The Issue The issue in this unadopted-rule challenge is whether Respondent, in connection with the administration of the stamp tax, has formulated a statement of general applicability for allocating undifferentiated, lump-sum payments made in purchase- and-sale transactions involving joint real estate/personal property transfers; which meets the statutory definition of a rule but has not been adopted pursuant to the rulemaking procedure; and, as used by Respondent, has the effect of creating an entitlement to collect tax on 100% of the undifferentiated consideration.
Findings Of Fact On February 23, 2015, Petitioner 1701 Collins (Miami) Owner, LLC ("Taxpayer"), a Delaware limited liability company, entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Agreement") to sell a going concern, namely a hotel and conference center doing business in Miami Beach, Florida, as the SLS Hotel South Beach (the "Hotel Business"), to 1701 Miami (Owner), LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Purchaser"). Purchaser paid Taxpayer $125 million for the Hotel Business. The Hotel Business comprised two categories of property, i.e., real estate ("RE") and personal property ("PP"). The PP, in turn, consisted of two subcategories of property, tangible personal property ("TPP") and intangible personal property ("ITPP"). It is undisputed that the property transferred pursuant to the Agreement included RE, TPP, and ITPP. The sale closed on June 5, 2015, and a special warranty deed was recorded on June 8, 2015, which showed nominal consideration of $10. Pursuant to the Agreement, Taxpayer was responsible for remitting the documentary stamp tax and the discretionary surtax (collectively, "stamp tax"). Stamp tax is due on instruments transferring RE; the amount of the tax, payable per instrument recorded, is based upon the consideration paid for RE. Stamp tax is not assessed on consideration given in exchange for PP. The Agreement contains a provision obligating the parties to agree, before closing, upon a reasonable allocation of the lump-sum purchase price between the three types of property comprising the Hotel Business. For reasons unknown, this allocation, which was to be made "for federal, state and local tax purposes," never occurred. The failure of the parties to agree upon an allocation, if indeed they even attempted to negotiate this point, did not prevent the sale from occurring. Neither party declared the other to be in breach of the Agreement as a result of their nonallocation of the consideration. The upshot is that, as between Taxpayer and the Purchaser, the $125 million purchase price was treated as undifferentiated consideration for the whole enterprise. Taxpayer paid stamp tax in the amount of approximately $1.3 million based on the full $125 million of undifferentiated consideration. Taxpayer paid the correct amount of stamp tax if the entire consideration were given in exchange for the RE transferred to Purchaser pursuant the Agreement——if, in other words, the Purchaser paid nothing for the elements of the Hotel Business consisting of PP. On February 6, 2018, Taxpayer timely filed an Application for Refund with Respondent Department of Revenue (the "Department"), which is the agency responsible for the administration of the state's tax laws. Relying on a report dated February 1, 2018 (the "Deal Pricing Analysis" or "DPA"), which had been prepared for Taxpayer by Bernice T. Dowell of Cynsur, LLC, Taxpayer sought a refund in the amount of $495,013.05. As grounds therefor, Taxpayer stated that it had "paid Documentary Stamp Tax on personal property in addition to real property." Taxpayer's position, at the time of the refund application and throughout this proceeding, is that its stamp tax liability should be based, not on the total undifferentiated consideration of $125 million given in the exchange for the Hotel Business, but on $77.8 million, which, according to the DPA, is the "implied value" of——i.e., the pro-rata share of the lump-sum purchase price that may be fairly allocated exclusively to——the RE transferred pursuant to the Agreement. Taxpayer claims that, to the extent it paid stamp tax on the "implied values" (as determined in the DPA) of the TPP ($7 million) and ITPP ($40.2 million) included in the transfer of the Hotel Business, it mistakenly overpaid the tax.1/ On February 23, 2018, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Make Refund Claim Changes, which informed Taxpayer that the Department planned to "change" the refund amount requested, from roughly $500 thousand, to $0——to deny the refund, in other words. In explanation for this proposed decision, the Department wrote: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the [special warranty deed] was recorded. Please provide supporting information regarding allocation of purchase price on or around the time of the sale." This was followed, on April 2, 2018, by the Department's issuance of a Notice of Proposed Refund Denial, whose title tells its purpose. The grounds were the same as before: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the document was recorded." Taxpayer timely filed a protest to challenge the proposed refund denial, on May 31, 2018. Taxpayer argued that the $125 million consideration, which Purchaser paid for the Hotel Business operation, necessarily bought the RE, TPP, and ITPP