The Issue The issue here concerns the propriety of the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Revenue's assessment of tax under authority of Sections 201.01 and .08, Florida Statutes, in the amount of $11,557.20 and penalty of $577.86 against the Petitioner, Landmark Bank of Brevard. The specific nature of the assessment is one pertaining to items identified as detachable "Promissory Notes" which are attached to documents entitled "Trust Receipts."
Findings Of Fact The facts in this case reveal that the Petitioner Landmark Bank of Brevard, hereafter referred to as the "Bank," made loans to several motor vehicle dealers in Brevard County. The borrowers were Carl Schmidt Motors, Inc.; Bennie C. Chapman, who does business as Chapman Auto Sales; and Harley Davidson of Melbourne, Inc. The arrangements for the loans were on the basis that the dealers would apply with the Bank to receive moneys which would be used to "floor plan" automobiles and motorcycles being sold through their retail outlets. The applications were processed through the loan committee and when the loans were approved a Promissory Note was signed by the appropriate persons acting in behalf of the dealers. (Copies of the notes executed were attached to the Petition for Formal Hearing and acknowledged to be correct through the answer filed in behalf of the Respondent and the notes as attached to the Petition are being provided with this Recommended Order together with those exhibits offered in behalf of the parties.) The notes allow for the single disbursement of a stated amount of money, with the repayment of principal and payment of interest being due by one payment for which demand is made within a period as short as several months or as long as one year depending on the note conditions. Collateral is provided, according to the terms of the notes, either by the lease and rental autos listed on separate documents entitled "Trust Receipts," which Trust Receipts are held by the Bank or otherwise described as such motor vehicles as were then owned by the dealers at the time the execution of the note or as would thereafter be acquired. These notes, meaning the initial Promissory Notes, had Documentary Stamps placed and canceled in the monthly journal of the Bank at the time of the execution of the Promissory Notes, in an effort by the Petitioner to comply with Section 201.08, Florida Statutes. The amount of Documentary Stamps utilized was in keeping with the face amount of the loan proceeds reflected on the Promissory Notes. Therefore, when the Promissory Notes are examined an impression is created that a single disbursement of loan proceeds has been made for which Documentary Stamp tax has been collected. In reality, the arrangement between the dealers and the Petitioner was to the effect that the full amount of the loan proceeds would not be assigned to the account of the dealers upon execution of the note. What would happen, is that the dealers would be allowed to make "draws" against the loan proceeds on the basis of surrendering the title of a used motor vehicle which they had acquired or having the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle submit the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin to the Bank. In turn, moneys were advanced to the dealer equal to the value of the used unit or commensurate with the amount reflected on the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin if a new unit. These titles and Manufacturer's Certificates of Origin were held as collateral and the dealers would take possession of the actual vehicles to be placed in the dealer's inventory until a retail purchase had been made. The vehicles for which the Petitioner had received title or the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin were then listed on documents called "Trust Receipts." The "Trust Receipts" would show the vehicle description, make, serial number and price as described in the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin or title. These descriptions were placed on individual "Trust Receipts" based upon the date the evidence of ownership was submitted from the dealer of the Bank. That is to say, if four Manufacturers' Certificates of Origin or titles were submitted to the Bank at one time, then four of the vehicles would be listed on a single "Trust Receipt" as opposed to listing the four new units on a "Trust Receipt" that already had a unit or units listed from another visit by the dealer. Examples of the various "Trust Receipt" documents may be found in the Respondent's Composite Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence which contains copies of the "Trust Receipt" examples. The "Trust Receipt" documents had attached to them an item entitled "Promissory Note," which item could be detached from the body of the "Trust Receipt." Some examples in the Respondent's Composite Exhibit 3 have the "Promissory Note" affixed, reflecting a date and money amount equal to the amount arrived at by totaling the value related to the various units shown in the "Trust Receipt." These examples also list the borrower's name and are signed by Margy Driggers, the Assistant Cashier of the Petitioner. Some are signed by Margy Driggers, with the initials "P.O.A." placed in front of or after her title as Assistant Cashier. One other example is the same as above but without the initials "P.O.A." There is also an example signed by Bennie C. Chapman, one of the dealers who borrowed money. The Chapman example reflects the amount of value shown in the "Trust Receipt," to which the "Promissory Note" is attached and it has a date, but does not reflect the amount of interest to be paid if this is indeed a Promissory Note. There was another category of "Trust Receipt" and attached "Promissory Note" reflecting motor vehicles for which money had been loaned and this was a type in which no entries had been made on the "Promissory Note"; however, an example of this type was not provided through the Respondent's Exhibit 3. Both parties acknowledged that the initials "P.O.A." stand for power of attorney. They disagree on the question whether a power of attorney had been granted to the Petitioner to act in behalf of the subject dealers. The Petitioner through its witnesses claim that the designation "P.O.A." is simply an extension of a long standing policy of the Bank which predates the current Assistant Cashier and has no meaning. Therefore, no power of attorney has ever been granted from the dealers to the Bank to execute promissory notes on behalf of the dealers. The Respondent through its auditor, whose investigation led to the assessment in dispute, claims that Margy Driggers, the Assistant Cashier, told him that "P.O.A." means power of attorney and that she had the ability to sign for Carl Schmidt. (Carl Schmidt Motors, Inc.) None of the dealers were presented in the course of the hearing to state their position on the granting of power of