The Issue Whether the equipment purchase and lease agreement to which Paul Richards and Florida Seafood Centers, Inc., became parties is an "investment contract" and so a security, within the meaning of Section 517.021, Florida Statutes (1985)? If so, whether it was exempt from registration requirements under Section 517.061(11)(a), Florida Statutes (1985)? If not, whether respondent Ogle solicited an offer, or offered or attempted to dispose of any interest in the agreement for value?
Findings Of Fact William Carl Webster had an idea, but no money. In fact, the business he and his wife owned, Cap'n Carl's Seafood Company, was in bankruptcy. No stranger to the seafood business, wholesale or retail, he had been involved for some twelve years. He came to believe he could profit by adopting a technique he noticed purveyors of pizza and milk used: the "impulse freezer," a topless display freezer rolled into the middle of a grocery store aisle to attract customers' attention. The "concept" was to sell frozen seafood wholesale to licensed food retailers. Webster believed it would be a simple matter of establishing the accounts, installing the freezers, and arranging with a reputable Tampa Bay fish house to deliver "custom packed" seafood. Overhead would be minimal, or so Mr. Webster told Barry Louis Harris, with whom he had played baseball in high school, and from whom he borrowed three thousand dollars for the new venture. None of this money was left by the time Mr. Webster dropped in on Jerry Russell Ogle, an account executive in the Fort Walton Beach office of A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., to discuss the ins and outs of going public, in late April of 1984. Mr. Ogle recommended against going public but expressed a willingness to help for a fee. Both Florida Seafood Centers, Inc., and Florida Seafood Brokers, Inc., came into existence on April 24, 1984. Articles of incorporation drawn by Messrs Webster and Harris, with the help of a kit, were filed that day. Jerry Ogle is registered with petitioner as a securities dealer. One of Mr. Ogle's customers, Paul Richards, had been a builder and developer before he moved to Florida from Ohio. As he sold properties in Ohio, he deposited the proceeds in his account at the Fort Walton Beach office of A. G. Edwards & Son. Since Mr. Richards had expressed an interest in investing in a small business, Mr. Ogle thought some of this money might be available for the enterprise on which Messrs Webster and Harris had embarked. Before taking Mr. Richards to lunch at the Harborlight, Mr. Ogle sought and obtained the oral approval of the A. G. Edwards' branch manager to work as a "marketing consultant" for Florida Seafood Centers, Inc. At lunch, he mentioned Florida Seafood Centers, Inc., and gave a "capsule form" account of the business to Mr. Richards. Mr. Richards expressed interest, and Mr. Ogle arranged a second luncheon meeting a week or two later. Messrs Richards, Webster, Harris and Ogle gathered in Mr. Ogle's office, before setting out for lunch at the High Tide. Mr. Ogle told Mr. Richards he thought that Mr. Webster's idea was a good one, but it was Mr. Webster who presented the idea in detail. Although remarking that he might be "digging a hole and throwing money into it," Mr. Richards decided to purchase 25 freezers from Florida Seafood Centers, Inc. On May 23, 1984, he signed an equipment purchase and lease agreement, but negotiations continued and the final agreement was executed on May 24, 1984, in Mr. Ogle's office. At this meeting, Mr. Richards drew a check for $10,000.00 on his A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. Total Assets Account, Mr. Ogle witnessed the equipment lease agreement Messrs Richards and Webster signed, and Mr. Ogle wrote, at the bottom of the agreement, "Rec'd $10,000 5-24-84 JRO." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 Under the equipment purchase and lease agreement, Mr. Richards purchased freezers to lease to Florida Seafood Centers, Inc. In exchange, he was to receive "one half of the net profit of [each] freezer . . . not [to] exceed $800.00 per month for each freezer." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. As per Ogle's suggestion, he was also to get "1 percent of gross sales revenue of Florida Seafood Centers," Id., all payments to begin after a 180-day "grace period." Mr. Richards' only obligation under the parties' agreement was to pay $1,500.00 for each freezer, or $37,500.00 in all. He had the option to choose among available locations, but had no responsibilities for installation or operation of the freezers or for the sale of seafood. His role was that of a passive investor. Mr. Richards was the only person in Florida who invested in this way, although two of the Alabamians who invested also had houses in Florida. Mr. Richards understood he was the initial investor, but knew others would be approached. The equipment purchase and lease agreement was never registered as a security. Mr. Harris took Mr. Richards' $10,000.00 check to a Barnett Bank branch and opened a bank account for Florida Seafood Centers, Inc., by depositing the check less $2,000.00 cash the bank disbursed and Mr. Webster took to cover expenses already incurred. The first check drawn on Florida Seafood Centers, Inc.'s first bank account was for $500.00 in favor of Mr. Ogle, dated May 28, 1984. Mr. Ogle had told Mr. Webster he expected to be paid for his time and Mr. Webster had agreed, before Mr. Richards signed the equipment lease agreement, to pay Mr. Ogle something if he was ever in a position to do so. At the hearing, they testified the payments to Mr. Ogle - $2,000 in cash from the proceeds of Mr. Richards' second and final check to Florida Seafood Brokers, Inc., dated June 4, 1984, in addition to the $500 check - were for his services as a "marketing consultant." Mr. Ogle never told Mr. Richards he had any sort of agreement with Florida Seafood Brokers, Inc. or Mr. Webster, and Mr. Richards was aware of none before investing in the enterprise. Mr. Ogle did know that bankruptcy had befallen Cap'n Carl's Seafood Company. Mr. Richards never received any payments or sales reports. Some freezers were placed in Piggly Wiggly stores in Birmingham, among other places, without, however, Mr. Richards' advice or assistance, as far as the record shows. Such sales of fish as Messrs Webster and Harris made were in amounts too small to make deliveries of custom-packed seafood economic, so they were obliged to repack the seafood themselves, which entailed renting space and bringing it up to health department standards, all at considerable, unanticipated expense. Eventually the business failed.
The Issue Whether the Respondent Five Brothers Produce owes Petitioner an additional $13,965.00 for snap beans that Five Brothers Produce received, sold, and shipped to buyers as Petitioner's agent/broker.