Findings Of Fact High-Tech Yacht & Ship, Inc. (Petitioner) is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of retail sales of marine vessels. Also, Petitioner is a registered retail dealer in the State of Florida. The President of Petitioner is its only corporate officer. On or about September 2, 1993, Petitioner, in the capacity of a broker, sold a motor yacht at retail to Regency Group, Inc. (purchaser), through its representative, for $78,000. The motor yacht is described as a 1988, 41' Amerosport Chris Craft, hull Number CCHEU075E788, and called the "Motivator". At the closing of the sale, on or about September 2, 1993, the purchaser refused to pay the sales tax on the purchase, which was $4,680. However, the purchaser agreed to pay the sales tax after being informed by Petitioner that, without the payment of the sales tax, there could be no closing. The purchaser's representative submitted, at closing, a personal check in the amount of $4,680 for the sales tax. All of the necessary documents were completed for ownership and registration to be transferred to the purchaser. Subsequently, Petitioner received notice from its bank that the check for the sales tax had been dishonored by the purchaser's bank. The purchaser's representative had stopped payment on the check. In October 1993, Petitioner submitted its sales and use tax return for the month of September 1993 to Respondent in which the sale of the yacht was reported. Respondent automatically reviews sales and use tax returns. Respondent's review of Petitioner's return revealed a shortage of sales tax collected in the amount of $4,680.. In January 1994, Respondent issued a notice of tax action for assessment of additional tax in the amount of $4,710, plus interest and penalty, to Petitioner. The $4,710 included the loss of Petitioner's collection allowance of $30, which loss resulted from Petitioner's failure to timely remit all taxes due. Having received the notice of tax action, by letter dated January 20, 1994, Petitioner generally informed Respondent of the circumstances regarding the sales tax shortage, including the dishonored check. Petitioner pointed out, among other things, that Respondent had the authority and the means to collect the tax, while it (Petitioner) had limited means, and suggested, among other things, that Respondent cancel the purchaser's Florida registration of the yacht. On or about January 31, 1994, approximately three months after the check for sales tax was dishonored, Petitioner issued a notice of dishonored check to the purchaser, in which Petitioner requested payment of the sales tax. The notice provided, among other things, that Petitioner could seek criminal prosecution and civil action if the monies were not paid to Petitioner. Having not received the $4,680, Petitioner contacted the local law enforcement agency. After investigation, the law enforcement agency informed Petitioner that a civil action would have to be instituted because the purchaser, through its representative, had indicated that it was not satisfied with the yacht. Although Petitioner engaged the services of an attorney for civil action, no civil action was commenced. Additionally, Petitioner did not engage the services of a collection agency for assistance in collecting the sales tax. Subsequent to its notice of tax action, on or about March 12, 1994, Respondent issued a notice of assessment to Petitioner. The notice of assessment provided, among other things, that Petitioner was being assessed taxes in the amount of $4,710, plus penalty and interest in the amount of $2,342.61, totalling $7,052.61. Petitioner protested the assessment. On February 8, 1995, Respondent issued its notice of reconsideration in which Respondent determined, among other things, that the assessment was appropriate and affirmed the assessment of $7,052.61, plus interest and penalty. The interest accrues at the rate of $1.55 per day. Petitioner has not remitted any of the assessed tax, including interest and penalty, to Respondent. Petitioner has not identified on its federal tax return the noncollection of the sales tax from the purchaser as a bad debt. Sales tax is part of the total sale price for an item. Respondent considers the sales tax as collectable by a seller in the same manner as any other debt owed by a purchaser to a seller. A retail dealer, who is also a seller, is considered to be an agent for the State in the collection of sales tax. The burden of collecting the sales tax is placed upon the retail dealer by Respondent. Some of Respondent's employees have been sympathetic to Petitioner's tax assessment matter. However, none of the employees indicated to or advised Petitioner that Respondent was or is in error.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order affirming the assessment of sales tax against High-Tech Yacht & Ship, Inc. in the amount of $7,052.61, plus interest and penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 7th day of August 1996.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner owes State of Florida use tax and local government infrastructure tax on the alleged use of three airplanes.
Findings Of Fact Charles and Dorothy Tolbert own and operate American Aircraft International, Inc. (American). American is in the business primarily of selling and brokering aircraft sales. Most of American's business involves brokering in which American earns a commission or fee for putting together a seller and buyer and bringing the transaction to a conclusion. On a much less frequent basis, American will purchase an airplane for resale. American advertises the availability of its airplanes, both brokered and American-owned, for either sale or lease. However, American has not had occasion to lease one of its own aircraft except as part of a lease-purchase agreement. American does not make any other use of airplanes it offers for sale or lease, except as necessary for maintenance and repairs and for demonstration to prospective purchasers or lessees. Such use would be cost-prohibitive. Fuel, crew, and insurance costs would be well in excess of the cost of a ticket on a commercial airline. American's insurance policy only covers the use of the planes for demonstration and maintenance purposes. On February 6, 1990, American traded for a King Air 200, N56GR, serial number 059, at an acquisition value of $650,000. The King Air 200 was delivered to