Findings Of Fact In time sequence, the following transactions took place: a. Petitioner, Myron Friedman, executed a contract with Willow Industries, Inc., a New York corporation, on August 14, 1973, for the purchase of properties located in Manatee County, Florida. Conquistador Estates, Inc., a Florida corporation, for profit, was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida on September 25, 1973. Petitioner, Myron Friedman, borrowed $650,000 from Franklin National Bank of Long Island, New York, on October 29, 1973. Mr. Friedman executed a personal note to the Florida National Bank on October 29, 1973. Myron Friedman made a loan to Conquistador Estates, Inc. in the amount of $400,000 to purchase the Manatee County property on October 30, 1973. Conquistador Estates, Inc. purchased the properties described in the contract from Willow Industries, Inc. to Myron Friedman on October 30, 1973. Conquistador Estates, Inc. executed a mortgage to Myron Friedman in the amount of $400,000 on October 30, 1973, in exchange for the herein before mentioned loan of $400,000 on October 29, 1973. Myron Friedman assigned the herein before mentioned mortgage to Franklin National Bank as security for the personal loan of $650,000 on October 30, 1973. Conquistador Estates, Inc. deeded the properties acquired by it from Willow Industries, Inc. to Myron Friedman on May 28, 1974. Additional facts: The notes and the mortgage herein described are still in existence. Conquistador Estates, Inc. is still a viable corporation although it owns no property and Myron Friedman is the sole stockholder. There were no payments made to Petitioner, Myron Friedman, as required by the terms of the promissory note of Conquistador Estates, Inc. to Myron Friedman. In an Audit of documents recorded in the office of the Circuit Clerk in and for Manatee County, Florida, Respondent, Department of Revenue, determined that insufficient documentary stamps and documentary surtax stamps were affixed to the warranty deed dated May 28, 1974, between Conquistador Estates, Inc. and Petitioner, Myron Friedman, an individual. Subsequent to the audit, the Respondent issued a "Proposed Notice of Assessment of Tax and Penalty Under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, documentary surtax in the amount of $439.45, pursuant to Section 201.021, Florida Statutes, and penalties in the amount of $1,639.14 pursuant to Section 201.17, Florida Statutes. Attached to the said notice was "Schedule A," an explanation of the basis for the demand for additional documentary stamp tax and documentary surtax. It explained that the warranty deed to Petitioner, Myron Friedman, individually, from Conquistador Estates, Inc., satisfied the existing mortgage and which rendered the mortgage unenforceable as to the original mortgagor, Conquistador Estates, Inc., and cited Department of Administration Rule 12A-4.13(2) Florida Administrative Code. "Defaulting Mortgagor: Where a mortgagor, in full or partial satisfaction of the mortgage indebtedness, conveys the mortgaged premises to the mortgagee, documentary stamp taxes are due on the transaction." Petitioner, Myron Friedman, contends: That Conquistador Estates, Inc. was just a nominee used for the purpose of securing a mortgage loan; That he is the sole owner of the corporation; That there was no conveyance in full or partial satisfaction of the mortgage since he is the sole owner of the corporation, and he is the grantee and that, therefore, no documentary stamp tax or surtax or penalty is due; That the mortgage itself is assigned and is still in existence. The Respondent contends: That the clear wording of statute, Section 201.02(1), F.S., controls the transaction which was a conveyance by warranty deed; That because the corporation, Conquistador Estates, Inc. has no assets and made no payments to Petitioner, the conveyance by warranty deed was in full satisfaction of the mortgage indebtedness and canceled the written obligation of the corporation to pay $400,000, the unpaid portion of the obligation secured by the mortgage. The Respondent further contends that the partial indebtness of the corporation itself to Petitioner was canceled.
Recommendation Assess the documentary stamp and the documentary surtax against Petitioner, Myron Friedman. Do not assess penalties for failure to pay tax required, inasmuch as it is apparent that the taxes which were paid were paid in good faith and that the taxes which were due and owing were not paid because of a misunderstanding of the requirements of Chapter 201, F.S. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of May, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert H. Carr, Esquire Post Office Box 3798 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Patricia Turner, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the facts-of the case as follows: On March 2, 1972, the petitioners, Fred W. Baggett and John S. Miller, Jr., along with one Michael W. Duggar, incorporated a Florida corporation known as Tallahassee Properties , Inc. and filed Articles of Incorporation with the Secretary of State, State of Florida. On June 29, 1972, the above described corporation took title to the property described as follows: All that part of Lot Number 176 in the Original Plan of the City of Tallahassee, in the County of Leon, State of Florida, described as follows: to-wit: Begin at the Northwest corner of said lot and run thence East along the South line of College Avenue (formerly Clinton Street) 39 feet to the wall of a brick building, thence run South along the side of said building 60 feet, thence run West 39 feet to the East line of Adams Street, thence run North along the East line of Adams Street 60 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 176, being the point of beginning; from LeRoy Collins and Mary Call Collins, said deed being recorded in Official Records Book 532, Page 327 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida. On that same date, Tallahassee Properties, Inc. executed a note and mortgage in the amount of $55,000 to Leon Federal Savings and Loan Association, said mortgage being recorded in Official Records Book 532, Page 328 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida. The said note was personally endorsed by John S. Miller, Jr., Fredric W. Baggett and Michael W. Duggar. On June 29, 1972, Tallahassee Properties, Inc. executed a note in the original principal amount of $72,405.84 to LeRoy Collins and Mary Call Collins secured by a second mortgage on the property and as recorded in Official Records Book 532, Page 376 