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Five Brothers Produce, Inc. ("Respondent" or "Five Brothers") accepts agricultural products from growers for sale or consignment and acts as an agent/broker for the growers. It has a surety bond issued by Old Republic Surety Company to secure payment of sums owed to agricultural producers. Petitioner Paul Hernandez ("Petitioner" or "Mr. Hernandez") grows snap beans. On March 26, 2010, Mr. Hernandez delivered 400 boxes of hand-picked snap beans to Five Brothers to sell. On March 27, 2010, Mr. Hernandez delivered an additional 750 boxes of snap beans to Five Brothers to sell for him. Five Brothers' Marketing Agreement and Statement included on the Grower Receipt was given to Mr. Hernandez on March 26 and 27, 2010. It provided in relevant part: The grower gives Five Brothers Produce the right to sell or consign to the general trade. No guarantees as to sales price are made and only the amounts actually received by Five Brothers Produce, less selling charges, cooler charges, and any other charges will be paid to the grower. Final settlement will be made within a reasonable length of time and may be held until payment is received from the purchaser. On March 27, 2010, Five Brothers' invoice showed that it shipped 336 of the first 400 boxes of Mr. Hernandez' beans to Nathel and Nathel, Inc., at the New York City Terminal Market. From that shipment, Five Brothers received $12.00 a box, or a total of $4,032.00. After deducting its fee of $1.60 a box, Five Brothers paid Mr. Hernandez net proceeds of $3,494.40. On the next day, Five Brothers' records show it sold the remaining 64 boxes to Tolbert Produce, Inc., for $22.70 a box. On March 26, 2010, the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") Fruit and Vegetable Market News Portal reported sales prices ranging from $24.85 to $25.85 a box for round green handpicked snap beans grown in Central and South Florida. Mr. Hernandez had reason to question the accuracy of Five Brother's invoice, given the USDA data and the Tolbert Produce sale. Nathel and Nathel also documented the sales of the 336 boxes of beans and 160 boxes of squash it received from Five Brothers. By the time of its settlement with Five Brothers, it paid a total of $5,643.50, of which $4,032.00 came from the sales of beans as reported on the Five Brothers' invoice. On March 29, 2010, Five Brothers shipped all 750 boxes of beans it received from Mr. Hernandez on March 27, 2010, to A and J Produce, Inc., at the New York City Terminal in the Bronx. Five Brothers' invoice indicated that it received $9.00 a box, or a total of $6,750.00 from A and J. Five Brother's fee for that shipment was also $1.60 a box, or a total of $1,200.00, leaving Mr. Hernandez with a net return of $5,550.00. USDA market data showed prices for the handpicked snap beans, on March 29, 2010, ranged from $20.00 to $20.85 a box. The actual cost of production for Mr. Hernandez, including seeds, water, fertilizer, and labor can range from $6.00 to $10.00 a box. He would not have paid for the labor to hand-pick beans if he had known he could not get an adequate return on his investment. Relying on the USDA data, Mr. Hernandez reasonably expected his net return to be $13,965.20, higher than it was. Five Brothers sold the beans in a rapidly declining market. Pointing to the same USDA data, Five Brothers showed the drop towards the end of March and into April 2010. On March 30, the price was down to $16.85 to $18.85. On March 31, the price was $14.85 to $16.85. And, from April 1 through April 6, a box of snap beans was selling for $10.00 to $12.85. Mr. Hernandez alleged that Five Brothers' invoice for the sale of the 750 boxes was not correct. He pointed to an exhibit that showed Five Brothers shipped A and J Produce 1344 boxes of beans, including the 750 boxes grown by him, and another exhibit that appeared to show that A and J received the 1344 boxes, on March 31, 2010, and paid Five Brothers $20.00 a box. That same A and J document, however, tracks the declining prices as each part of the shipment was sold. In the end the value was 68.82 percent of the target price of $20.00, which equals an average sales price of $13.76. After Five Brothers deducted the $1.60 a box fee, proceeds for Mr. Hernandez were approximately $12.00 a box consistent with that reported as A and J's final settlement with Five Brothers. The evidence that there was no guarantee of a sales price in the agreement, that market prices were declining rapidly, and that the receivers' documents support those of the shipper, Five Brothers, is sufficient to rebut any evidence that Mr. Hernandez is entitled to additional payments for the beans delivered to Five Brothers on March 26 and 27, 2010.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing the complaint of Paul Hernandez against Five Brothers Produce, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 2010.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner should be assessed sales and use tax by Respondent, and if so, how much and what penalty, if any, should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Aircraft Trading Center, Inc. (Petitioner), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, having its principal office at 17885 S.E. Federal Highway, Tequesta, Florida. Petitioner is engaged in the business of purchasing aircraft for resale. During all times material hereto, Petitioner was registered as an aircraft dealer with the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and registered as a retail dealer with the State of Florida, Department of Revenue (Respondent). The selling price of Petitioner's aircraft range from one million to twenty-five million dollars and helicopters from two hundred thousand to three million dollars. Normally, Petitioner purchases an aircraft, without having a confirmed buyer. Petitioner purchases an aircraft based upon in-house research which shows a likelihood that the aircraft can be resold at a profit. Petitioner's aircraft is demonstrated to potential buyers/customers. The customers require a demonstration to determine if the aircraft meets the particular needs of the customer. The demonstration could take one day or as long as two weeks. During the demonstration, the customer pays the expenses associated with flying the aircraft. Petitioner uses two methods to determine the costs of demonstration. In one method, the cost is determined from a reference source utilized in the industry to show the cost of operating a particular type of aircraft. In the other method, the customer pays Petitioner's actual out-of- pocket cost. No matter which method is used, the charges to the customers are listed as income on Petitioner's bookkeeping books and records, per the advice of Petitioner's certified public accounting (CPA) firm. Petitioner remains the owner of the aircraft during the demonstration and until the sale. Also, during demonstration, Petitioner maintains insurance coverage on the aircraft and is the loss payee. In an attempt to make sure "legitimate" customers are engaged in the demonstrations, Petitioner screens potential buyers to make sure that they have the resources to purchase one of Petitioner's aircraft. For sales to buyers/customers residing out-of-state, Petitioner utilizes a specific, but standard procedure. Such customers are provided a copy of the Florida Statute dealing with exempting the sale from Florida's sales tax if the aircraft is removed from the State of Florida within ten (10) days from the date of purchase. Florida sales tax is not collected from the buyer if the buyer executes an affidavit which states that the buyer has read the Florida Statute and that the buyer will remove the plane from Florida within ten (10) days after the sale or the completion of repairs and if the bill of sale shows an out-of-state address for the buyer. When an aircraft is sold, Petitioner's standard procedure is to prepare a purchase agreement and after receiving payment, Petitioner prepares a bill of sale. Petitioner sends the bill of sale to a title company in Oklahoma which handles all of Petitioner's title transfers. The title company records the bill of sale, registers the change of title with the FAA and sends Petitioner a copy of the title. For all sale transactions, Petitioner maintains a file which includes the affidavit, the bill of sale, and a copy of the title. Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner for the period 2/1/87- 1/31/92 to determine if sales and use tax should be assessed against Petitioner. All records were provided by Petitioner. The audit resulted in an assessment of sales and use tax, penalty, and interest against Petitioner. Respondent assessed tax on the sale of a helicopter and on certain charges made by Petitioner to its customers as a result of demonstrations. Regarding the helicopter, Respondent assessed tax in the amount of $18,000.00 for the helicopter transaction. By invoice dated 7/10/89, Petitioner sold the helicopter to Outerscope, Inc., for $300,000.00. Outerscope was an out-of-state company. Petitioner used its standard procedure for the sale of aircraft and sales to nonresidents. Petitioner did not obtain proof that the helicopter was removed from the State of Florida, and Petitioner has no knowledge as to whether it was removed. As to the charges by Petitioner for demonstrations, Respondent assessed tax in the amount of $72,488.55. Respondent determined the tax by taking an amount equal to 1 percent of the listed value of the aircraft demonstrated and multiplying that number by 6 percent, the use tax rate. Respondent relied upon the records and representations provided by Petitioner's bookkeeper as to determining which aircraft were demonstrated, the value of the aircraft and the months in which the aircraft were demonstrated. Several transactions originally designated as demonstrations have been now determined by Petitioner's bookkeeper not to be demonstrations: The February 4, 1987 transaction with Ray Floyd. The July 10, 1988 transaction involving Trans Aircraft. The May 2 and 12, 1989 items for Stalupi/Bandit. The July 12, 1989 item involving Bond Corp. The July 18, 1989 item involving Seardel. The November 28, 1990 item involving J. P. Foods Service. Petitioner's CPA firm advises it regarding Florida's sales and use tax laws. At no time did the CPA firm advise Petitioner that its (Petitioner's) demonstrations were subject to sales and use tax and that it (Petitioner) was required to obtain proof that an aircraft had been removed from the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order assessing sales and use tax for the period 2/1/87 - 1/31/92 against Aircraft Trading Center, Inc., consistent herewith. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of July 1995. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July 1995. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Rejected as subordinate. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 14. Rejected as subordinate. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8 and 9. 12 and 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 14. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 16. Respondent Partially accepted in findings of fact 11 and 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Also, see Conclusion of Law 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 7 and 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 10 and 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 13-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. NOTE: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert O. Rogers, Esquire Rogers, Bowers, Dempsey & Paladeno 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1330 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Lealand L. McCharen Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol-Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the following facts: Petitioner is an employee of the Boromei-Mirabella Seafood Company, a licensed fish dealer located in Tampa, Florida. The scope of Petitioner's employment included the vehicular transport of fish for sale or purchase. While engaged in his employment, Petitioner was apprehended and arrested by officers of the Commission, and charged with violation of Rules 39-10.02(4) and 39- 10.02(5), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's arrest occurred in Highlands County, Florida, on or about December 11, 1980. Petitioner, for purposes of this proceeding, admits to the factual behavior alleged in the arrest citation issued by Respondent's offices. The rules challenged in this proceeding were promulgated by Respondent in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, also known as the Administrative Procedure Act. The challenged rules became effective on August 11, 1979. Both rules cite Article IV, Section 9, of the Florida Constitution and Section 372.021, Florida Statutes, as "specific authority" for promulgation of the rules. In addition, Section 372.65, Florida Statutes, is listed in the Florida Administrative Code, as the "law implemented" by the two challenged rules.
Findings Of Fact Applicant, Ester Woods Vickery, applied for a beverage license for the premises known as "Vickery's Grocery" located one mile south of Bear Creek on U.S. Highway 231, Bay County, Florida. Said application was denied by the Petitioner for the following reason: "Husband of applicant who has a direct or indirect interest In the business has been convicted of felonies in the past 15 years." Respondent requested a hearing contending that she is the sole owner of the business and that her husband has no direct or indirect interest in the business and is merely one of her paid employees. The Petitioner contends that the business was bought using funds from an account of Mrs. Vickery, the money of which was obtained from the sale of property owned jointly by Mr. and Mrs. Vickery. The Petitioner further contends that it is a man's obligation to support his wife and that Mr. Vickery's sole support is his work with Vickery's Grocery; that the conviction of Mr. Vickery of felonies during the past 15 years which involved the sale of "moonshine liquors" makes it mandatory under Section 561.15 and Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, that the application for a beverage license be denied. It was admitted by the Respondent that Esther Woods Vickery is married to a person who has been convicted of felonies in the past 15 years. It was also admitted by the Respondent that Mr. and Mrs. Vickery owned jointly property from which timber was cut and sold and the profit was deposited in a savings account in the name of Mrs. Vickery. The savings account from which money was drawn to purchase Vickery's Grocery was in Mrs. Vickery's name alone. Said savings account was established at some time before the purchase of Vickery's Grocery. The business was purchased from Mr. Hickman, the owner of the premises, who testified that he had leased the premises to Mrs. Vickery; that he had made all negotiations concerning the lease and the selling of the business with Mrs. Vickery and that he had not dealt in any way with Mr. Vickery in regard to the sale of the property. Mr. Hickman lives near the grocery business and testified that Mrs. Vickery runs the business herself. Mr. Vickery, the husband of the Respondent, is shown on the payroll to be on the payroll of Mrs. Vickery and draws a specified salary payment for work in the business which involves the sale of gas and oil and well as groceries. The Hearing Officer further finds: That the Respondent, Esther Woods Vickery, is the sole owner of the establishment known as "Vickery's Grocery" and that the husband of Mrs. Vickery is an employee of the establishment and has no direct or indirect interest in the business.
Recommendation Approve the application for a beverage license of Esther Woods Vickery for the business premises "Vickery's Grocery", providing she meets all other requirements than those which are the subject of the disapproval of her application and of this hearing. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of May, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Franklin R. Harrison, Esquire 406 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Charles Nuzum, Director Division of Beverage Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined on the ground Respondent allegedly violated Section 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: When the events herein occurred, Respondent, David Carl Boston, operated a restaurant and lounge under the name of Mr. D's Restaurant and Lounge at 2262 Orchard Street, Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent has been issued special restaurant license number 26-0701, series 4COP SRX, by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). Respondent began operating his restaurant and lounge in February 1996, but ceased doing business in July 1997. Respondent's license authorizes him to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises, so long as the restaurant has at least 2,500 square feet of service area, it can seat at least 150 patrons at tables, and at least 51 percent of the gross revenue is derived from the sale of non-alcoholic beverages and food. Respondent was aware of this requirement when he applied for a license. Indeed, item 