Fla. Stat. (2001).
The tax, at the rate of six percent of the retail sale price as of the moment of sale must be collected from all dealers on the sale of tangible personal property at retail.
§ 212.06(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001).
The term "dealer" is defined to mean every person who sells at retail or who offers for sale at retail, or who has in his or her possession for sale at retail; or for use, consumption or distribution; or for storage to be used or consumed in this state, tangible personal property.
§ 212.06(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2001).
The term "dealer" is further defined to mean any person who has sold at retail, tangible personal property and who cannot prove that the tax levied has been paid on the sale at retail. § 212.06(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2001).
Section 212.12(9), Florida Statutes (2001), provides in pertinent part that:
Taxes imposed by this chapter upon the privilege of the use, consumption, storage for consumption, or sale of tangible personal property, . . . shall be collected upon the basis of an addition of the tax imposed by this chapter to the total price.
. . . or sale price of such article or
articles that are purchased, sold . . . the Department shall make available in an electronic format or otherwise the tax amounts and the following brackets applicable to all transactions taxable at the rate of 6 percent: . . .
Section 212.12(10), Florida Statutes (2001), provides that:
In counties which have adopted a discretionary sales surtax at the rate of 1 percent, the department shall make available in an electronic format or otherwise the tax amounts and the following brackets applicable to all taxable transactions that would otherwise have been transactions taxable at the rate of 6 percent: . . .
The Department is authorized by statute to conduct an audit within five years after the date the tax is due, any return is due or such return is filed, whichever occur later. See § 95.091(3)(a)1.a, Fla. Stat. (1997). The Department in this case properly and reasonably conducted an audit of the taxpayer's available books and records for a five year audit period as permitted by law.
The Department is authorized by law to "audit and examine the accounts, books, or records of all persons who are subject to a revenue law. . ." § 213.34(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). Further, the Department's authority to audit extends to the five-year period prior to the commencement of the audit.
§ 213.34(2), Fla. Stat. (1997).
The Department is authorized to prescribe the records to be kept by all persons subject to taxes under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, such persons have a duty to keep and preserve their records, and, the records shall be open to examination by the Department or it authorized agents at all reasonable hours, in accordance with Section 212.12(6), Florida Statutes.
Section 212.12(6)(c)1., Florida Statutes (2001), provides that:
If the records of a dealer are adequate but voluminous in nature and substance, the department may sample such records, except for fixed assets, and project the audit findings derived therefrom over the entire audit period to determine the proportion that taxable retail sales bear to total purchases. In order to conduct such a sample, the department must first make a good faith effort to reach an agreement with the dealer, which agreement provides for the means and methods to be used in the sampling process. In the event that no agreement is reached, the dealer is entitled to a review by the executive director.
Section 212.12(6)(c)2., Florida Statutes (2001) provides in pertinent part that:
For the purposes of sampling pursuant to subparagraph 1., the department shall project any deficiencies and overpayments derived therefrom over the entire audit period.
Section 120.80(14)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2003), sets forth the respective parties' burdens of proof: "In [a taxpayer contest proceeding, the Department's] burden of proof, except as
otherwise specifically provided by general law, shall be limited to a showing that an assessment has been made against the taxpayer and the factual and legal grounds upon with [Department] made the assessment." After the Department has advanced its proof in accordance with the statutory provision, "the burden shifts to the taxpayer to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment is incorrect." IPC Sports Inc., v. State Department of Revenue, 829 So. 2d 330, 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
The issue in this case concerns whether the Petitioner correctly reported and remitted the proper amount of sales and use tax, local government infrastructure surtax, and school capital outlay surtax and whether the taxable sales ratio determined by the Department from a two-month sample of the Petitioner's purchase records (purchases for resale in its business) is representative of the Petitioner's taxable sales activity during the audit period.
The Department introduced its Exhibits I, pages 1-159 and II, pages 330-336, as well as the testimony of its auditor, Mr. Don Statum. The Petitioner provided no documentary evidence which would disprove the assessment.
The assessment was based in part on the provision of Section 212.12(6)(c)1., Florida Statutes (2001), which provides that the Department may estimate the amount of sales tax due
when the records of the taxpayer are "adequate but voluminous in nature and substance." The Department's assessment is not required to be precise. The Petitioner's records in the subject case were adequate for the assessment to be made.