constituting the going concern; and, therefore, because stamp tax is due only on the consideration exchanged for RE, and because there is no requirement under Florida law that the undifferentiated consideration exchanged for a going concern be allocated, at any specific time, to the categories or subcategories of property transferred in the sale, Taxpayer, having paid stamp tax on consideration given for TPP and ITPP, is owed a refund. The Department's tax conferee determined that the proposed denial of Taxpayer's refund request should be upheld because, as he explained in a memorandum prepared on or around December 27, 2018, "[t]he taxpayer [had failed to] establish that an allocation of consideration between Florida real property, tangible personal property, and intangible property was made prior to the transfer of the property such that tax would be based only on the consideration allocated to the real property." The Department issued its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial on January 9, 2019. In the "Law & Discussion" section of the decision, the Department wrote: When real and personal property are sold together, and there is no itemization of the personal property, then the sales price is deemed to be the consideration paid for the real property. [2] Likewise, when the personal property is itemized, then only the amount of the sales price allocated for the real property is consideration for the real property and subject to the documentary stamp tax. The first of these propositions will be referred to as the "Default Allocation Presumption." The second will be called "Consensual-Allocation Deference." The Department cited no law in support of either principle. In its intended decision, the Department found, as a matter of fact, that Taxpayer and Purchaser had not "established an allocation between all properties prior to the transfer" of the Hotel Business. Thus, the Department concluded that Taxpayer was not entitled to Consensual-Allocation Deference, but rather was subject to the Default Allocation Presumption, pursuant to which the full undifferentiated consideration of $125 million would be "deemed to be the consideration paid for the" RE. Taxpayer timely requested an administrative hearing to determine its substantial interests with regard to the refund request that the Department proposes to deny. Taxpayer also filed a Petition to Determine Invalidity of Agency Statement, which was docketed under DOAH Case No. 19-3639RU (the "Rule Challenge"). In its section 120.56(4) petition, Taxpayer alleges that the Department has taken a position of disputed scope or effect ("PDSE"), which meets the definition of a "rule" under section 120.52(16) and has not been adopted pursuant to the rulemaking procedure prescribed in section 120.54. The Department's alleged PDSE, as described in Taxpayer's petition, is as follows: In the administration of documentary stamp tax and surtax, tax is due on the total consideration paid for real property, tangible property and intangible property, unless an allocation of consideration paid for each type of property sold has been made by the taxpayer on or before the date the transfer of the property or recording of the deed. If the alleged PDSE is an unadopted rule, as Taxpayer further alleges, then the Department is in violation of section 120.54(1)(a). The questions of whether the alleged agency PDSE exists, and, if so, whether the PDSE is an unadopted rule, are common to Taxpayer's separate actions under sections 120.57(1) and 120.56(4), respectively, because neither the Department nor the undersigned may "base agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule." § 120.57(1)(e)1., Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the Rule Challenge was consolidated with Taxpayer's refund claim for hearing. It is determined that the Department, in fact, has taken a PDSE, which is substantially the same as Taxpayer described it. The undersigned rephrases and refines the Department's PDSE, to conform to the evidence presented at hearing, as follows: In determining the amount stamp tax due on an instrument arising from the lump-sum purchase of assets comprising both RE and PP, then, absent an agreement by the contracting parties to apportion the consideration between the categories or subcategories of property conveyed, made not later than the date of recordation (the "Deadline"), it is conclusively presumed that 100% of the undifferentiated consideration paid for the RE and PP combined is attributable to the RE alone. According to the PDSE, the parties to a lump-sum purchase of different classes of property (a "Lump—Sum Mixed Sale" or "LSMS") possess the power to control the amount of stamp tax by agreeing upon a distribution of the consideration between RE and PP, or not, before the Deadline.2/ If they timely make such an agreement, then, in accordance with Consensual-Allocation Deference, which is absolute, the stamp tax will be based upon whatever amount the parties attribute to the RE. If they do not, then, under the Default Allocation Presumption, which is irrebuttable, the stamp tax will be based upon the undifferentiated consideration. The Department has not published a notice of rulemaking under section 120.54(3)(a) relating to the PDSE. Nor has the Department presented evidence or argument on the feasibility or practicability of adopting the PDSE as a de jure rule. It is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that the PDSE has the effect of law because the Department, if unchecked, intends consistently to follow, and to enforce compliance with, the PDSE. Because, in the Department's hands, the PDSE creates an entitlement to collect stamp taxes while adversely affecting taxpayers, it is an unadopted rule.