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida, The said note was personally endorsed by John S. Miller, Jr., Fredric W. Baggett and Michael W. Duggar. On September 8, 1972, an agreement was entered into between Michael W. Duggar and Ronald C. LaFace of Tallahassee, Florida, wherein the said Michael W. - Duggar conveyed his interest in Tallahassee Properties, Inc. to Ronald C. LaFace and the said Ronald C. LaFace agreed therein to hold Michael W. Duggar harmless and relieve him of liability and indemnifying him for any liabilities which Michael W. Duggar may or could have as a result of his interest in Tallahassee Properties, Inc. This is the reason that the said Ronald C. LaFace is the proper party petitioner in this action. On April 18, 1973, Tallahassee Properties, Inc. executed an additional note to Leon Federal Savings and Loan Association in the amount of $17,500 which said note was also secured by that certain mortgage dated June 29, 1972 and recorded June 29, 1972 in Official Records Book 532, Page 328 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida. The said note was personally endorsed by John S. Miller, Jr., Fredric W. Baggett and Ronald C. LaFace. On April 23, 1973 by an instrument recorded in Official Records Book 584, Page 94 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida, Tallahassee Properties, Inc. conveyed an equal one-third interest in the subject property to John S. Miller, Jr., Fred W. Baggett and 5 Ronald C. LaFace. Affixed to the said deed were documentary surtax stamps in the amount of 55 cents and State of Florida documentary stamp tax in the amount of 30 cents. By letter dated September 24, 1975, the respondent, State of Florida, Department of Revenue, informed the petitioners that they had failed to pay an additional documentary stamp tax in the amount of $434.70 due on that certain warranty deed described above as having been recorded on April 23, 1973 in the Public Records of Leon County, Florida. This proceeding was initiated by petitioners after having received said letter from the respondent for a determination that the assessment was improper in that the subject conveyance was not a taxable event. Respondent has asserted that a tax of $434.70 is due and owing from the petitioners. In addition, they have assessed an additional 100 percent penalty for a total claim of $869.40 exclusive of interest or other penalties. The assessment was determined by the Department of Revenue on the basis of adding the original principal balance of the three above described notes secured by mortgages. The original principal amount of the notes was $144,905.84. By the application of the tax imposed by Section 201.02, Florida Statutes, if the petitioners have any liability for payment of the documentary stamp tax, then the determination of $434.70 as an assessment is a correct figure. Petitioners' exhibits 1 through 4, respondent's exhibit 1 and 2, and posthearing briefs of counsel are appended to the record.
Recommendation That petitioners be, found not liable for the proposed assessment of documentary stamp tax and penalty under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes. Done and Entered this 10th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs the Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Daniel J. Wiser, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether petitioner is liable for documentary stamp surtax, penalty and interest, pursuant to Proposed Notice of Assessment, dated November 17, 1976. The parties stipulated to the relevant facts set forth in the petition. They also stipulated that the amounts of the proposed assessment are properly computed and due, if petitioner is determined to be liable therefor.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Netherland Antilles Corporation, duly authorized to do business in the State of Florida. On April 9, 1974, petitioner executed a mortgage deed to Seville Management, a partnership, whereby it encumbered its long-term lease on certain real property located in Miami Beach, Florida, in the amount of $2,500,000. The lease contained an option to purchase the land in the amount of $1,500,000, which was later increased to $1,550,000. Paragraph 33 of the deed provided that petitioner would be obligated to consummate the exercise of the option to purchase on or before June 1, 1976, and that failure to do so would constitute a default of the mortgage on the leasehold interest. (Testimony of Cassel, Petition) In June 1976, Petitioner obtained fee simple title to the property in question through the exercise of the option to purchase for the sum of $1,550,000, by warranty deed dated June 27, 1976, from the trustees of Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund as grantor. The deed provided that the lease was thereby "extinguished, canceled and terminated, the Grantee herein being owner of the interest of the Lessor and the Lessee in such lease. Petitioner recorded the warranty deed on July 6, 1976, and affixed the state documentary stamps on a consideration of $1,550,000. However it only affixed the nominal sum of 55 cents for documentary surtax, At the time of the conveyance, the mortgage balance on the property exceeded the purchase price of $1,550,000. (Testimony of Cassel, Petition) Subsequently, respondent assessed documentary surtax in the amount of $1704.45 and a penalty in a like amount, plus interest in the amount of $74.31 against petitioner with respect to the transaction based on a consideration of $1,550,000. On November 4, 1976, an informal conference was held with the respondent and thereafter by letter of November 17, 1976, respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment in the total amount of $3,483.21 for delinquent documentary surtax, penalty and interest. (Petition, Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That the proposed assessment against petitioner in the amount of $3483.21 for documentary surtax, penalty, and interest under Section 201.021, F.S., be upheld and assessed. DONE and ENTERED this day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Craig B. Sherman, Esquire Broad and Cassel Barnett Bank Building 1108 Kane Concourse Bay Harbor Islands, Florida 33154