The legislative intent underlying the above, last- cited statutory provision, provides discretion to the Department to choose the sampling months during the audit period when the taxpayers records are voluminous. That is the situation at bar and the Department entered into a sampling agreement with the taxpayer, having made a good faith effort to reach an agreement with the Petitioner on a sampling agreement as required by law. The Department did so in this case and its assessment is valid. The Petitioner provided documentation to the Department during a protest period which the Department analyzed. Because the Petitioner agreed to the sampling of its records it cannot now complain about the months chosen pursuant to that sampling agreement. It was not shown that the Department abused its discretion in choosing to sample the records during the audit period and the above statutory authority has been complied with respect to the sampling. In fact, after the Department analyzed information provided by the Petitioner after the audit, it reduced the assessment through its Notice of Reconsideration Process.
The issue in this case concerns the amount of taxable sales not the gross sales by the Petitioner. The taxpayer testimony concerning the amount of gross sales does not prove that the Petitioner remitted the proper amount of tax to the Department during the audit period based upon properly reported taxable sales. Section 212.12(6)(c)1., Florida Statutes (2001), states that the Department, when sampling a taxpayer's records pursuant to a sampling agreement, will "determine the proportion that taxable retail sales bear to total retail sales or the proportion that taxable purchases [for resale] bear to total purchases."
Based upon examining the taxpayer's own purchase records, the Department determined and has demonstrated that the Petitioner has not remitted the proper amount of tax for items of tangible personal property sold for which tax must be collected when sold at retail. The Petitioner's testimony concerning unsold inventory and his complaint that he never had enough gross sales per month to remit the amount of tax assessed does not determine whether the Petitioner remitted the proper amount of tax during the audit period, which it is the Petitioner's burden to show.
The record in this case shows that the Petitioner did not remit the proper amount of tax during the audit period. Based upon the Petitioner's own record of items purchased for
sale at retail at his store, the Department determined that the Petitioner underreported taxable sales to the Department during the audit period. The Petitioner's testimony as to the volume of sales and the corresponding monthly remittance of taxable sales to the Department during the audit period does not meet the burden of proof necessary to refute the assessment.
No testimony was offered by the Petitioner as to how his accountant ascertained the monthly sales tax remittance to the Department during the audit period, and thus the Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof in refuting the assessment.
The Petitioner complained that the auditor's mark-up prices for goods are speculative and do not reflect inflation because he contends that the Department is assessing the Petitioner's inventory purchase cost at 2001 prices when he bought at least some of that inventory in 1996 at lower prices. The Petitioner is thus contending that, if his inventory cost reflected what he says were cheaper purchase prices when he bought the inventory, then under the calculation of taxable sales, he would have a lower taxable sales amount for a given inventory purchase cost, plus his normal mark-up, and therefore would owe less tax. The Petitioner, however, did not provide mark-up prices of his own in evidence, and thus did not meet his burden of proof to show that the taxable sales, and therefore tax due, should be lower based upon whatever his mark-up prices
might have been when applied to what he contends were lower inventory purchase costs. In fact, the Petitioner agreed with most of the mark-up prices used by the auditor.
The Petitioner's testimony that the exemplar sales days in July 2003, shortly prior to hearing, do not, by extrapolation, reflect a typical sales month, does not overcome evidence that more taxable sales were reported by the Petitioner since the end of the audit period. The evidence in the record reflects preponderantly, that, for the majority of the months during the two years since the audit concluded, the taxable sales of the Petitioner, reported to the Department, increased by as much as 75 percent or increased from the average of 26 percent during the audit period to as much as 52 percent of gross sales after the audit was concluded. This lends creditability to the Department's position that, for the audit period, taxable sales were underreported in the manner demonstrated by the Department in its evidence.
In summary, the Department has demonstrated a factual and legal basis for its proposed revised assessment against the Petitioner in accordance with Sections 212.05, 212.06, and 212.12, Florida Statutes (2001). The Petitioner has not met its burden of proving by preponderant evidence that the revised proposed assessment is incorrect, including the calculation of tax, penalties and interest owed. Accordingly, the assessment
should be sustained. The Department is authorized under Section 213.21(3), Florida Statutes, to compromise as to tax liability, interest and penalty, where there is doubt to collectibility and where the non-compliance is not due to willful negligence, willful neglect or fraud. The evidence concerning the Petitioner's financial and other circumstances indicates there may be doubt as to collectibility and there is no persuasive evidence of willful negligence, willful neglect or fraud. It is concluded that the Department should exercise its discretion and consider such a compromise.
Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witness, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is, therefore,
RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Revenue sustaining the revised assessment at issue in the amount of $58,371.47 plus concomitant penalty and interest and subject to any discretionary negotiated settlement of tax, penalty and interest amounts.
DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 2003.
Harold L. Mitchell Post Office Box 13 Century, Florida 32535
Robert F. Langford Assistant General Counsel
Office of the Attorney General The Capitol-Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
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.