American from Carlisle, Kentucky, and held by American for resale purposes only and was flown only for purposes of maintenance and repairs and for demonstration to prospective purchasers. When it was sold in 1991 to an English company, BC Aviation, Ltd., American had flown the aircraft only 7 hours. The aircraft was delivered out-of- state in May 1991. In July 1991, American bought a kit for a home-built aircraft called the Renegade, serial number 445. The kit was manufactured and sold by a company in British Columbia, Canada. American's intent in purchasing the kit was to build the airplane and decide whether to become a dealer. It took a year and a half to build, and by the time it was completed, American decided not to pursue the dealership. In September of 1991, American sold the Renegage to the Tolberts. The Tolberts registered the Renegade in September 1994, under N493CT. At first, the Tolberts did not pay sales tax on their purchase of the Renegade. They thought that, since they owned American, no sales tax was due. When the Department audited American and pointed out that sales tax was due, the Tolberts paid the tax in December 1994. In 1991, American also purchased a King Air B90, N988SL, serial number LJ438, for $175,000. The King Air B90 was held by American for resale purposes only and was flown only for purposes of maintenance and repairs and for demonstration to prospective purchasers. In July 1991, American sold the aircraft to Deal Aviation of Chicago, Illinois. However, Deal could not qualify for its own financing, so American agreed to lease-sell the aircraft to Deal. Under the lease-purchase agreement entered into on July 21, 1991, the purchase price was $269,000, payable $4,747.85 a month until paid in full. (The agreement actually said payments would be made for 84 months, but that would amount to total payments well in excess of the purchase price; the evidence did not explain this discrepancy.) American continued to hold title to the aircraft and continued to make payments due to the bank on American's financing for the aircraft. The lease- purchase agreement must have been modified, or payments accelerated, because American transferred title to the aircraft in April 1993. The Department asserted that a Dolphin Aviation ramp rental invoice on the King Air B90 issued in August for the month of September 1991 reflected that the aircraft was parked at the Sarasota-Bradenton Airport at the time of the invoice, which would have been inconsistent with American's testimony and evidence. But the invoice contained the handwritten notation of Dorothy Tolbert that the airplane was "gone," and her testimony was uncontradicted that she telephoned Dolphin when she got the invoice and to inform Dolphin that the invoice was in error since the plane had not been at the ramp since Deal removed it to Illinois on July 21, 1991. As a result, no ramp rent was paid after July 1991. Indeed, the Department's own audit schedules reflect that no ramp rent was paid on the King Air B90 after July 1991. The Department also presented an invoice dated September 16, 1991, in the amount of $3400 for engine repairs done on the King Air B90 by Hangar One Aviation in Tampa, Florida. The invoice reflects that the repairs were done for American and that they were paid in full on September 19, 1991, including Florida sales tax. The Department contended that the invoice was inconsistent with American's testimony and evidence. But although American paid for these repairs, together with Florida sales tax, Mrs. Tolbert explained that the repairs were made under warranty after the lease-purchase of the airplane by Deal. A minor engine problem arose soon after Deal removed the airplane to Illinois. Deal agreed to fly the plane to Hangar One for the repairs, and American agreed to pay for the repairs. After the repairs were made, Hangar One telephoned Mrs. Tolbert with the total, and she gave Hangar One American's credit card number in payment. She did not receive American's copy of the invoice until later. She does not recall if she: noticed the Florida sales tax and did not think to question it; noticed it and decided it was not enough money ($179) to be worth disputing; or just did not notice the Florida sales tax. When American's certified public accountant (CPA), Allan Shaw, prepared American's federal income tax return for 1990, he included the King Air 200 as a fixed capital asset on the company's book depreciation schedule and booked $26,146 of depreciation on the aircraft for 1990 on a cost basis of $650,000. For federal tax purposes, he took the maximum allowable depreciation deduction on the aircraft ($92,857) by attributing a seven-year life to the aircraft and using the double declining balance method of calculating depreciation. The next year, 1991, Shaw included the both the King Air B90 and the Renegade as fixed capital assets on the company's book depreciation schedule. He booked $9,378 of depreciation on the B90 on a cost basis of $175,000 and $1,872 on the Renegade on a cost basis of $25,922 for part of the year 1991. For federal tax purposes, he took the maximum allowable depreciation deduction on the B90 ($12,507) by attributing a seven-year life to the aircraft and using the double declining balance method of calculating depreciation. This depreciation was subtracted from the "gross income from other rental activities" on Schedule K of the return in the amount of $22,796, which represented the payments from Deal under the lease-purchase agreement. The Renegade was depreciated for the same amount as its book depreciation, and no income was recorded as having been generated from use of the Renegade. The next year, 1992, Shaw again included the both the King Air B90 and the Renegade as fixed capital assets on the company's book depreciation schedule. He booked $35,613 of depreciation on the B90 and $5,555 on the Renegade. For federal tax purposes, he took the maximum allowable depreciation deduction on the B90 ($25,014) by attributing a seven-year life to the aircraft and using the double declining balance method of calculating depreciation. This depreciation was subtracted from the "gross income from other rental activities" on Schedule K of the return in the amount of $51,737, which again represented the payments from Deal under the lease-purchase agreement. The Renegade was depreciated for the same amount as its book