Findings Of Fact Paragraph 3 of the Petitioner's petition for administrative hearing provides: "That the Petitioners accepted a conveyance of certain real property in Brevard County, Florida in lieu of foreclosure of a mortgage held by them. The Department of Revenue contends that the documentary surtax should be paid on the deeds based on the amount of the outstanding mortgage at the time of the conveyances. It has served notice of the proposed assessments against each of the Petitioners in the following amounts, to wit: Jesse Jackson Parrish, Jr., tax - $187.00, penalty - $187.00, interest - $5.61, total due to date - $379.61; Ralph Bernard Parrish, tax - $187.00, penalty - $187.00, interest - $5.61, total due to date - $379.61; J.J. Parrish & Company, Inc., tax - $374.55, penalty - $374.55, interest - $11.24, total due to date - $760.34, and Pauline Bryan, tax - $187.00, penalty - $187.00, interest - $5.61, total due to date - $760.34, and Pauline Bryan, tax - $187.00, penalty - 187.00, interest - 5.61, total due to date - $379.61. That the statutes, Florida Statutes, 201.02, does not require payment of the documentary sur tax in such a case. The condition of this statute, by the court, in Leadership Housing, Inc., a Delaware corporation vs. Department of Revenue of the State of Florida, Fla. App. 336 So 2d 1239, holds that the statute should be strictly construed in favor of the tax payer and against the Government." In its answer the Respondent admitted the allegations contained in the first three sentences of the above quoted paragraph. In response to the last sentence of Paragraph 3 of the petition, the Respondent answered as follows: "Respondent denies the following allegations contained in the fourth sentence of paragraph three, if Petitioners are refering to section 201.021 Florida Statutes, and asserts that the conveyance which is the subject of this cause is subject to the imposition of documentary surtax stamps pursuant to section 201.021, Florida Statutes. Respondent, with respect to the allegations contained in the last sentence of Paragraph 3, admits to the existence of the decision in the Leadership Housing Inc., a Delaware corporation v. Department of Revenue of the State of Florida case, but asserts that such decision is not applicable in the instant cause." Since the allegations of the first three sentences of Paragraph 3 of the petition have been admitted by the Respondent, the allegations will be accepted as facts, and are intended to be construed as findings of fact herein. In Paragraph 2 of their petition, the Petitioners alleged: "There are no issues of material fact." In its answer the Respondent did not admit this allegation, but rather asserted that it was without knowledge with respect to it. The position taken by the Respondent at the final hearing clearly indicates that the Respondent is in agreement that there are no issues of fact to be determined in this case. On or about December 23, 1975, Alexander H. Clattenberg, Jr. and John Lowndes, Trustees, executed warranty deeds granting to Jesse Jackson Parrish, Jr., Ralph Bernard Parrish, and Pauline Parrish Bryan three separate parcels of land located in Brevard County, Florida. These warranty deeds were received in evidence respectively as Respondent's Exhibits 4, 2, and 3. On or about July 8, 1976, Alexander H. Clattenberg, Jr. and John F. Lowndes, Trustees, executed a warranty deed granting to J. J. Parrish & Company, Inc., certain real property located in Brevard County, Florida. A copy of this deed was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. On or about December 29, 1976, the Respondent issued notices of proposed assessment against Jesse Jackson Parish, Jr., Ralph Bernard Parrish, and J. J. Parrish & Company, Inc. based upon Respondent's Exhibits 4, 2, and 1. Copies of these notices of proposed assessment were received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 5. A copy of a proposed assessment against Pauline Parrish Bryan was neither offered into evidence nor received. It is alleged in the Petitioners' petition, and admitted in the Respondent's answer, however, that a notice of proposed assessment was served upon Pauline Bryan. Except insofar as the pleadings contain undisputed allegations respecting the consideration for the warranty deeds that were received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 4, there was no evidence presented at the final hearing from which any findings can be made respecting the consideration for the deeds.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent assess documentary surtaxes, interest, and penalties against the Petitioners in the amounts set out in Paragraph 3 of the Petitioners' petition for administrative hearing. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Harry L. Coe Executive Director Department of Revenue Room 102, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Joe D. Matheny, Esquire Henderson, Matheny & Jones P. O. Box 6536 Titusville, Florida 32780
Findings Of Fact The facts in this case are derived from the exhibits submitted into evidence at the hearing and the testimony of petitioner H.R. Thornton, Jr. The pertinent documents show that a portion of a lot located in the toxin of St. Cloud, Florida, owned by Garold D. Doak, Sr. and Susan E. Doak, his wife, was mortgaged by the Doaks to Peachtree Mortgage Corporation on December 28, 1972, in the amount of $16,850.00. On January 4, 1973, Peachtree Mortgage Corporation assigned the Mortgage to the Hamilton Federal Savings and Loan association of Brooklyn, New York. On February 6, 1976, a lis pendens was filed against the property by the assignee of the mortgage in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Osceola County, Florida, incident to an action to foreclose the mortgage. On March 15, 1976, the Doaks executed quitclaim deeds on the property to Stephene J. Houseman. On April 6, 1976, a final judgement of foreclosure was entered in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in favor of Hamilton Federal Savings and Loan Association of Brooklyn, New York. (Exhibit 1-6) On April 27, 1976, Houseman executed a quitclaim deed on the property to petitioners. On April 30, 1976, the Thorntons conveyed their interest in the property by warranty deed to Jaiies Francis Wiczorek and Shirley Lillian Wiczorek, his wife. The deed recited that it was subject to the outstanding mortgage to Hamilton Federal Savings and Loan Association with a principal balance of sec. 16,224.52 which the grantees agreed to assume and pay. The deed further recited a consideration of $4,000.00 and documentary stamp tax in an appropriate amount was paid based on a consideration which included the cash payment and the mortgage amount. On July 30, 1976, the mortgage in question was satisfied. (Exhibits 8-10) Only minimal documentary stamp tax of thirty cents was paid on the quitclaim deed from Houseman to petitioners. Respondent issued a notice of proposed assessment of additional