10 on his application specifically noted these special requirements. Accordingly, Respondent knew, or should have known, that he would need adequate records to show that these requirements were being met. To enforce the above requirements, the Division performs periodic audits of all restaurants holding special licenses. As a part of that audit process, on February 3, 1997, special agent Myers contacted Respondent and requested that he "[p]roduce within 14 days all records including but not limited to all sales receipts, register tapes, invoices for food, alcoholic bev. & non-alcoholic bev., employee time records, all purchase and sales receipts, as required per Florida law." The records were to cover the twelve-month period from February 1996 through January 1997. Respondent acknowledged receiving the Notice to produce the records on February 3, 1997, by signing the Notice in agent Myers' office. Within a few days, Respondent produced a large plastic shopping bag full of records, which has been received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The bag includes receipts for alcoholic beverage purchases and other miscellaneous items, but virtually no receipts for food purchases. There are also so- called "summary sheets," which are handwritten summaries of receipts for food and alcoholic beverage sales for most of the months during the audit period, and cash register tapes which ostensibly support the entries on the summaries. The records are poorly organized and unsophisticated, and they are very difficult for a third person to analyze. Thus, they fail to comport with Division Rule 61A-3.0141(3)1., Florida Administrative Code, which requires that a licensee must "maintain separate records of all purchases and gross retail sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages and all purchases and gross retail sales of alcoholic beverages." Because of the lack of receipts for food purchases, the Division could not establish a percentage of food sales for the audit period. Receipts for food purchases are typically used by the Division as a measuring stick against purchases of alcoholic beverages to determine an allocation of revenues. Despite several subsequent conversations between agent Myers and Respondent in an effort to obtain further clarification and documentation, agent Myers could not establish the appropriate division of revenues between food and alcoholic beverages. On the evening of February 6, 1997, agent Myers visited Respondent's premises between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. He found approximately five customers on the premises, all at the bar, and only one employee, who was acting as bartender. The kitchen was shut down, and no food was visible to the naked eye. Agent Myers did notice a bag of frozen chicken wings in a freezer, but no other food was on the shelves or in the refrigerator. He also counted the chairs on the premises and found only 111. On February 18, 1997, agent Myers returned to the premises and found only 107 chairs for patrons. On both visits by agent Myers, Respondent had less seating capacity for food customers than is required under his special license. In addition, contrary to a Division rule requirement, full-course meals were not available at those times even though the restaurant was serving alcoholic beverages. At hearing, Respondent initially contended that he was confused as to the requirements for his license. Given the plain language in item 10 of his application, however, which clearly identifies the restrictions, this explanation has not been accepted. At the same time, it is noted that Respondent offered to voluntarily surrender his license to the Division in July 1997, since he knew that he could not meet the special conditions imposed under the law. The Division refused, however, on the ground an Adminstrative Action was pending against his license. Respondent acknowledged that on both February 7 and 18, 1997, he had less chairs for food customers than is required. Therefore, this portion of the charges has been sustained. In mitigation, he attributed this to his birthday party on one of those evenings and a "talent show" to be held on another evening, although virtually no customers were on the premises on either date when the inspections took place. Respondent has a menu from which customers can order, and he says he also has a daily luncheon buffet. In explaining the lack of food purchase receipts, Respondent claimed that most of his food was purchased from Premier Meats in Jacksonville, Florida, a retailer that caters to small businesses, such as Respondent's. According to a representative of Premier Meats, Nathanial A. Griffin, that firm conducts a "cash and carry" business, with no accounts receivables, and thus it does not invoice its customers. Griffin recalled that Respondent regularly made weekly purchases of chicken wings, gizzards, and white filets, which totaled between $60.00 to $80.00 per week, on average. Assuming this to be true, this equates to approximately $250.00 to $300.00 per month in food purchases from that vendor. The undersigned has independently reviewed the summary sheets, which Respondent says were prepared on a contemporaneous basis from cash register tapes. They reflect that the following revenues were derived from food and alcoholic beverage sales during the months of February 1996 Food through December 1996: Alcohol February 119.70 86.00 March 1200.10 851.85 April 3678.10 731.20 May 3121.27 1170.00 June 3026.90 956.00 July 1401.50 770.04 August 1771.25 1540.70 September 1504.85 2789.32 October 372.25 742.25 November 2941.01 2217.50 December 1376.04 948.50 Total 20513.97 12803.36 If the testimony of witness Giffin is accepted, then Respondent's food purchases from Premier Meats during the eleven month period would be no more than $3000.00. Given the lack of any other food receipts, the large number of receipts for purchases of alcoholic beverages, and the description of the premises on the two occasions when agent Myers inspected the closed kitchen, it is found that the summaries are not credible, due to a lack of underlying documentation. Therefore, it is found that Respondent did not derive at least 51 percent of his gross revenue from sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages, as charged in the Administrative Action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's special restaurant license no. 26-07010 for violating Section 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, without prejudice to obtain any other type of license, but with prejudice to obtain another SRX special license for five years from the date of the Final Order. Respondent should also have a $1,000.00 administrative fine imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 24th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Thomas D. Winokur, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 David Carl Boston 2262 Orchard Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Revenue’s audit assessment of tax and interest against Petitioner, Dolphin Tanker Systems, Inc., issued on June 15, 2004, should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Dolphin Systems is incorporated and domiciled in the State of Florida, having its principal place of business located at 3255 Mulford Road, Mulberry, Florida. Dolphin Systems sells water tanks and trucks to construction contractors and equipment dealers, both domestic and foreign. Products are sold and delivered within the state and also exported to other states and countries. Dolphin Systems is a "dealer" within the meaning of Subsection 212.06(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2003).1/ On or about May 9, 2003, the Department notified Petitioner that it would conduct an audit of Dolphin Systems business. The audit period was from April 1, 2000 through March 31, 2003. The Department and Dolphin Systems agreed that the audit would be conducted by the sampling method. See § 212.12(6)(c)1., Fla. Stat. On January 5, 2004, the Department concluded its record review and issued its Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes ("NOI"). The NOI showed that Dolphin Systems owed the Department additional sales and use tax in the amount of $92,093.92, penalties in the amount of $23,023.48, and interest in the amount of $23,661.54. Dolphin Systems requested an audit conference to review the factual circumstances and reasons for the Department’s adjustments. During the conference, additional records were provided which resulted in a revision to the NOI (Revision No. 1). A subsequent revision to the NOI occurred on April 20, 2004 (Revision No. 2). On June 15, 2004, the Department sent Dolphin Systems a Notice of Proposed Assessment which indicated that Dolphin Systems owed the Department additional sales and use tax in the amount of $30,302.69; and interest through June 14, 2004, in the amount of $9,268.14, making a total assessment of $39,570.83. Determined Facts Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings are made: The Department is authorized to conduct audits of taxpayers and to request information to ascertain their tax liability, if any, pursuant to Section 213.34, Florida Statutes. In May 2003, the Department initiated an audit of Dolphin Systems to determine whether Dolphin Systems was properly collecting and remitting sales and use tax to the Department. During the audit period, April 1, 2000 through March 31, 2003, Dolphin Systems purchased inventory, fixed assets, and other tangible property for use in its business. Additional tax was determined to be due (at the combined rate of 6.75 percent) on the general, fixed asset and inventory purchases made by Dolphin Systems during the audit period for which sales tax was either not paid to the vendor or where Dolphin Systems did not accrue the correct amount of use tax. Exempt Sales The Department’s work papers identify sales for which adequate documentation was not provided to support Petitioner's claimed exempt status. Specifically, Petitioner had no resale exemption certificates from sales made to either Florida dealers or to non-Florida dealers. There was no evidence that the item was or would be exported out of state. By its own terms, Invoice No. 2423 relates to a transaction that describes a New Dolphin 3500 gallon tank; Berkeley water pump; spray heads; and wash-down hose with reel, air controls in cab, primed, painted, decaled, and mounted on a provided chassis. Invoice No. 2423 reflects a sales price of $13,500.00, but does not show that sales tax was collected on the transaction. Dolphin Systems contends that the transaction involving Invoice No. 2423 is exempt from sales tax because it was an out-of-state sale. If RSV and Associates took possession of the property in Florida, but could document that there was uninterrupted export of the goods/property out of the country or a statement from the vendor that the property went out of the State of Florida for resale, that sale would be exempt from sales tax. However, Dolphin Systems provided no such documentation to the Department. To support its claim that the item was an out-of-state sale, Dolphin Systems provided shipping documentation which purported to show that the item listed on Invoice No. 2423 had been shipped to Puerto Rico. The unsigned shipping document described the property being shipped to Puerto Rico as a two- door white 1994 International truck. However, because the item listed on Invoice No. 2423 was different from the property noted on the unsigned shipping document, the Department could not tie the two records together. Therefore, the Department appropriately concluded that there was no basis for exempting the transaction reflected in Invoice No. 2423. Other Income The Notice of Proposed Assessment assessed sales tax on $62,500.00, which Dolphin System had categorized as "Other Income" on its Federal income tax return for the year 2000, Form 1120 ("2000 Tax Return"). The Department based this assessment on its work papers identified as "other income" for which adequate documentation was not provided to support the claim that tax had been remitted. Petitioner reported $62,500.00 in "other income" on its 2000 Tax Return and on its trial balance. No reconciliation of income per books, with income per return, was entered for this event. This income was not included on the state sales tax return for that period; and, therefore, it was properly scheduled as an exception. The Department included the $62,500.00 because Petitioner reported the income both on its financial statements and 2000 Tax Return. Because Petitioner uses the accrual method, events that gave rise to the creation of income are reported in the year the event took place. Accordingly, the "other income" is properly attributable to the year 2000. In response to the assessment, Dolphin Systems claimed that the $62,500.00 represented collection of a "bad debt," and the transaction represented a cash receipt of $62,500.00 from a settlement in a lawsuit for an unpaid invoice from prior years. As support for this claim, Dolphin Systems presented the Department with a copy of a Final Judgment in Dolphin System's favor. According to the Final Judgment dated September 1999, Kimmins Contracting Corporation ("Kimmins Contracting") was indebted to Dolphin Systems for $59,300.00, plus sales tax of $3,595.50, for a total of $62,895.50 for property sold and delivered between June 16, 1998 and July 8, 1998. There is no dispute that this property was taxable. Dolphin Systems also contended that in July 1998, it reported and remitted to the Department the sales tax on the property sold and delivered to Kimmins Contracting, even though Kimmins Contracting had not yet paid for the property or the sales tax thereon. As additional support for its claim, Dolphin Systems submitted to the Department a Sales and Use Return for the collection period July 1998, which showed a taxable amount of $100,000.00 and taxes collected as $6,112.50. Moreover, there was a discrepancy between the amount of gross sales on Petitioner's 2000 Tax Return and the gross sales reported for sales tax purposes to the Department on Form DR-15. Notwithstanding Petitioner's claim, there was no supporting documentation to either explain the discrepancy or to establish that Petitioner had already paid sales tax on the "other income." In the absence of any back-up data, the Department appropriately concluded that the foregoing Sales and Tax Use Return did not show that the sales tax for tangible personal property sold to Kimmins Contracting was included in the amount of sales taxes reported and remitted to the Department in July 1998. General Purchases The Department's work papers identify general purchases from various vendors for which adequate documentation was not provided to show that either tax was paid on the purchase or that it was exempt as a purchase for resale. In some instances, no invoices were presented; in which case, the Department could not determine that sales tax had, in fact, been paid. In other instances, invoices existed, but there was no documentation showing the purchase was for resale. Dolphin Systems is in the business of purchasing and/or building and repairing tankers for resale. When tankers are purchased for resale and this can be documented, there is no tax on the item. Here, Dolphin Systems claimed, but was unable to document, that certain items were for resale. Without such documentation, the Department properly scheduled the items included in the Notice of Proposed Assessment. Items normally purchased for resale are recorded in the cost of goods sold account, not in office supplies or shop supplies account. The items contained in these accounts normally are for items used in the business, and since they are being used, sales tax is due. Likewise, as in this case, reimbursement to the owner for credit card purchases, unless Petitioner documented the reason for each purchase, is a taxable use. In accordance with the Notice of Proposed Assessment, the Department properly assessed Dolphin Systems $30,302.69 for taxes and $9,268.14 for interest through June 15, 2004. Additionally, Dolphin