depreciation, and no income was recorded as having been generated from use of the Renegade. It is not clear from the evidence why American's CPA decided American was entitled to claim depreciation on the three aircraft in question. (Shaw also depreciated another airplane in 1989 which was before the period covered by the Department's audit.) Shaw's final hearing and deposition testimony was confusing as to whether he recalled discussing the question with the Tolberts. He may have; if he did, he probably discussed it with Mrs. Tolbert. Meanwhile, Mrs. Tolbert does not recall ever discussing the question of depreciation with Shaw. In all likelihood, Shaw probably made his own decision that American could depreciate the airplanes to minimize income taxes by claiming that they were fixed capital assets used in the business and not just inventory items being held for resale. For the King Air B90, there were lease payments Shaw could use to justify his decision; but there were no lease payments for the King Air 200 or the Renegade. The evidence was not clear whether there were lease payments for the airplane Shaw depreciated in 1989. For the next year, 1993, Shaw included the Renegade as a fixed capital asset on the company's book depreciation schedule and booked $7,712 of depreciation on the Renegade. For federal tax purposes, the Renegade was depreciated for the same amount as its book depreciation, and no income was recorded as having been generated from use of the Renegade. When the Department audited American starting in July 1994, tax auditor William Berger saw the depreciation schedules and tax returns, both of which indicated to him that the three airplanes in question were used by the company, but no sales or use tax was paid on them. (He also pointed out the Tolberts' failure to pay sales tax on the purchase of the Renegade from American, and the Tolberts later paid the tax, as previously mentioned.) As a result, on July 26, 1995, the Department issued two notices of intent. One was to make sales and use tax audit changes which sought to assess American $56,097.77 in use taxes, together with delinquent penalties of $14,657.36 and interest through July 26, 1995, in the amount of $31,752.61, for a total of $102,507.74, with subsequent interest accruing at the rate of $18.44 per day. The second was to make local government infrastructure surtax audit changes which sought to assess American $609.99 in the surtax, together with delinquent penalties of $163.14 and interest through July 26, 1995, in the amount of $256.33, for a total of $1,029.46, with subsequent interest accruing at the rate of $.20 per day. It is not clear from the record how the Department arrived at the use tax and surtax figures. The alleged use tax assessment should have been calculated as $51,061.32 (six percent of the acquisition costs of the airplanes), and the alleged surtax assessment should have been calculated at the statutory maximum of $50 per item, for a total of $150. On August 28, 1995, American made a partial payment of $5,496.44 on the Department's use tax and surtax audit change assessments, intending to leave a disputed assessed amount of $51,061.32 in use tax and $150 in surtax. It is not clear from the record what American intended the $5,496.44 to apply towards. American filed an Informal Protest of the use tax and surtax audit change assessments on February 26, 1996. The Informal Protest contended that the use tax and surtax were not due and that the federal income tax depreciation schedules were "not determinative." On October 6, 1996, the Department issued a Notice of Decision denying American's protest primarily on the ground that the depreciation of the aircraft for federal income tax purposes constituted using them for use tax purposes. After receiving the Notice of Decision, on November 4, 1996, American filed amended tax returns to remove the depreciation of the airplanes (together with the "gross income from other rental activities" on Schedule K of the 1991 return). (Although CPA Shaw refused to admit it, it is clear that American's federal income tax returns were amended in order to improve its defense against the Department's use tax and surtax assessments.) As a result of the amended returns, American had to pay an additional $15,878 in federal income tax on the 1990 return; there was no change in the tax owed on any of the other returns. On November 6, 1996, American filed a Petition for Reconsideration on the ground that the returns had been amended and the additional federal income tax paid. On January 10, 1997, the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration denying American's Petition for Reconsideration on the ground that "subsequent modifications made to the federal income tax returns will have no affect [sic] upon" the use tax and surtax assessments.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order withdrawing the assessment of use tax and local government infrastructure surtax, delinquent penalties, and interest against American. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Albert J. Wollermann, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Certain hospital equipment ("Equipment") was sold in 1973 and 1974 by Hospital Contract Consultants ("Vendor") to F & E Community Developers and Jackson Realty Builders (hereinafter referred to as "Purchasers") who simultaneously leased the Equipment to Petitioner. These companies are located in Indiana. At the time of purchase, Florida sales tax ("Tax") was paid by the Purchasers and on or about March 18, 1974, the tax was remitted to the State of Florida by the Vendor. However, the Tax was paid in the name of Medical Facilities Equipment Company, a subsidiary of Vendor. In 1976, the Department of Revenue audited Petitioner and on or about April 26, 1976 assessed a tax on purchases and rental of the Equipment. On or about April 26, 1976, petitioner agreed to pay the amount of the assessment on the purchases and rentals which included the Equipment, in monthly installments of approximately Ten Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($10,000.00) each and subsequently paid such amount of assessment with the last monthly installment paid on or about November 26, 1976. On or about December, 1976, the Department of Revenue, State of Florida, checked its records and could not find the Vendor registered to file and pay sales tax with the