documentary stamp tax in the amount of $48.60, surtax in the amount of $17.60, penalties in like amounts, and interest thereon, for a total of $158.51, on March 21, 1977. The proposed assessment was based on consideration stated to be the existing mortgage on the property in the amount of $16,224.52. On April 29, 1977, petitioners filed their petition for an administrative hearing, challenging the proposed assessment on the grounds that there was no evidence to show the taxable consideration as found by respondent. By an amended and revised notice of proposed assessment, dated April 29, 1977, the amount for documentary surtax, penalty and interest thereon was deleted leaving only the sums relating to documentary stamp tax, penalty, and interest in the amount of $102.30. (Exhibit 8) Petitioner H.R. Thornton, Jr. took the quitclaim deed in question to cancel a $100.00 debt owed him by Houseman. He had no intent to make the mortgage payments or payments or pay any other consideration for the transfer. (Testimony of Thornton)
Recommendation That petitioners be held liable for payment of documentary stamp tax, penalty and interest under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, as modified herein with respect to the penalty. Done and Entered this 29th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 H. R. Thornton, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 345 St. Cloud, Florida 32769
The Issue The issue in this unadopted-rule challenge is whether Respondent, in connection with the administration of the stamp tax, has formulated a statement of general applicability for allocating undifferentiated, lump-sum payments made in purchase- and-sale transactions involving joint real estate/personal property transfers; which meets the statutory definition of a rule but has not been adopted pursuant to the rulemaking procedure; and, as used by Respondent, has the effect of creating an entitlement to collect tax on 100% of the undifferentiated consideration.
Findings Of Fact On February 23, 2015, Petitioner 1701 Collins (Miami) Owner, LLC ("Taxpayer"), a Delaware limited liability company, entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Agreement") to sell a going concern, namely a hotel and conference center doing business in Miami Beach, Florida, as the SLS Hotel South Beach (the "Hotel Business"), to 1701 Miami (Owner), LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Purchaser"). Purchaser paid Taxpayer $125 million for the Hotel Business. The Hotel Business comprised two categories of property, i.e., real estate ("RE") and personal property ("PP"). The PP, in turn, consisted of two subcategories of property, tangible personal property ("TPP") and intangible personal property ("ITPP"). It is undisputed that the property transferred pursuant to the Agreement included RE, TPP, and ITPP. The sale closed on June 5, 2015, and a special warranty deed was recorded on June 8, 2015, which showed nominal consideration of $10. Pursuant to the Agreement, Taxpayer was responsible for remitting the documentary stamp tax and the discretionary surtax (collectively, "stamp tax"). Stamp tax is due on instruments transferring RE; the amount of the tax, payable per instrument recorded, is based upon the consideration paid for RE. Stamp tax is not assessed on consideration given in exchange for PP. The Agreement contains a provision obligating the parties to agree, before closing, upon a reasonable allocation of the lump-sum purchase price between the three types of property comprising the Hotel Business. For reasons unknown, this allocation, which was to be made "for federal, state and local tax purposes," never occurred. The failure of the parties to agree upon an allocation, if indeed they even attempted to negotiate this point, did not prevent the sale from occurring. Neither party declared the other to be in breach of the Agreement as a result of their nonallocation of the consideration. The upshot is that, as between Taxpayer and the Purchaser, the $125 million purchase price was treated as undifferentiated consideration for the whole enterprise. Taxpayer paid stamp tax in the amount of approximately $1.3 million based on the full $125 million of undifferentiated consideration. Taxpayer paid the correct amount of stamp tax if the entire consideration were given in exchange for the RE transferred to Purchaser pursuant the Agreement——if, in other words, the Purchaser paid nothing for the elements of the Hotel Business consisting of PP. On February 6, 2018, Taxpayer timely filed an Application for Refund with Respondent Department of Revenue (the "Department"), which is the agency responsible for the administration of the state's tax laws. Relying on a report dated February 1, 2018 (the "Deal Pricing Analysis" or "DPA"), which had been prepared for Taxpayer by Bernice T. Dowell of Cynsur, LLC, Taxpayer sought a refund in the amount of $495,013.05. As grounds therefor, Taxpayer stated that it had "paid Documentary Stamp Tax on personal property in addition to real property." Taxpayer's position, at the time of the refund application and throughout this proceeding, is that its stamp tax liability should be based, not on the total undifferentiated consideration of $125 million given in the exchange for the Hotel Business, but on $77.8 million, which, according to the DPA, is the "implied value" of——i.e., the pro-rata share of the lump-sum purchase price that may be fairly allocated exclusively to——the RE transferred pursuant to the Agreement. Taxpayer claims that, to the extent it paid stamp tax on the "implied values" (as determined in the DPA) of the TPP ($7 million) and ITPP ($40.2 million) included in the transfer of the Hotel Business, it mistakenly overpaid the tax.1/ On February 23, 2018, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Make Refund Claim Changes, which informed Taxpayer that the Department planned to "change" the refund amount requested, from roughly $500 thousand, to $0——to deny the refund, in other words. In explanation for this proposed decision, the Department wrote: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the [special warranty deed] was recorded. Please provide supporting information regarding allocation of purchase price on or around the time of the sale." This was followed, on April 2, 2018, by the Department's issuance of a Notice of Proposed Refund Denial, whose title tells its purpose. The grounds were the same as before: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the document was recorded." Taxpayer timely filed a protest to challenge the proposed refund