Systems in liable for daily interest to be computed from June 16, 2004, at 6.64 per day. The Department has waived all penalties. There are no "other" penalties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order sustaining the assessment for sales and use tax and interest against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 7th day of April, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Arrowhead Country Club (Arrowhead) is a business entity owned by Can Am Company, Ltd., a limited partnership, which held at all times pertinent to this case a beverage license issued by the Division of Beverage. Can Am Company, Ltd. entered into a lease with EST Corporation (EST) to lease the restaurant and lounge at Arrowhead to EST. Subsequently, RST applied for its corporate charter but was unable to use the name RST. It amended its corporate name to Wilval Corporation (Wilval). RST/Wilval continued to operate the restaurant and lounge under the terms of its lease. EST/Wilval obtained a sales tax number, collected tax, and remitted taxes for several months, May through October, 1978. Thereafter, RST/Wilval failed to remit sales taxes to the Department of Revenue. RST/Wilval also began to fall behind on its payments to Arrowhead under its lease. This resulted in Arrowhead taking certain charges in payment for monies due under the lease and collecting them from club members. Arrowhead remitted the four percent lease tax but not the sales tax on these collections. Testimony was submitted by the Department's auditor that there was no evidence of collusion between RST/ Wilval and Arrowhead or indication that they did not deal at arm's length with one another. The Department audited RST/Wilval and determined that, although the first few months of records were complete, its total records were incomplete. An estimate of sales taxes due was based upon estimates of the sales based upon the records of Arrowhead on the restaurant and lounge operations for the preceding year adjusted for price increases. These estimates, when compared against the records which were maintained by RST/Wilval in its first months of operation, show a close correlation. Based upon these estimates, the sales taxes assessed against RST/Wilval were $7,965.14. This assessment was presented to Ralph Williams, the manager of the RST/Wilval operation. Williams, an officer of the corporation, advised that RST/Wilval was unable to pay the taxes. The Department of Revenue then filed a warrant for collection of delinquent taxes, and the Sheriff of Broward County attempted to levy on the warrant. Williams tendered to Arrowhead a Notice of Termination of the Lease and vacated the premises on March 26, 1979. When the Sheriff attempted to levy the warrant, he found that Williams had left the location and the property on the premises belonged to Arrowhead. On Nay 18, 1979, the Department presented a jeopardy assessment to Arrowhead, which led to the instant controversy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the sales taxes due not be assessed against Arrowhead Country Club. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Linda C. Procta, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis J. Pleeter, Esquire 6200 Stirling Road, Davie Post Office Box 8549 Hollywood, Florida 33024
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Action? If so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Licensed Premises La Catracha Fish Market and Restaurant (hereinafter referred to as the "Restaurant") is an eatery located at 1255 West 46th Street, Hialeah, Florida, that sells beer and wine pursuant to alcoholic beverage license number 23-15943, series 2-COP. The Restaurant offers both counter and table service. The counter where patrons are served (hereinafter referred to as the "Counter") is situated toward the front of the Restaurant, to the right of the entrance. Ownership and Operation of the Restaurant Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the owner of the Restaurant and the holder of the license that authorizes the sale of alcoholic beverages on the premises. Respondent and his wife, Juanita, are now, and have been at all times material to the instant case, actively involved in the operation of the Restaurant. They maintain a regular presence on the premises. Among other things, Juanita mans the cash register behind the Counter. From February of 1994, until the end of July of that year, when the Moyas were on an extended vacation, Respondent had "other people" run the business. When they returned from their vacation, the Moyas discovered that the Restaurant had a "new clientele." The Undercover Operation Elio Oliva and Antonio Llaneras are detectives with the Hialeah Police Department. In August and September of 1994, they participated in an undercover investigation at the Restaurant. The investigation was initiated after the Hialeah Police Department had received complaints that illegal drug and gambling activities were taking place on the premises. The August 31, 1994, Visit The undercover operation began on August 31, 1994. On that date, Oliva and Llaneras, dressed in civilian attire, went to the Restaurant to see if they would be able to make a controlled buy of narcotics. Upon entering the Restaurant, they walked over to the Counter and sat down. From their vantage point at the Counter, Oliva and Llaneras observed a number of patrons walk up to another patron, Antonio Rosales, 1/ hand him money and receive in return a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. After approximately 20 minutes, Oliva approached Rosales and asked him if he had any cocaine to sell. Rosales responded in the negative, but directed Oliva to another patron in the Restaurant, from whom Oliva purchased a clear plastic bag containing, what the patron represented was, a half of a gram of powdered cocaine. The transaction occurred at the Counter in plain view. There was no effort to conceal what was taking place. Oliva subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased at the Restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. 2/ The September 1, 1994, Visit Oliva and Llaneras returned to the Restaurant at around 8:00 p.m. on September 1, 1994. When they arrived, Rosales was at the Counter. There was a telephone on the Counter near where Rosales was seated. Rosales received incoming calls on the telephone that evening. (Employees at the Restaurant answered the telephone and handed it to Rosales, who then engaged in conversation with the caller.) Upon entering the Restaurant, Oliva noticed Rosales at the Counter and walked up to him. He told Rosales that he was interested in purchasing cocaine and then handed Rosales $20.00. Rosales thereupon pulled out from one of his pockets a clear plastic bag containing, what Rosales represented was, a half of a gram of powdered cocaine. He then gave the bag to Oliva. The transaction occurred in plain view. There was no effort to conceal what was taking place. Respondent's wife was on the premises at the time of the transaction. Oliva subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. 