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 9, 1974, Petitioners and their partners, Edward Mehler, and Sylvia Mehler, sold certain property located in Broward County, Florida, to Leo Koehler, Pat Manganelli, and Walter Urchison. A copy of the deed was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. The Petitioners and the Mehlers took a $50,000 mortgage from the buyers as a part of the purchase price. The mortgage deed was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 2. The face amount of the mortgage is $50,000. The buyers defaulted on the mortgage to the Petitioners and the Mehlers without having made any payments on the mortgage. The Petitioners and the Mehlers were unsuccessful in negotiating any payment from the buyers. The buyers were apparently irresponsible, and were unsuccessful in business. The buyers had given their deed to the property to a Mr. Frank Post. Mr. Post apparently took the deed in payment for a debt. The Petitioners and the Mehlers were unsuccessful in negotiating any payment on the mortgage from Post. The Petitioners and the Mehlers were unsuccessful in locating any market for the mortgage. The mortgage had no market value. Rather than foreclosing one the mortgage, the Petitioners and the Mehlers took a warranty deed from the original buyers and a quitclaim deed from Post. These deeds were received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibits 3 and 4. The deeds were taken in lieu of foreclosure, and the effect of the deeds was to discharge the $50,000 mortgage obligation. Petitioners and the Mehlers placed minimum Florida documentary stamp tax and surtax stamps on each deed, taking the position that the consideration for the deeds was nothing. The Respondent took the position that the consideration for the deeds was the discharge of the mortgage obligation, and assessed $410 in stamp tax, surtax, and penalty obligations upon the Petitioners. The petitioners subsequently commenced this action. The property which is the subject of this matter has very little market value. The property has been on the market for some time, and no buyer has been found. The property has been valued at $12,500, but its market value is less than that.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 31, 1974, the Petitioner purchased a certain tract of property from Rio Branco Corporation. As a part of the purchase price, the Petitioner executed a secured promissory note, and a purchase money mortgage. A copy of the mortgage and the promissory note were received in evidence as Joint Exhibit 1. Although the promissory note is in the form of a direct obligation for the Petitioner to pay the face amount of the note to Rio Branco Corporation, its obligations were limited. The note provides in Paragraph 12 as follows: "Mortgagor, (Petitioner] assumes no corporate liability for the payment of the debt evidenced by this note and mortgage. Mortgagee [Rio Branco Corporation] waives any corporate liability and agrees to look solely to the property securing such debt for payment thereof." Petitioner apparently defaulted on the mortgage and the promissory note, and a foreclosure suit was initiated by Rio Branco Corporation. Petitioner was named as the defendant in this suit which was filed in Sarasota County, and given case number CA-75-1107. Prior to the completion of the foreclosure action, Petitioner executed a quitclaim deed conveying its interest in the subject property back to Rio Branco Corporation. The quitclaim deed was executed in lieu of foreclosure. A copy of the quitclaim deed was received in evidence as Joint Exhibit 2. The Petitioner stipulated that, it executed Joint Exhibit 2 in order to prevent any deficiency from being entered following a judicial sale in connection with the foreclosure proceeding. Despite the stipulation it is apparent that Rio Branco Corporation could not have enforced any such deficiency against the Petitioner due to the above quoted provision of the promissory note. The quitclaim deed was apparently recorded by a representative of Rio Branco Corporation. Through a proposed notice of assessment dated September 9, 1976, the Respondent is seeking to impose documentary stamp taxes, documentary surtaxes, penalties and interest in the total amount of $745.13 upon Petitioner. It is not clear whether the Respondent is also seeking to impose the same taxes upon the grantee of the quitclaim deed, Rio Branco Corporation. Respondent contends that the Petitioner is liable for the documentary stamp taxes on the quitclaim deed, and that the amount of consideration for the deed is the amount of mortgage debt extinguished as a result of execution of the deed. Petitioner contends that as the grantor of the instrument, it has no responsibility for paying documentary stamp taxes, and that further no consideration was given for the deed as a matter of law since no debt which the Petitioner could have been forced to pay was extinguished.