denial, on May 31, 2018. Taxpayer argued that the $125 million consideration, which Purchaser paid for the Hotel Business operation, necessarily bought the RE, TPP, and ITPP constituting the going concern; and, therefore, because stamp tax is due only on the consideration exchanged for RE, and because there is no requirement under Florida law that the undifferentiated consideration exchanged for a going concern be allocated, at any specific time, to the categories or subcategories of property transferred in the sale, Taxpayer, having paid stamp tax on consideration given for TPP and ITPP, is owed a refund. The Department's tax conferee determined that the proposed denial of Taxpayer's refund request should be upheld because, as he explained in a memorandum prepared on or around December 27, 2018, "[t]he taxpayer [had failed to] establish that an allocation of consideration between Florida real property, tangible personal property, and intangible property was made prior to the transfer of the property such that tax would be based only on the consideration allocated to the real property." The Department issued its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial on January 9, 2019. In the "Law & Discussion" section of the decision, the Department wrote: When real and personal property are sold together, and there is no itemization of the personal property, then the sales price is deemed to be the consideration paid for the real property. [2] Likewise, when the personal property is itemized, then only the amount of the sales price allocated for the real property is consideration for the real property and subject to the documentary stamp tax. The first of these propositions will be referred to as the "Default Allocation Presumption." The second will be called "Consensual-Allocation Deference." The Department cited no law in support of either principle. In its intended decision, the Department found, as a matter of fact, that Taxpayer and Purchaser had not "established an allocation between all properties prior to the transfer" of the Hotel Business. Thus, the Department concluded that Taxpayer was not entitled to Consensual-Allocation Deference, but rather was subject to the Default Allocation Presumption, pursuant to which the full undifferentiated consideration of $125 million would be "deemed to be the consideration paid for the" RE. Taxpayer timely requested an administrative hearing to determine its substantial interests with regard to the refund request that the Department proposes to deny. Taxpayer also filed a Petition to Determine Invalidity of Agency Statement, which was docketed under DOAH Case No. 19-3639RU (the "Rule Challenge"). In its section 120.56(4) petition, Taxpayer alleges that the Department has taken a position of disputed scope or effect ("PDSE"), which meets the definition of a "rule" under section 120.52(16) and has not been adopted pursuant to the rulemaking procedure prescribed in section 120.54. The Department's alleged PDSE, as described in Taxpayer's petition, is as follows: In the administration of documentary stamp tax and surtax, tax is due on the total consideration paid for real property, tangible property and intangible property, unless an allocation of consideration paid for each type of property sold has been made by the taxpayer on or before the date the transfer of the property or recording of the deed. If the alleged PDSE is an unadopted rule, as Taxpayer further alleges, then the Department is in violation of section 120.54(1)(a). The questions of whether the alleged agency PDSE exists, and, if so, whether the PDSE is an unadopted rule, are common to Taxpayer's separate actions under sections 120.57(1) and 120.56(4), respectively, because neither the Department nor the undersigned may "base agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule." § 120.57(1)(e)1., Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the Rule Challenge was consolidated with Taxpayer's refund claim for hearing. It is determined that the Department, in fact, has taken a PDSE, which is substantially the same as Taxpayer described it. The undersigned rephrases and refines the Department's PDSE, to conform to the evidence presented at hearing, as follows: In determining the amount stamp tax due on an instrument arising from the lump-sum purchase of assets comprising both RE and PP, then, absent an agreement by the contracting parties to apportion the consideration between the categories or subcategories of property conveyed, made not later than the date of recordation (the "Deadline"), it is conclusively presumed that 100% of the undifferentiated consideration paid for the RE and PP combined is attributable to the RE alone. According to the PDSE, the parties to a lump-sum purchase of different classes of property (a "Lump—Sum Mixed Sale" or "LSMS") possess the power to control the amount of stamp tax by agreeing upon a distribution of the consideration between RE and PP, or not, before the Deadline.2/ If they timely make such an agreement, then, in accordance with Consensual-Allocation Deference, which is absolute, the stamp tax will be based upon whatever amount the parties attribute to the RE. If they do not, then, under the Default Allocation Presumption, which is irrebuttable, the stamp tax will be based upon the undifferentiated consideration. The Department has not published a notice of rulemaking under section 120.54(3)(a) relating to the PDSE. Nor has the Department presented evidence or argument on the feasibility or practicability of adopting the PDSE as a de jure rule. It is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that the PDSE has the effect of law because the Department, if unchecked, intends consistently to follow, and to enforce compliance with, the PDSE. Because, in the Department's hands, the PDSE creates an entitlement to collect stamp taxes while adversely affecting taxpayers, it is an unadopted rule.