State of Florida. Petitioner then looked to the State of Indiana for a tax refund. On or about January 4, 1977, Petitioner filed for a refund of sales tax from the State of Florida in the amount of Thirty Five Thousand One Hundred Four and 02/100 Dollars ($35,104.02). This amount was the sales tax paid to and remitted by various vendors for certain other equipment purchased in 1973 and 1974 and simultaneously leased. The amount of this refund request was granted and paid. Relying upon the facts expressed in paragraph 4 heretofore, Petitioner on or about June 2, 1977 filed with the Department of Revenue of the State of Indiana for the refund of the Tax. On or about June 7, 1979, the Department of Revenue of Indiana determined that the Vendor was registered in the State of Florida as Medical Facilities Equipment Company and therefore Petitioner should obtain the refund of the Tax form the State of Florida. So advised, Petitioner then filed the request for amended refund, which is the subject of this lawsuit, on July 16, 1979 in the amount of Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Sixteen and 28/100 Dollars ($17,216.28). This request for refund was denied by Respondent, Office of the Comptroller, on the basis of the three year statute of non-claim set forth in section 215.26, Florida Statutes. Purchasers have assigned all rights, title and interest in sales and use tax refunds to Petitioner. During the audit of Petitioner in 1976 the lease arrangement on the equipment apparently came to light and Petitioner was advised sales tax was due on the rentals paid for the equipment. This resulted in an assessment against Petitioner of some $80,000 which was paid at the rate of $10,000 per month, with the last installment in November, 1976. The auditor advised Petitioner that a refund of sales tax on the purchase of this equipment was payable and he checked the Department's records for those companies registered as dealers in Florida. These records disclosed that sales taxes on the sale of some of this rental equipment had been remitted by the sellers of the equipment but Hospital Contract Consultants was not registered. Petitioner was advised to claim a refund of this sales tax from Indiana, the State of domicile of Hospital Contract Consultants. By letter on March 18, 1974, Amedco Inc., the parent company of wholly owned Hospital Contract Consultants, Inc. had advised the Florida Department of Revenue that Medical Facilities Equipment Company, another subsidiary, would report under ID No. 78-23-20785-79 which had previously been assigned to Hospital Contract Consultants Inc. which had erroneously applied for this registration. (Exhibit 2) Not stated in that letter but contained in Indiana Department of Revenue letter of April 18, 1979 was the information that the name of Hospital Contract Consultants had been changed to Medical Facilities Equipment Company. The request for the refund of some $17,000 submitted to Indiana in 1976 was finally denied in 1979 after research by the Indiana Department of Revenue showed the sales tax had been paid to Florida and not to Indiana.
Findings Of Fact There are no disputed issues of fact. The parties stipulated to the following facts: (Exhibits referred to are not attached to this Recommended Order) As to Sun Oil Company: On February 14, 1978, a claim for refund was submitted to the Florida Department of Revenue and the Comptroller of the State of Florida. A copy of the transmittal letter is annexed as Exhibit 8 and a copy of the claim for refund is annexed as Exhibit 9. On August 31, 1978, another claim for refund, covering a subsequent time period was filed. A copy of the transmittal letter is annexed as Exhibit 10 and a copy of the claim for refund is annexed as Exhibit 11. Meanwhile, to the knowledge of all parties, the Exxon appeal referred to below was prosecuted. As to Exxon Corporation: On January 19, 1978, Exxon submitted to the Department of Revenue and to the Comptroller a claim for refund of severance tax which may have been overpaid by Exxon Corporation for the period March 1, 1974, through December 31, 1976. The claim reflected its contingent nature. A copy of the transmittal letter is annexed as Exhibit 1. A copy of the claim for refund of severance tax is annexed as Exhibit 2. (Subsequently, claims for subsequent time periods have also been filed with the Comptroller). By letter dated February 6, 1978, the Department of Revenue responded that the claim was barred by the one-year provision contained in Section 211.06, Florida Statutes. Enclosed with the response was a copy of an earlier letter to Exxon Corporation from the General Counsel of the Comptroller of the State of Florida, setting forth the position of the Comptroller that the contingent nature of the claim created no problem, but that the one-year provision in Section 211.06 was a statute of limitations. A copy of the letter of February 6, 1978, together with the enclosure, is annexed as Exhibit 3. On February 27, 1978, Petitioner wrote the Comptroller requesting consideration of the claim for refund under the provisions of Section 215.26, Florida Statutes. A copy is annexed as Exhibit 4. By letter dated March 7, 1978, the Comptroller wrote Petitioner denying the claim because it was not filed within one year from the date of payment of the tax as allegedly required by Section 211.06(2), stating that no further administrative review was available, and inviting judicial review, under Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. A copy of the letter is annexed as Exhibit 5. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the order contained in the letter of March 7, 1978 (Exhibit 5). The First District Court of Appeal of Florida in due course rendered a decision and opinion, a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit 6. The First District Court of Appeal held that the one-year period described in Section 211.06 did not bar the application for refund, that the refund provisions of Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, were applicable, and remanded the case. Thereafter, the Comptroller's Office asked for a further statement of Exxon's position on this matter, which was given in a letter dated May 24, 1979, a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit 7. As to Louisiana Land and Exploration Company: On January 25, 1978, Louisiana Land and Exploration Company submitted to the Department of Revenue and to the Comptroller a claim for refund of severance tax which may have been paid by Louisiana Land and Exploration company for the period March 1, 1974, through December 31, 1976. The claim reflected its contingent nature. A copy of the transmittal letter is annexed as Exhibit A copy of the claim for refund of severance tax is annexed as Exhibit 13. By letter dated February 6, 1978, the Department of Revenue responded that the claim was barred by the one-year provision contained in Section 211.06, Florida Statutes. Enclosed with the response was a copy of an earlier letter to Exxon Corporation from the General Counsel of the Comptroller of the State of Florida, setting forth the position of the Comptroller that the contingent nature of the claim created no problem, but that the one-year provision in Section 211.06 was a statute of limitations. A copy of the letter of February 6, 1978, together with the enclosure, is annexed as Exhibit 14. On October 31, 1978, Louisiana Land and Exploration Company again submitted to the Comptroller of the State of Florida a claim for refund of severance tax which may have been paid by Louisiana Land and Exploration Company for the period March 1, 1974, through December 31, 1976. The claim reflected its contingent nature. A copy of the transmittal letter is annexed as Exhibit A copy of the claim for refund of severance tax is annexed as Exhibit 16. Meanwhile, to the knowledge of all parties the Exxon appeal referred to above was prosecuted. As to Roadway Express, Inc.: On December 14, 1978, a claim for refund was submitted to the Florida Department of Revenue and the Comptroller of the State of Florida. A copy of the transmittal letter is annexed as Exhibit 17 and a copy of the claim for refund is annexed as Exhibit 18. On November 13, 1979, a similar claim for refund was submitted to the Department of Revenue and the Comptroller of the State of Florida. A copy of the transmittal letter is annexed as Exhibit 19 and a copy of the claim for refund is annexed as Exhibit 20. Meanwhile, to the knowledge of all parties the Exxon appeal referred to above was prosecuted. As to all Parties: In the case of each of the parties, by document entitled "Notice of Intent to Deny Refund" dated August 30, 1979 (and in the case of the second Roadway Express matter, Case No. 80-098, January 2, 1980), the Comptroller gave notice of his intent to deny refund solely because the contingent nature of the claim, stating as the sole grounds for denial: "At this time there is no basis under Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, to grant the requested refund." In response to the Notice of Intent to Deny Refund, Petitioners promptly requested a hearing, which has resulted in the above consolidated proceedings. There are no disputed issues of material fact with respect to this proceeding, at which the issue is whether or not the contingent claims filed within the three-year period prescribed by Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, should be held in abeyance until the contingency has occurred or it is determined that it will not occur. By agreeing that there are no disputed issues of material fact for the purpose of this proceeding, no party waives its right to present facts or contest facts in the event the case is considered in the future on its merits.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner purchased a used car in Florida in May of 1983 and paid 5 percent sales tax. Petitioner did not title said car in the State of Florida. When Petitioner returned to Maryland, his state of residence, Maryland imposed a 5 percent tax on said car when Petitioner titled said car. Petitioner applied for a sales tax refund to the Department of Revenue in the amount of $225.00. Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to deny said refund application on December 1, 1983. From the exhibits to which the parties stipulated, additional facts are found by the Hearing Officer. A bill of sale indicates that Petitioner purchased a 1979 Buick Regal from Eddy Auto Sales on May 14, 1983. A temporary registration and receipt issued by the State of Maryland on June 17, 1983, shows that Petitioner paid a "title tax" of $222.50 to the State of Maryland. By letter dated January 27, 1984, Agnes Stoicos of the Maryland Department of Transportation indicates that the Maryland tax is a 5 percent excise tax upon the issuance of all original and subsequent certificates of title, and the tax is used primarily for the construction and the maintenance of the Maryland highway system.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Gulf Coast Foodservice, Inc., or its surety, Respondent United Pacific Insurance Company, is liable for funds due to Petitioner Hillandale Farms, Inc. for the sale of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a producer of agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. Petitioner produces eggs on a farm that it owns in or near Lake City, Florida. Respondent Gulf Coast is a dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent Gulf Coast operates a food service distributorship in the state of Florida. Eggs are agricultural products as defined in Section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes. Respondent United Pacific is Respondent Gulf Coast's surety. Pursuant to an agreement between Petitioner and Respondent Gulf Coast, Petitioner sold and shipped eggs to Respondent Gulf Coast from Petitioner's Hillandale-Bushnell Division. Respondent Gulf Coast initially paid thousands of dollars on invoices for shipments of eggs it received from Petitioner. On August 25, 1997, Respondent Gulf Coast paid $1,287.00 on its account with Petitioner. This payment created an overpayment in the amount of $247.50 for Invoice No. 21938 dated May 31, 1997. As of October 23, 1997, Respondent Gulf Coast's account with Petitioner included the following unpaid/overpaid invoices: 6/19/97 22144 810.00 7/2/97 22489 1,665.00 7/15/97 22870 1,701.00 7/28/97 23211 2,340.00 8/11/97 23606 2,043.00 8/18/97 23800 1,665.00 8/25/97 24318 1,233.00 Total Balance Due $11,209.50 Invoice Date Invoice No. Balance Due 5/31/97 21938 $ (247.50) Respondent Gulf Coast currently owes Petitioner for unpaid invoices in the amount of $11,209.50.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order requiring Respondent Gulf Coast, or its surety, Respondent Union Pacific, to pay Petitioner for unpaid invoices in the amount of $11,209.