The Issue Whether the petitioners are entitled to a refund of the documentary stamp taxes paid on a Special Warranty Deed conveying real property from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation to one of the petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Based on the facts alleged in the petition for administrative hearing, the responses to requests for admission, and the facts stipulated to at the hearing on the motion for recommended summary final order, the following findings of fact are made: On September 27, 1994, Freddie Mac conveyed to Abe Saada by a Special Warranty Deed real property located in Dade County, Florida. Regina Saada is not a party to the Special Warranty Deed. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Settlement Statement prepared for the closing on the property showed that $9,600.00 in "state tax/stamps" was owed on the deed, of which $4,800.00 was to be paid from the funds of the seller, Freddie Mac, and $4,800.00 was to be paid from the funds of the borrower, Abe Saada. Pursuant to its agreement with Mr. Saada, Freddie Mac paid $9,600.00 to the Clerk of Court as the documentary stamp tax on the deed on or about September 28, 1994. The deed was recorded in the Dade County Official Records at Book 16525 at pages 3583-3585. Abraham Saada is not exempt from the documentary stamp tax.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Chapter 120 Administrative Hearing to Contest Denial of Stamp Tax Refund filed by Abraham Saada and Regina Saada. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 1997.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the facts-of the case as follows: On March 2, 1972, the petitioners, Fred W. Baggett and John S. Miller, Jr., along with one Michael W. Duggar, incorporated a Florida corporation known as Tallahassee Properties , Inc. and filed Articles of Incorporation with the Secretary of State, State of Florida. On June 29, 1972, the above described corporation took title to the property described as follows: All that part of Lot Number 176 in the Original Plan of the City of Tallahassee, in the County of Leon, State of Florida, described as follows: to-wit: Begin at the Northwest corner of said lot and run thence East along the South line of College Avenue (formerly Clinton Street) 39 feet to the wall of a brick building, thence run South along the side of said building 60 feet, thence run West 39 feet to the East line of Adams Street, thence run North along the East line of Adams Street 60 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 176, being the point of beginning; from LeRoy Collins and Mary Call Collins, said deed being recorded in Official Records Book 532, Page 327 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida. On that same date, Tallahassee Properties, Inc. executed a note and mortgage in the amount of $55,000 to Leon Federal Savings and Loan Association, said mortgage being recorded in Official Records Book 532, Page 328 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida. The said note was personally endorsed by John S. Miller, Jr., Fredric W. Baggett and Michael W. Duggar. On June 29, 1972, Tallahassee Properties, Inc. executed a note in the original principal amount of $72,405.84 to LeRoy Collins and Mary Call Collins secured by a second mortgage on the property and as recorded in Official Records Book 532, Page 376 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida, The said note was personally endorsed by John S. Miller, Jr., Fredric W. Baggett and Michael W. Duggar. On September 8, 1972, an agreement was entered into between Michael W. Duggar and Ronald C. LaFace of Tallahassee, Florida, wherein the said Michael W. - Duggar conveyed his interest in Tallahassee Properties, Inc. to Ronald C. LaFace and the said Ronald C. LaFace agreed therein to hold Michael W. Duggar harmless and relieve him of liability and indemnifying him for any liabilities which Michael W. Duggar may or could have as a result of his interest in Tallahassee Properties, Inc. This is the reason that the said Ronald C. LaFace is the proper party