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the hearing the parties jointly moved to consolidate the two (2) above styled cases and stated the stipulation would cover both 76-2197, D.O.A.H., and 77-604, D.O.A.H. The former involved six (6) deeds and the latter three (3) deeds. The following facts were stipulated to by the parties: The Respondent, Department of Revenue, imposed a documentary stamp tax upon six (6) deeds which transferred the title to properties from individual persons to Petitioner Corry. The transfer came about as a result of the following: In each of the six (6) transfers under question, Petitioner Corry sold property to certain individuals. The Petitioner gave to the individuals a deed and took back a purchase money mortgage. The purchasers made essentially no payments on the mortgage to Petitioner Corry and ultimately the purchasers deeded the property back to the Petitioner. The deeds were recorded in the courthouse records. In one of the deeds there is a specific statement that the deed is executed in lieu of foreclosure and that the purchaser is released from all liability. There is no such specific statement in the other deeds. By a Proposed Notice of Assessment dated August 3, 1976, the Respondent, Department of Revenue, sought to impose a documentary stamp tax upon the six (6) deeds. The consideration upon which the tax is based in cases like the instant case is usually the amount of mortgage debt forgiven but in the instant case no such information was provided and the tax was based on the assessed values of the property. Petitioner Corry is contesting the legal liability of Petitioner for the assessment and is not contesting the legal liability of Petitioner for the assessment and is not contesting the mathematical computation of the amount allegedly due. It is Petitioner's contention that the six (6) deeds are not subject to documentary stamp taxation inasmuch as the Petitioner paid nothing for the deeds and were signed by the mortgagors at the request of the Petitioner to clear title of the equitable owner. It is the Respondent Department of Revenue's contention that the six (6) deeds are subject to documentary stamp taxation since they are deeds in lieu of foreclosure or are deeds given when debts are rendered unenforceable. At the time the six (6) deeds were recorded on December 22, 1975, in Taylor County, the Deputy Clerk asked Petitioner how much he paid for the six (6) deeds in question and when he responded that he paid nothing for the deeds the Deputy Clerk advised him that he owed no documentary stamp tax or surtax thereon. Relying on the Deputy Clerk's advice, the deeds were recorded and no taxes were paid, only the recording fees. The Hearing Officer further finds: The deeds in question were secured for the purpose of clearing title to the equitable owner. The Petitioner paid nothing to the mortgagor for the deeds. The stipulation controls both cases No. 76-2197 and 77-604.
Recommendation Hold the assessments as valid assessment. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Caroline C. Mueller, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William W. Corry, Esquire Post Office Box 527 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 1977.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 31, 1974, the Petitioner purchased a certain tract of property from Rio Branco Corporation. As a part of the purchase price, the Petitioner executed a secured promissory note, and a purchase money mortgage. A copy of the mortgage and the promissory note were received in evidence as Joint Exhibit 1. Although the promissory note is in the form of a direct obligation for the Petitioner to pay the face amount of the note to Rio Branco Corporation, its obligations were limited. The note provides in Paragraph 12 as follows: "Mortgagor, (Petitioner] assumes no corporate liability for the payment of the debt evidenced by this note and mortgage. Mortgagee [Rio Branco Corporation] waives any corporate liability and agrees to look solely to the property securing such debt for payment thereof." Petitioner apparently defaulted on the mortgage and the promissory note, and a foreclosure suit was initiated by Rio Branco Corporation. Petitioner was named as the defendant in this suit which was filed in Sarasota County, and given case number CA-75-1107. Prior to the completion of the foreclosure action, Petitioner executed a quitclaim deed conveying its interest in the subject property back to Rio Branco Corporation. The quitclaim deed was executed in lieu of foreclosure. A copy of the quitclaim deed was received in evidence as Joint Exhibit 2. The Petitioner stipulated that, it executed Joint Exhibit 2 in order to prevent any deficiency from being entered following a judicial sale in connection with the foreclosure proceeding. Despite the stipulation it is apparent that Rio Branco Corporation could not have enforced any such deficiency against the Petitioner due to the above quoted provision of the promissory note. The quitclaim deed was apparently recorded by a representative of Rio Branco Corporation. Through a proposed notice of assessment dated September 9, 1976, the Respondent is seeking to impose documentary stamp taxes, documentary surtaxes, penalties and interest in the total amount of $745.13 upon Petitioner. It is not clear whether the Respondent is also seeking to impose the same taxes upon the grantee of the quitclaim deed, Rio Branco Corporation. Respondent contends that the Petitioner is liable for the documentary stamp taxes on the quitclaim deed, and that the amount of consideration for the deed is the amount of mortgage debt extinguished as a result of execution of the deed. Petitioner contends that as the grantor of the instrument, it has no responsibility for paying documentary stamp taxes, and that further no consideration was given for the deed as a matter of law since no debt which the Petitioner could have been forced to pay was extinguished.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the bankruptcy of Recreation Corporation of America (RCA), Drexel Properties (Drexel), predecessor in interest to Petitioner Sheridan Ventures, Inc., engaged in negotiations with RCA and Fidelco Growth Investors (Fidelco) for the purchase of some eighty-three acres of land owned by RCA that was located in Hollywood and Dania, Florida. Fidelco held a mortgage on the property in the amount of $2,400,000.00. On January 20, 1976, a bankruptcy judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an amended order in Case No. 75-16-BK-JE-H, authorizing the trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of RCA, bankrupt, to accept the offer of Drexel to purchase the trustee's equity in the real property of the bankrupt for the sum of $15,000.00, subject to the first lien of Fidelco, taxes, interest, certain costs, and two subordinate liens in the amounts of $5,939.92 and $2,691.50. On January 28, 1976, the trustee executed a Bankruptcy Trustee's Deed conveying the property in question to Petitioner, subject to the Fidelco lien and taxes. Petitioner recorded the aforesaid deed in Broward County on February 27, 1976, and state documentary tax stamps in the amount of $45.00 were paid. (Testimony of Mehallis, Exhibits 1-2, Exhibit