3/ The September 2, 1994, Visit Llaneras went back to the Restaurant the following day. When he arrived, Rosales was again at the Counter. From his position near the entrance of the Restaurant, Llaneras, in a normal tone of voice, told Rosales that he wanted to buy a half of a gram of cocaine. Rosales thereupon signaled for Llaneras to sit down next to him. Llaneras complied with Rosales' request. Rosales then pulled out from one of his pockets a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Upon handing the bag to Llaneras, Rosales bragged, rather loudly, that it was "good stuff." The transaction occurred in plain view. There was no effort to conceal what was taking place. Respondent and his wife were behind the Counter at the time of the transaction. Llaneras subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased from Rosales at the restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. The substance was later analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .3 grams of cocaine. The September 6, 1994, Visit On September 6, 1994, Llaneras returned to the Restaurant, accompanied by Oliva. On separate occasions, they each approached Rosales, who was seated at the Counter. Llaneras' September 6, 1994, Purchase When Llaneras approached Rosales, Rosales asked him if he "needed some more." Llaneras' response was to hand Rosales $20.00. Rosales then took out a folded napkin from one of his pockets and placed the napkin on top of the Counter. He proceeded to unfold the napkin. Inside the napkin were approximately 12 clear plastic bags. Each contained a white powdery substance. Rosales handed one of the bags to Llaneras. He told Llaneras that it was "good stuff." The transaction occurred in plain view. There was no effort to conceal what was taking place. Respondent's wife was behind the Counter, approximately three to four feet from Llaneras and Rosales, at the time of the transaction. Llaneras subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. The substance was later analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .3 grams of cocaine. Oliva's September 6, 1994, Purchase When Oliva approached Rosales, he handed Rosales $20.00. Rosales thereupon took out a folded napkin from one of his pockets and unfolded it on top of the Counter. Inside the napkin were approximately ten clear plastic bags, each of which contained a white powdery substance. Rosales handed one of the bags to Oliva. The transaction occurred in plain view. There was no effort to conceal what was taking place. Respondent's wife was behind the Counter, approximately six feet from Llaneras and Rosales, and was facing in their direction at the time of the transaction. The substance Oliva had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day was subsequently analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of cocaine. The September 14, 1994, Visit Oliva and Llaneras next visited the Restaurant on September 14, 1994. When they arrived at the Restaurant, Rosales was seated at the Counter talking on the telephone. Oliva sat down at the Counter next to Rosales and handed him $20.00. As he had done during his previous encounter with Oliva on September 6, 1994, Rosales took out a folded napkin from one of his pockets and unfolded it on top of the Counter. Inside the napkin was a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Rosales handed the bag to Oliva. The transaction occurred in plain view. There was no effort to conceal what was taking place. Respondent's wife and the barmaids on duty were behind the Counter at the time of the transaction. The substance Oliva had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day was subsequently analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .3 grams of cocaine. The September 15, 1994, Visit Oliva and Llaneras returned to the Restaurant on the following day, September 15, 1994. Gaming Activities During their visit, they heard a loud commotion in the kitchen and went to investigate. Upon entering the kitchen, 4/ they observed several persons, including Respondent and Rosales, gathered around a table participating in a game similar to roulette. The table was round and approximately three feet in diameter. It was filled with indentations painted either black or white. A funnel was held above the center of the table through which a marble was dropped. Participants in the game bet on whether the marble would come to rest on a black or white colored indentation. If the marble landed on a white indentation, the person dropping the marble would win the money that was in the pot. If it landed on a black indentation, the other player(s) would win. The game did not require any skill to play. Its outcome was based entirely on chance. After entering the kitchen, both Oliva and Llaneras played the game. Oliva's September 15, 1994, Purchase While Oliva was in the kitchen, Rosales asked him if he "needed anything." Oliva indicated that he did and handed Rosales $20.00. In return, Rosales gave Oliva a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Oliva and Rosales each spoke in a normal tone of voice during the exchange. Respondent was among those who were in the kitchen at the time of the transaction. The substance Oliva had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day was subsequently analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .3 grams of cocaine. Llaneras' September 15, 1994, Purchase Llaneras also made a buy from Rosales in the kitchen. Rosales initiated the transaction. He asked Llaneras if he needed any cocaine. Llaneras responded in the affirmative and gave Rosales $20.00, in return for which Llaneras received from Rosales a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Llaneras and Rosales each spoke in a louder than normal tone of voice during the exchange. Respondent was in the kitchen a few feet away from Llaneras and Rosales when the transaction took place. Llaneras subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. The substance was later analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .2 grams of cocaine. The September 16, 1994, Visit The next day, September 16, 1994, Oliva and Llaneras came back to the Restaurant. During their visit on this date, they each made buys from Rosales. Oliva's September 16, 1994, Purchase Rosales was at the Counter talking with Respondent's wife when Oliva approached him. After greetings were exchanged, Rosales asked Oliva if he "needed anything," in response to which Oliva handed Rosales $20.00. Rosales then gave Oliva a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Oliva and Rosales each spoke in a normal tone of voice during the exchange. The substance Oliva had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day was subsequently analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .2 grams of cocaine. Llaneras' September 16, 1994, Purchase Rosales was in the kitchen when Llaneras approached him and inquired about purchasing a half of a gram of powdered cocaine. After Llaneras tendered the money needed to make the purchase, Rosales gave him a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Llaneras and Rosales each spoke in a louder than normal tone of voice during the exchange. Respondent was in the kitchen, approximately three to four feet away from Llaneras and Rosales, when the transaction took place. Respondent's wife was also nearby. Llaneras subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. The substance was later analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .2 grams of cocaine. The September 22, 1994, Visit Oliva and Llaneras paid separate visits to the Restaurant on September 22, 1994. During their visits, they each made buys from Rosales. Oliva's September 22, 1994, Purchase Rosales was at the Counter talking with Respondent's wife when Oliva walked up to him. Rosales interrupted his conversation with Respondent's wife to ask Oliva if he "needed anything." In response to Rosales' inquiry, Oliva handed Rosales $20.00. Rosales then handed Oliva a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Oliva and Rosales each spoke in a normal tone of voice during the exchange. Respondent's wife was behind the Counter, approximately four to five feet from Oliva and Rosales, when the transaction took place. The substance Oliva had purchased from Rosales at the restaurant that day was subsequently analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .3 grams of cocaine. Llaneras' September 22, 1994, Purchase Llaneras encountered Rosales as Rosales was leaving the Restaurant. Rosales asked Llaneras if he "needed anything." Llaneras responded in the affirmative. Rosales, in turn, told Llaneras to wait at the Counter. Rosales then left the Restaurant. He returned shortly thereafter with a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance, which he handed to Llaneras. The transaction took place in plain view of Respondent's wife, who was approximately three feet away behind the Counter. Respondent was on the premises at the time of the