petitioner in this action. On April 18, 1973, Tallahassee Properties, Inc. executed an additional note to Leon Federal Savings and Loan Association in the amount of $17,500 which said note was also secured by that certain mortgage dated June 29, 1972 and recorded June 29, 1972 in Official Records Book 532, Page 328 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida. The said note was personally endorsed by John S. Miller, Jr., Fredric W. Baggett and Ronald C. LaFace. On April 23, 1973 by an instrument recorded in Official Records Book 584, Page 94 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida, Tallahassee Properties, Inc. conveyed an equal one-third interest in the subject property to John S. Miller, Jr., Fred W. Baggett and 5 Ronald C. LaFace. Affixed to the said deed were documentary surtax stamps in the amount of 55 cents and State of Florida documentary stamp tax in the amount of 30 cents. By letter dated September 24, 1975, the respondent, State of Florida, Department of Revenue, informed the petitioners that they had failed to pay an additional documentary stamp tax in the amount of $434.70 due on that certain warranty deed described above as having been recorded on April 23, 1973 in the Public Records of Leon County, Florida. This proceeding was initiated by petitioners after having received said letter from the respondent for a determination that the assessment was improper in that the subject conveyance was not a taxable event. Respondent has asserted that a tax of $434.70 is due and owing from the petitioners. In addition, they have assessed an additional 100 percent penalty for a total claim of $869.40 exclusive of interest or other penalties. The assessment was determined by the Department of Revenue on the basis of adding the original principal balance of the three above described notes secured by mortgages. The original principal amount of the notes was $144,905.84. By the application of the tax imposed by Section 201.02, Florida Statutes, if the petitioners have any liability for payment of the documentary stamp tax, then the determination of $434.70 as an assessment is a correct figure. Petitioners' exhibits 1 through 4, respondent's exhibit 1 and 2, and posthearing briefs of counsel are appended to the record.
Recommendation That petitioners be, found not liable for the proposed assessment of documentary stamp tax and penalty under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes. Done and Entered this 10th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs the Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Daniel J. Wiser, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact On March 20, 1973 the taxpayer executed in Taylor County, Florida a promissory note for $500,000 at 9 percent interest per annum payable in 28 quarterly payments the last payment due April 1980, to Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, N.A. of North Carolina secured by a mortgage executed and recorded in Taylor County Tax stamp on the note were affixed and cancelled. On April 1, 1975, the taxpayer executed in Taylor County, Florida an amendment and modification to the aforementioned mortgage to the original mortgagee - obligee bank. Said amendment and modification provided for the payment of $419,000 of the original note plus $28,748.75 of accrued interest or interest to accrue between July 1, 1974 and April 1, 1975, payable in 21 payments the last payment due April 1980, at 10 percent interest per annum. The documentary tax stamps were not attached to this instrument.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusion of law recommends that the tax and penalty be assessed. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edgar M. Moore, Esquire Smith and Moore, P.A. Post Office Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph C. Mellichamp, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether the modification of a promissory note and mortgage should be taxed on the full amount as modified ($157,500.00) or on the difference between the amount of the original note and mortgage and the modification.