D to Petition) Respondent issued a proposed notice of assessment of documentary stamp tax, penalty, and interest in the total amount of $14,807.52 on September 7, 1976, based on a taxable consideration of $2,415,000.00. This sum represented the $15,000.00 cash paid by Petitioner and the $2,400,000.00 existing mortgage on the property. In this assessment, Petitioner was credited with the $45.00 previously paid for documentary tax stamps. An informal conference was held on September 21, 1976, after which a revised assessment in an increased amount was withdrawn when both parties agreed that the subordinate liens had been satisfied out of the $15,000.00 cash given for the deed. Subsequently, Respondent issued Revised Assessment No. 2, dated September 22, 1976, reflecting a sum due of $7,653.30 payable for documentary stamp tax, a like sum as a penalty, and interest for six months and five days in the amount of $471.83, for a total of $15,778.43. It was stipulated by the parties at the hearing that this amount is correctly computed and is the proper amount payable if the Petitioner is deemed liable therefor. (Exhibits A, C, E to Petition, Exhibit 3) At the time Petitioner purchased the trustee's interest in the property, it had no intention of paying Fidelco's full lien because the amount of that mortgage exceeded the fair market value of the land. It intended to use the trustee's deed as a negotiating tool to get a better arrangement with Fidelco. Consequently, it made no payments on the mortgage and, on April 7, 1976, Fidelco filed foreclosure proceedings in the Broward County Circuit Court. Petitioner interposed set-off and a counter claim in an amount exceeding $500,000.00 based on funds it had previously advanced to RCA under a prior contract. (Testimony of Mehallis) A real estate appraisal of the property established its fair market value to be $1,120,000.00 as of January, 1976. (Testimony of Lukacs)
Recommendation That Petitioner be held liable for the proposed assessment of documentary stamp tax, penalty, and interest under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, in the amount of $15,778.43. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of April 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Brian C. Deuschle, Esquire Spear, Deuschle and Curran, P.A. 5554 North Federal Highway Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308
The Issue The issue here concerns the propriety of the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Revenue's assessment of tax under authority of Sections 201.01 and .08, Florida Statutes, in the amount of $11,557.20 and penalty of $577.86 against the Petitioner, Landmark Bank of Brevard. The specific nature of the assessment is one pertaining to items identified as detachable "Promissory Notes" which are attached to documents entitled "Trust Receipts."
Findings Of Fact The facts in this case reveal that the Petitioner Landmark Bank of Brevard, hereafter referred to as the "Bank," made loans to several motor vehicle dealers in Brevard County. The borrowers were Carl Schmidt Motors, Inc.; Bennie C. Chapman, who does business as Chapman Auto Sales; and Harley Davidson of Melbourne, Inc. The arrangements for the loans were on the basis that the dealers would apply with the Bank to receive moneys which would be used to "floor plan" automobiles and motorcycles being sold through their retail outlets. The applications were processed through the loan committee and when the loans were approved a Promissory Note was signed by the appropriate persons acting in behalf of the dealers. (Copies of the notes executed were attached to the Petition for Formal Hearing and acknowledged to be correct through the answer filed in behalf of the Respondent and the notes as attached to the Petition are being provided with this Recommended Order together with those exhibits offered in behalf of the parties.) The notes allow for the single disbursement of a stated amount of money, with the repayment of principal and payment of interest being due by one payment for which demand is made within a period as short as several months or as long as one year depending on the note conditions. Collateral is provided, according to the terms of the notes, either by the lease and rental autos listed on separate documents entitled "Trust Receipts," which Trust Receipts are held by the Bank or otherwise described as such motor vehicles as were then owned by the dealers at the time the execution of the note or as would thereafter be acquired. These notes, meaning the initial Promissory Notes, had Documentary Stamps placed and canceled in the monthly journal of the Bank at the time of the execution of the Promissory Notes, in an effort by the Petitioner to comply with Section 201.08, Florida Statutes. The amount of Documentary Stamps utilized was in keeping with the face amount of the loan proceeds reflected on the Promissory Notes. Therefore, when the Promissory Notes are examined an impression is created that a single disbursement of loan proceeds has been made for which Documentary Stamp tax has been collected. In reality, the arrangement between the dealers and the Petitioner was to the effect that the full amount of the loan proceeds would not be assigned to the account of the dealers upon execution of the note. What would happen, is that the dealers would be allowed to make "draws" against the loan proceeds on the basis of surrendering the title of a used motor vehicle which they had acquired or having the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle submit the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin to the Bank. In turn, moneys were advanced to the dealer equal to the value of the used unit or commensurate with the amount reflected on the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin if a new unit. These titles and Manufacturer's Certificates of Origin were held as collateral and the dealers would take possession of the actual vehicles to be placed in the dealer's inventory until a retail purchase had been made. The vehicles for which the Petitioner had received title or the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin were then listed on documents called "Trust Receipts." The "Trust Receipts" would show the vehicle description, make, serial number and price as described in the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin or title. These descriptions were placed on individual "Trust Receipts" based upon the date the evidence of ownership was submitted from the dealer of the Bank. That is to say, if four Manufacturers' Certificates