transaction. Llaneras subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. The substance was later analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .3 grams of cocaine. Llaneras' September 28, 1994, Visit Llaneras next visited the Restaurant on September 28, 1994. Rosales was seated at the Counter when Llaneras entered the Restaurant. He saw Llaneras enter and walked up to him. Llaneras greeted Rosales by telling Rosales, in a normal tone of voice, that he wanted to purchase cocaine. He then handed Rosales $20.00. In return, Rosales gave Llaneras a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Respondent's wife was behind the Counter when the transaction took place. Respondent was on the premises. Llaneras subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. The substance was later analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .2 grams of cocaine. Oliva's September 29, 1994, Visit Oliva returned to the Restaurant on September 29, 1994. He met Rosales at the Restaurant. As was his usual custom when he conversed with Oliva, Rosales asked if Oliva "needed anything." As was his customary response to such an inquiry, Oliva handed Rosales $20.00. Rosales then stepped outside the Restaurant and retrieved from his car, which was parked in front of the Restaurant, a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. When he returned to the Restaurant, he handed the bag to Oliva. The transaction occurred in plain view at the Counter. There was no effort to conceal what was taking place. Oliva and Rosales each spoke in a normal tone of voice during the exchange. Respondent's wife was behind the Counter at the time of the transaction. Respondent was on the premises. Respondent's Responsibility for Drug Transactions on Licensed Premises Although Respondent may not have been directly involved in any of the above-described sales of cocaine that took place at the Restaurant during the Hialeah Police Department's undercover operation and he may not have even been on the licensed premises at the time of some of these sales, given the persistent and repeated nature of the transactions and the open manner in which they were made, the inference is made that Respondent either fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked them.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts 1 and 3 through 12 of the Administrative Action and penalizing Respondent therefor by revoking his alcoholic beverage license number 23-15943, series 2-COP. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of August, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 11th day of August, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Central Phosphates, Inc. ("CPI"), a Delaware corporation, engaged in the business of processing phosphate and manufacturing phosphate fertilizer. Petitioner rents and operates a phosphate fertilizer processing plant which is located in the vicinity of Plant City, Florida (the "Plant"). At issue in this proceeding is whether a sales tax under Section 212.05, Florida Statutes (1977), is due on the rental of the Plant. The Plant was constructed in 1974. The construction was financed in an arrangement involving CF Realty, a sister company of CPI which is wholly owned along with CPI by CF Industries, Inc. CF Realty originally purchased the equipment and other personal property that constitute the Plant from certain contractors. CF Realty then sold the Plant to Plantlease Corporation ("Plantlease"), a New York for profit corporation. Plantlease is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Guarantee Company, a New York lending institution. Plantlease was organized solely and specifically to acquire title to the Plant and to lease the Plant back to CPI, which would operate the Plant. Plantlease paid for the Plant by assuming CF Realty's indebtedness on the construction loan and by paying some additional cash. Plantlease then leased the Plant to CPI for an initial term of 15 years. At the end of this initial term CPI has the right to elect to extend the lease for an additional two years or it may elect to purchase the Plant from Plantlease. At the end of the first extended term, CPI has the option of renewing the lease for a second renewal term of two years, or purchasing the Plant. If the lease is extended to the full 19 years, CPI is entitled to purchase the Plant at the end of that term. CPI makes quarterly rental payments to Plantlease pursuant to the lease. Since the first payment of rent in May, 1975, CPI has also been paying to Plantlease a sales tax of four percent of the amount of each payment pursuant to Section 212.05, Florida Statutes (1977). Plantlease, in turn, has remitted these payments to the Florida Department of Revenue with which it has registered as a dealer. Plantlease, as a potential claimant of a refund of the allegedly erroneously paid rental tax, has waived its right to a refund as reflected in its letter dated May 4, 1978, to the Florida Department of Revenue. Since May, 1975, CPI has paid sales taxes into the State Treasury in the amount of $861,322.55 which rental tax along with all other rental tax payments paid on the Plant since May, 1978, would be refunded if CPI were not liable for the rental tax. On May 8, 1978, CPI filed an Application for Refund with the Comptroller's Office of the State of Florida seeking a refund of the amount allegedly erroneously paid by CPI to the State Treasury and giving reasons for the claim for a refund. CPI bases its claim for a refund on the grounds that the Plantlease rental of the Plant to CPI constitutes an occasional or isolated sales transaction under Section 212.02 (9), Florida Statutes (1977). By letter dated May 30, 1978, the Comptroller's Office denied CPI's Application for Refund and determined that CPI's transaction with Plantlease was not exempt from Section 212.05, Florida Statutes (1977), and the regulations pursuant thereto. On or about July 7, 1978, CPI timely filed a Petition for a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1977), hearing on the issue of whether, for aforementioned reasons, a refund was due on the sales tax paid on the Plant. By application dated May 9, 1975, and received by respondent on May 12, 1975, Plantlease applied to respondent for a certificate of registration to engage in or conduct business as a dealer. Item 10 on the form application calls for "Type of Business." In the blank provided, Plantlease's agent has supplied "Rental of personal property." Underneath the blank, in parentheses, are examples of types of businesses, "Grocery, hardware, jewelry " Exhibit A-I, attached to Joint Exhibit No. 2. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for refund. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX Except for the final paragraph, the findings of fact in the recommended order are based on the parties' stipulation, which was received as joint exhibit No. 2. Paragraphs one, two, three, five, nine and ten of petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been adopted in toto. The first sentence of paragraph four of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been rejected as not being supported by the evidence. The second sentence has been adopted, in substance. Paragraph six of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted except for the second sentence, which is actually a proposed conclusion of law. Paragraph seven of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance. Paragraph eight of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted except for the second sentence, which is actually a proposed conclusion of law. Paragraphs eleven and twelve of petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been rejected as contrary to the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Alvarez, Esquire Gary P. Sams, Esquire Mahoney, Hadlow & Adams Post Office Box 5617 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linda C. Procta, Esquire Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Assistant Attorneys General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