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen C. Bullock, Esquire Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson, and Bullock, P.A. 10 North Columbia Street Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Saul Zalka, President Gulf Coast Foodservice, Inc. 8402 Lemon Road Port Richey, Florida 34668 United Pacific Insurance Company 4 Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Phillip H. Hudson, III, Esquire One Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3400 Miami, Florida 33131 Soneet R. Kapila, Chapter 7 Trustee Suite 2601 1 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Geoffrey S. Aaronson, Esquire Suite 1050 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Steven Turner, Esquire Suite 1204 51 Southwest 1st Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Leve 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1985, Petitioner, Nicholas Cozzo, entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement for the sale of sixty (60) shares of the issued and outstanding capital stock of C & S Deli Sandwich and Fish, Inc., a Florida corporation, (the Company) to Robert A. Krueger and Joe Ellen Krueger (collectively, the Kruegers). As a result of the sale, Petitioner retained ownership of no further stock of the Company. (Exhibit A) On October 14, 1985, the Kruegers executed two (2) promissory notes in the amounts of $53,000.00 and $5,000.00, respectively, to Petitioner and a Security Agreement securing payment of the notes. (Composite Exhibit B and Exhibit C) On October 14, 1985, Petitioner tendered his resignation as Director, President and Treasurer of the Company. (Exhibit D) Petitioner's security interest to the furniture, furnishings, fixtures, equipment and inventory of the Company (the "collateral") was duly perfected by the filing of a Uniform Commercial Code Financing Statement with the Uniform Commercial Code Bureau, Florida Department of State, on October 21, 1985. (Exhibit E) A Uniform Commercial Code Financing Statement was recorded by the Petitioner in the Public Records of Pasco County, State of Florida, on October 15, 1985, in Official Records Book 1451, page 0493. (Exhibit F) In early 1987, the Kruegers defaulted under the terms of the promissory notes. Prior to April 24, 1987, Petitioner repossessed the furniture, furnishings, fixtures, equipment and inventory of the Company. No consideration was paid by Petitioner to the Company or the Kruegers upon his repossession of the foregoing described collateral. At no time did ownership of any of the capital stock of the Company revert back to Petitioner. On May 5, 1987, Petitioner by private sale disposed of the collateral to Vincent Lopez and Glen Delavega. (Exhibits G, H, and I) No surplus funds resulted from the sale of the repossessed collateral by Petitioner to Vincent Lopez and Glen Delavega. At no time material hereto did the Florida Department of Revenue issue a tax warrant against the Company respecting any unpaid sales tax. On or about May 6, 1987, Petitioner paid under protest to the Respondent Department of Revenue the delinquent unpaid sales tax of the Company in the amount of $1392.53. The Department is still attempting to verify that amount at this date. The Petitioner maintains he paid the amount in order for the Department to issue a sales tax certificate and number to Vincent Lopez and Glen Delavega. The Department maintains its procedure at the time was to issue a sales tax number to the new owners and then proceed against them under Section 212.10, Florida Statutes. It is the position of the Respondent that the Petitioner's repossession of the collateral constituted a sale within the purview of Section 212.10(1), Florida Statutes (1985), and Rule 12A-1.055, Florida Administrative Code, which places tax liability on the successor of a business whose previous owner has not satisfied outstanding sales tax obligations. Respondent further notes that the case Petitioner relies on, General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Tom Norton Motor Corp., 366 So.2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) was issued on January 10, 1979, while Section 679.105(5), Florida Statutes, which upholds tax laws when in conflict with security agreements, took effect January 1, 1980. Petitioner on the other hand claims that a lawful repossession of collateral under Florida's Uniform Commercial Code, Section 679.504, Florida Statutes (1985), does not constitute a "sale" of a business making him liable for the Company's unpaid sales tax. Petitioner continues to rely on GMAC, supra, and notes that it was cited by American Bank v. Con's Cycle Center, 466 So.2d 255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). A refund application was submitted by Petitioner to the Department of Revenue on June 10, 1987. This application was denied by the Department of Revenue by letter dated January 28, 1988. (Exhibit J)
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue here, Bellot Realty operated a real estate sales office in Inverness, Florida. The Department of Transportation was the state agency responsible for the operation of the state's relocation assistance payment program relating to business moves caused by road building operations of the Department or subordinate entities. Frank M. Bellot operated his real estate sales office and mortgage brokerage, under the name Bellot Realty, at property located at 209 W. Main Street in Inverness, Florida since July, 1979. He operated a barber shop in the same place from 1962 to 1979. He moved out in October, 1991 because of road construction and modification activities started by the Department in 1989. The office was located in a strip mall and the other tenants of the mall were moving out all through 1990. Mr. Bellot remained as long as he did because when the Department first indicated it would be working in the area, its representatives stated they would be taking only the back portion of the building. This would have let Mr. Bellot remain. As time went on, however, the Department took the whole building, including his leasehold, which forced him out. He received a compensation award from the Department but nothing from any other entity. Though the instant project is not a Federal Aid Project, the provisions of Section 24.306e, U.S.C. applies. That