Findings Of Fact Eleven individuals executed a promissory note to the Lewis State Bank in the amount of $142,500.00. Stamps were affixed thereto as required by Florida Statutes 201.08, which assess the documentary stamp tax on obligations to pay money. Approximately three years later, six of the individuals who had executed the note, executed a modification of the promissory note mortgage. The later note increased the amount from $142,500.00 to $157,500.00 and the interest rate was increased from 7 1/2 to 10 percent. In addition to the increase in the face amount of the note and the increase in the interest, the note provided for the release from liability of five of the original makers. At the, time of the recordation of the modification the amount of $22.50 was affixed which was documentary stamps for the amount of $15,000. The Respondent notified the Petitioner that documentary stamps under Florida Statutes 201.08 were due on the total amount of the new obligation, $157,500.00. tax:
Recommendation Affirm the assessment of the Department of Revenue, Respondent. 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: Bryan W. Henry, Esquire Henry & Buchanan, P.A. P. O. Box 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Harry F.X. Purnell, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact On December 27, 1976, Petitioner entered into an Assumption Agreement and Release of Seller, a copy of which is appended to this recommended order as Exhibit "A". The agreement contains, in writing, the obligation of Flagler Hospital, Inc., to pay Petitioner the sum of $238,464,52. The document is not a renewal of an existing obligation. On April 25, 1977, Respondent gave Petitioner notice that a penalty and interest under Section 201.08, Florida Statutes, had been assessed against it in the amount of $729.42 because the agreement constituted a note or written obligation to pay money. The agreement was executed in the State of Florida. No documentary stamp taxes have been paid regarding the agreement. The mathematical computation of the tax, penalty and interest is correct. The agreement represents the assumption of an existing debt between Petitioner and Inter-Medic Health Centers, Inc., by Flagler Hospital, Inc. The original debt is evidenced by a note and mortgage dated February 11, 1976. Documentary stamp taxes in the amount of $360.00 were paid as to the original note. No additional indebtedness was created by the agreement, but the agreement releases the original obligor, Inter-Medic Health Centers, Inc., from liability.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether deeds by property owners which convey unencumbered real property to a corporation solely owned by them, are subject to a documentary stamp tax imposable under Section 201.021(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 12B-4.013(7), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact By Warranty Deed dated April 30, 1991, W. Dewey Kennell sold eight condominium apartments, units 1731, 1733, 1735, 1737, 1741, 1743, 1745 and 1747, in Baywood Colony Southwood Apartments IV, a condominium, to Kurt Rabau and Ronald Rabau, his son, residents of Germany. The Rabaus purchased the properties as an investment in rental property for income. At the time of the sale, the property was subject to mortgages totaling $250,000, which the Rabaus paid off on May 24, 1994. Sometime after the purchase, the Rabaus were advised to incorporate and hold title to the properties in a corporate capacity to protect themselves against personal liability. Thereafter, on September 14, 1994, the Rabaus formed Kuro, Inc., the Petitioner herein, to take and hold title to the properties, with Kurt Rabau and Ronald Rabau each owning 50% of the corporate stock. There were no other owners of stock in the corporation. On October 12, 1994, the Rabaus transferred all eight properties to Kuro, Inc. Kuro, Inc. had no assets other than the eight apartments, and did no business prior to the transfer of those apartments to it. Consequently, the stock of Kuro, Inc. was valueless prior to the receipt of the transferred apartments. The corporation’s federal tax form relating to transfer of property to a corporation, the “Corporation’s Statement on Transfer of Property Under Code Section 351” reflects that the Rabaus “transferred the jointly owned property [described therein] for which Kuro Inc. issued the stock”. From the evidence presented it is clear that the Kuro Inc. stock was issued in exchange for the contribution of the apartments to the corporation. Other documents in the corporation’s 1994 tax return indicate that the property was valued at fair market value at the time of transfer to the corporation, and the transferee’s, (corporation’s) adjusted basis was identical after the transfer. Each of the Rabaus received 500 shares of the corporation’s stock which was valued at $618,642. Of that amount, $617,642 was considered additional paid-in capital. There was no additional property received or possessed by the corporation. A minimal documentary stamp tax was paid by the parties at the time the eight Warranty Deeds for the apartments were transferred to the corporation. The consideration reflected on the face of each deed was “...the sum of $10.00 and other valuable consideration.” Subsequent to the transfer, the Department conducted an audit of the Clerk of Circuit Court in Sarasota County and, on November 10, 1994, issued a Notice of Intent to Make Documentary Stamp Tax and Discretionary Surtax Audit Changes, by which it indicated its intent to impose a documentary tax of $4,207.00 on the transfers, a 50% penalty of $2,103.50, and interest totaling $38.73 through November 10, 1994, with additional interest to accrue at the rate of 1% per month, prorated daily ($1.38), until date of payment. Thereafter, on March 27, 1995, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment to Kuro, Inc., and Petitioner timely filed a protest. Subsequent to that action, on January 11, 1996, the Department issued its Notice of Decision sustaining the proposed assessment, penalty and accrued interest, and Petitioner requested formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a final order imposing a tax in the amount of $4,207.00 with interest from date of filing at 1 percent per month based on the amount of tax not paid to date of payment. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Samuel Whitehead, Esquire 2199 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34237 James F. McAuley, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011