of Origin or titles were submitted to the Bank at one time, then four of the vehicles would be listed on a single "Trust Receipt" as opposed to listing the four new units on a "Trust Receipt" that already had a unit or units listed from another visit by the dealer. Examples of the various "Trust Receipt" documents may be found in the Respondent's Composite Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence which contains copies of the "Trust Receipt" examples. The "Trust Receipt" documents had attached to them an item entitled "Promissory Note," which item could be detached from the body of the "Trust Receipt." Some examples in the Respondent's Composite Exhibit 3 have the "Promissory Note" affixed, reflecting a date and money amount equal to the amount arrived at by totaling the value related to the various units shown in the "Trust Receipt." These examples also list the borrower's name and are signed by Margy Driggers, the Assistant Cashier of the Petitioner. Some are signed by Margy Driggers, with the initials "P.O.A." placed in front of or after her title as Assistant Cashier. One other example is the same as above but without the initials "P.O.A." There is also an example signed by Bennie C. Chapman, one of the dealers who borrowed money. The Chapman example reflects the amount of value shown in the "Trust Receipt," to which the "Promissory Note" is attached and it has a date, but does not reflect the amount of interest to be paid if this is indeed a Promissory Note. There was another category of "Trust Receipt" and attached "Promissory Note" reflecting motor vehicles for which money had been loaned and this was a type in which no entries had been made on the "Promissory Note"; however, an example of this type was not provided through the Respondent's Exhibit 3. Both parties acknowledged that the initials "P.O.A." stand for power of attorney. They disagree on the question whether a power of attorney had been granted to the Petitioner to act in behalf of the subject dealers. The Petitioner through its witnesses claim that the designation "P.O.A." is simply an extension of a long standing policy of the Bank which predates the current Assistant Cashier and has no meaning. Therefore, no power of attorney has ever been granted from the dealers to the Bank to execute promissory notes on behalf of the dealers. The Respondent through its auditor, whose investigation led to the assessment in dispute, claims that Margy Driggers, the Assistant Cashier, told him that "P.O.A." means power of attorney and that she had the ability to sign for Carl Schmidt. (Carl Schmidt Motors, Inc.) None of the dealers were presented in the course of the hearing to state their position on the granting of power of attorney to the Petitioner for purposes of executing the item known as "Promissory Note" attached to the various "Trust Receipts," and there are no written documents which would demonstrate the granting of a power of attorney to the Bank. Moreover, nothing in the original Promissory Notes executed by the dealers leads to the conclusion that the item known as "Promissory Note" attached to the "Trust Receipt" may be executed by a Bank official through power of attorney for the dealer. Consequently, no power of attorney has been shown to be granted from the dealers to Margy Driggers or any other employee of the Petitioner, on the subject of executing "Promissory Notes" attached to the "Trust Receipts." When the items were filled out, copies of the "Trust Receipts" and attached "Promissory Notes" were forwarded to the several dealers. When a dealer sold one of the automobiles for which the Petitioner held the title or Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin as security, then the dealer paid an amount equal to that amount reflected in the "Trust Receipt" document and an entry was made in the date paid column of that document which showed that amount of debt had been satisfied by the dealer. During the operative period of the initial Promissory Note, meaning that period between the time of the execution of the note and the time the note was due as reflected on the face of the note, the dealer could borrow an amount not to exceed the face amount of the loan proceeds and if some portion of that amount was retired, then an additional amount could be borrowed, which effectively meant that in the active life of the loan as shown by the initial Promissory Note more money could be borrowed during the life of the note than the amount reflected on the face of the Promissory Note. For example, hypothetically the Promissory Note could entitle the dealer to borrow $19,959.00 on May 10, 1976, to be repaid by May 10, 1977. That dealer could then borrow $19,959.00 between those dates and pay back that amount of money with interest and borrow an additional $5,000.00 to be paid back before the expiration date of the loan and in actuality would have borrowed $24,959.00, ostensibly under the terms and conditions of the initial note. These additional amounts of loan proceeds cannot be seen by examining the initial Promissory Notes; they can only be discovered by adding the individual amounts reflected in the "Trust Receipts" and comparing the total to what is shown by adding the loan amounts depicted in the initial Promissory Notes. This is in fact what was done by the auditor in conducting the audit and it is the differential between the amounts shown in the "Trust Receipt" aggregate as contrasted to the initial Promissory Note aggregate for which the Respondent claims Documentary Stamp tax is owed. The Respondent would have the Documentary Stamp tax applied to some combination of the so-called "Promissory Notes" attached to the "Trust Receipts" equal to an amount representing the differential spoken to before. The Respondent did not establish which "Trust Receipts" with attached "Promissory Notes" would be subject to the assessment of Documentary Stamp tax. Through this process, the Respondent in its Revised Notice of Assessment is claiming tax of $11,557.20 and a penalty of $557.86. (A copy of this notice may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence.)
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the proposed assessment for Documentary Stamp tax and penalty made by the Department of Revenue, State of Florida, against the Petitioner, Landmark Bank of Brevard, a banking corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, formerly Landmark Bank of Melbourne, N.A., be DISALLOWED. 1/ DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April 1980 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April 1980.