statute defined average annual net earnings as 1/2 of net earnings before federal, state and local income taxes during the two taxable years immediately prior to displacement. During 1988, Mr. Bellot's staff consisted of himself and between 3 and 5 other agents from whom he earned income just as had been the case for several prior years. In 1988 his Federal Corporate Income Tax return reflected gross income of $120,843.00 and his profit was reflected as $27,377.25. The Schedule C attached to his personal Form 1040 for that year reflected gross sales of $25,078.00 with deductions of $5,250.00 for a net income of $19,828.00. Two of his agents foresaw the downturn in business as a result of the road change and left his employ during 1989. A third got sick and her working ability, with its resultant income, was radically reduced. This agent was his biggest producer. For 1989, Petitioner's tax return reflected the company's gross receipts were down to $50,935.75 and his operating loss was $5,700.03. However, the Schedule C for the 1989 Form 1040 reflected gross revenue of $21,450 with a net profit of $14,503. In 1990, the Schedule C for the Form 1040 reflected gross receipts of $5,565.00 which, after deduction of expenses, resulted in a net profit of $1,665.00 for the year. The corporate return reflects gross receipts of $23,965.96 and a net income figure from operations of $1,282.21. Mr. Bellot contends that neither 1989 or 1990 were typical business years as far as earnings go. Aside from a loss of activity and a general decline in business in Inverness, his parents, who were always in the office due to a terminal illness, caused him lost work time as he was very busy with them. He was also involved in a move and in refurbishing a house. In 1990, Mr. Bellot decided he could no longer stay in his office location due to the fact that the Department decided to take his whole building. Even if the taking had been of only one-half the building, however, it still would have put him out of business because it would have taken his parking area. At that time, the Department was rushing Mr. Bellot to vacate the premises. He was in difficult financial straits, however, and it would not have been possible for him to move but for the Department's compensation payments. As it was, he claims, the compensation was after the fact, and he had to borrow $30,000.00 in his mother's name in order to rehabilitate the building he moved into. Instead of utilizing income figures from years in which business activity was normal, the Department chose to use the income figures from 1989 and 1990, both of which were, he claims, for one reason or another, extraordinary. In doing so, since the income in those years was much lower than normal, the compensation he received was also much lower, he claims, than it should have been. He received $8,725.50. Had the 1988 and 1989 years income been used, the payment would have been $20,000.00, the maximum. He also claims the Department used the incorrect operating expense figures concerning travel expense. The Schedule C reflects a higher deduction for automobile expense for both years, arrived at by the application of a standard mileage expense approved by the Internal Revenue Service. In actuality, the expense was considerably less and, if the real figures had been used, his income would have been increased substantially for both years. Mr. Bellot's appeal was reviewed by Ms. Long, the Department's administrator for relocation assistance who followed the provisions of departmental manual 575-040-003-c which, at paragraph (IV) on page 33 of 35, requires the displacee to furnish proof of income by tax returns or other acceptable evidence. At subparagraph (e) on page 31 of 35 of the manual, the requirement exists for the displaced business to "contribute materially" to the income of the displace person for the "two taxable years prior to the displacement." If those two years are not representative, the Department may approve an alternate two year period if "the proposed construction has already caused an outflow of residents, resulting in a decline of net income. " To grant an alternative period, then, the Department must insure that the loss of income is due to the Department's construction and not to other considerations. Here, the Department's District Administrator took the position it was not it's actions which caused the Petitioner's loss of income. Ms. Long took the same position. The Department's District 5 initially notified the people of Inverness of the proposed project somewhere around 1988. The project was to straighten Main Street out through downtown Inverness for approximately 2 miles. There is no evidence as to when the first affected party moved and Ms. Long does not know whether or not the project had an adverse effect on business in downtown Inverness. Petitioner's evidence does not show that it did.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's appeal of the Department's decision to refuse to use alternate tax years or actual mileage deduction in its calculation of a relocation assistance payment be denied. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 29th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and, in part, incorporated herein. Rejected as not proven by competent, non-hearsay, evidence. Accepted. Not proven. Merely a statement of Petitioner's position. Accepted that Petitioner's business income dropped. It cannot be said that the road project's were the primary cause of the decline in Petitioner's business. There is no independent evidence of this. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted. Balance not based on independent evidence of record. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of and attempted justification of Petitioner's position. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as argument and not Finding of Fact. Not a Finding of Fact but a recapitulation of the evidence. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted. & 3. Accepted. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 10. Accepted. 11. & 12. Accepted. 13. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 James R. Clodfelter Acquisitions Consultant Enterprises, Inc. P.O. Box 1199 Deerfield Beach, Florida 33443 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton Jpp. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Having heard oral argument on the issues and considered the pleadings and the record transmitted to the respondent by the BTA, the following pertinent facts are found: For seven years prior to the tax year 1973, petitioners property had received an educational exemption from ad valorem taxation. By letter dated June 1, 1973, petitioner was advised by the tax assessor that its property had been denied tax exemption for the reason that no application for exemption had been received. Upon receipt of this letter, which wascorrectly addressed, petitioner immediately contacted the Exemption Department of the assessors office, advised them that he had not received an application form in the mail, and was informed that the application had been mailed to the wrong address, apparently the address of one of the former owners of petitioner. The reason for the application being sent to the wrong address was because, for the first time, the assessor's office was using new application forms prepared by data processing and the old address had not been changed in posting. Upon receipt of the application form, petitioner completed it and returned it to the assessors office on June 11, 1973. Had the application form, petitioner completed it and returned it to the assessors office on June 11, 1973. Upon appeal to the Broward County BTA, the BTA unanimously granted the tax exemption upon the recommendation of the tax assessor. The BTA notified the respondent's Executive Director of the change. It was the respondent's staff recommendation to invalidate the change for the reason that the BTA did not have before it information legally sufficient to warrant such change. Petitioner requested a hearing to review the staff recommendation, the respondent's Executive Director requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the hearing and the undersigned was assigned was assigned as the Hearing Officer.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the action of the Broward County Board of Tax Adjustment in granting petitioners property an educational exemption from ad valorem taxation be validated and affirmed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 23rd day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, including the admissions made by Respondent in the Joint Response to Pre-Hearing Order, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was a Florida-licensed real estate salesperson. Since June of 2002, Respondent has been a Florida- licensed real estate broker. Respondent is a convicted felon as a result of a single felony conviction. 3/ In 2000, Respondent was involved in a real estate transaction in which he was the buyer. The property that was the subject of the transaction was located at 119 Hammocks Drive in West Palm Beach, Florida. The transaction was closed through a title company, Cypress Title Company (Cypress). The closing took place on May 15, 2000. Cypress was represented at the May 15, 2000, closing by Susan Anderson, a marketing representative with Cypress who conducted closings (approximately five or six a month) as part of her job responsibilities. Ms. Anderson had two years experience conducting closings at the time of the May 15, 2000, closing. At each closing at which she represented Cypress, Ms. Anderson was responsible for, among other things, collecting the funds necessary to effectuate the closing and making the appropriate disbursements. It was Ms. Anderson's routine practice, before turning a closing file over to Cypress' "post closer" following a closing, to "make sure [that] everything [that needed to be in the file was] there." Prior to the May 15, 2000, closing, Respondent was contacted by "someone from Cypress" and instructed to bring to the closing a cashier's check in the amount of $3,684.64 made payable to himself. Respondent was advised that the $3,684.64 represented an "estimate" of the amount he needed to pay from his own funds to close the transaction. On May 15, 2000, prior to the time of the closing, Respondent went to Bank United, where he had an account, and purchased a cashier's check in the amount of $3,684.64 made payable to himself, as he had been instructed to do. Respondent brought the cashier's check to the closing. At the closing, Respondent endorsed the check with his signature, underneath which he wrote, in accordance with his routine practice when endorsing checks, the number of his account at Bank United. He then handed the cashier's check to Ms. Anderson. The actual amount due from Respondent was $3,670.04, $14.64 less than the amount of the cashier's check. Accordingly, Ms. Anderson gave Respondent a check for $14.64. Following the closing, Ms. Anderson examined the closing file (in accordance with her routine practice). In doing so, it did not "come to [her] attention that the [cashier's] check [that Respondent had brought to the closing] was not there." After conducting such an examination, she gave the closing file to the "post-closer." The cashier's check that Respondent had given to Ms. Anderson at the May 15, 2000, closing was cashed at Bank United on May 17, 2000, by someone other than Respondent or Ms. Anderson. Pursuant to Bank United policy, "[o]nly the payee can cash [a cashier's] check." Bank United tellers are supposed to ask for a "picture ID" when a cashier's check is presented for cashing. There have been tellers at the bank, however, who have not followed this policy and, as a result, have been counseled or disciplined. 4/ Approximately, two months after the May 15, 2000, closing, Cypress' owner approached Ms. Anderson and told her that there was no proceeds check from Respondent in the closing file. Ms. Anderson was asked to contact Respondent to inquire about the matter, which she did. Respondent was initially "very cooperative." He gave Ms. Anderson his "account number [at Bank United] and [the name of a person] to call at the bank." Using the information Respondent had provided, Ms. Anderson was able to obtain a copy of the cashier's check that Respondent had given to Ms. Anderson at the closing and that subsequently had been cashed at Bank United. Kevin Wilkinson, an attorney acting on behalf of Cypress, also contacted Respondent. Mr. Wilkinson's tone, in Respondent's view, was accusatory and threatening. Respondent's response to Mr. Wilkinson's "aggressive[ness]" was to stop cooperating with Cypress.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 2003.