attorney to the Petitioner for purposes of executing the item known as "Promissory Note" attached to the various "Trust Receipts," and there are no written documents which would demonstrate the granting of a power of attorney to the Bank. Moreover, nothing in the original Promissory Notes executed by the dealers leads to the conclusion that the item known as "Promissory Note" attached to the "Trust Receipt" may be executed by a Bank official through power of attorney for the dealer. Consequently, no power of attorney has been shown to be granted from the dealers to Margy Driggers or any other employee of the Petitioner, on the subject of executing "Promissory Notes" attached to the "Trust Receipts." When the items were filled out, copies of the "Trust Receipts" and attached "Promissory Notes" were forwarded to the several dealers. When a dealer sold one of the automobiles for which the Petitioner held the title or Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin as security, then the dealer paid an amount equal to that amount reflected in the "Trust Receipt" document and an entry was made in the date paid column of that document which showed that amount of debt had been satisfied by the dealer. During the operative period of the initial Promissory Note, meaning that period between the time of the execution of the note and the time the note was due as reflected on the face of the note, the dealer could borrow an amount not to exceed the face amount of the loan proceeds and if some portion of that amount was retired, then an additional amount could be borrowed, which effectively meant that in the active life of the loan as shown by the initial Promissory Note more money could be borrowed during the life of the note than the amount reflected on the face of the Promissory Note. For example, hypothetically the Promissory Note could entitle the dealer to borrow $19,959.00 on May 10, 1976, to be repaid by May 10, 1977. That dealer could then borrow $19,959.00 between those dates and pay back that amount of money with interest and borrow an additional $5,000.00 to be paid back before the expiration date of the loan and in actuality would have borrowed $24,959.00, ostensibly under the terms and conditions of the initial note. These additional amounts of loan proceeds cannot be seen by examining the initial Promissory Notes; they can only be discovered by adding the individual amounts reflected in the "Trust Receipts" and comparing the total to what is shown by adding the loan amounts depicted in the initial Promissory Notes. This is in fact what was done by the auditor in conducting the audit and it is the differential between the amounts shown in the "Trust Receipt" aggregate as contrasted to the initial Promissory Note aggregate for which the Respondent claims Documentary Stamp tax is owed. The Respondent would have the Documentary Stamp tax applied to some combination of the so-called "Promissory Notes" attached to the "Trust Receipts" equal to an amount representing the differential spoken to before. The Respondent did not establish which "Trust Receipts" with attached "Promissory Notes" would be subject to the assessment of Documentary Stamp tax. Through this process, the Respondent in its Revised Notice of Assessment is claiming tax of $11,557.20 and a penalty of $557.86. (A copy of this notice may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence.)
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the proposed assessment for Documentary Stamp tax and penalty made by the Department of Revenue, State of Florida, against the Petitioner, Landmark Bank of Brevard, a banking corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, formerly Landmark Bank of Melbourne, N.A., be DISALLOWED. 1/ DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April 1980 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April 1980.
Findings Of Fact In time sequence, the following transactions took place: a. Petitioner, Myron Friedman, executed a contract with Willow Industries, Inc., a New York corporation, on August 14, 1973, for the purchase of properties located in Manatee County, Florida. Conquistador Estates, Inc., a Florida corporation, for profit, was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida on September 25, 1973. Petitioner, Myron Friedman, borrowed $650,000 from Franklin National Bank of Long Island, New York, on October 29, 1973. Mr. Friedman executed a personal note to the Florida National Bank on October 29, 1973. Myron Friedman made a loan to Conquistador Estates, Inc. in the amount of $400,000 to purchase the Manatee County property on October 30, 1973. Conquistador Estates, Inc. purchased the properties described in the contract from Willow Industries, Inc. to Myron Friedman on October 30, 1973. Conquistador Estates, Inc. executed a mortgage to Myron Friedman in the amount of $400,000 on October 30, 1973, in exchange for the herein before mentioned loan of $400,000 on October 29, 1973. Myron Friedman assigned the herein before mentioned mortgage to Franklin National Bank as security for the personal loan of $650,000 on October 30, 1973. Conquistador Estates, Inc. deeded the properties acquired by it from Willow Industries, Inc. to Myron Friedman on May 28, 1974. Additional facts: The notes and the mortgage herein described are still in existence. Conquistador Estates, Inc. is still a viable corporation although it owns no property and Myron Friedman is the sole stockholder. There were no payments made to Petitioner, Myron Friedman, as required by the terms of the promissory note of Conquistador Estates, Inc. to Myron Friedman. In an Audit of documents recorded in the office of the Circuit Clerk in and for Manatee County, Florida, Respondent, Department of Revenue, determined that insufficient documentary stamps and documentary surtax stamps were affixed to the warranty deed dated May 28, 1974, between Conquistador Estates, Inc. and Petitioner, Myron Friedman, an individual. Subsequent to the audit, the Respondent issued a "Proposed Notice of Assessment of Tax and Penalty Under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, documentary surtax in the amount of $439.45, pursuant to Section 201.021, Florida Statutes, and penalties in the amount of $1,639.14 pursuant to Section 201.17, Florida Statutes. Attached to the said notice was "Schedule A," an explanation of the basis for the demand for additional documentary stamp tax and documentary surtax. It explained that the warranty deed to Petitioner, Myron Friedman, individually, from Conquistador Estates, Inc., satisfied the existing mortgage and which rendered the mortgage unenforceable as to the original mortgagor, Conquistador Estates, Inc., and cited Department of Administration Rule 12A-4.13(2) Florida Administrative Code. "Defaulting Mortgagor: Where a mortgagor, in full or partial satisfaction of the mortgage indebtedness, conveys the mortgaged premises to the mortgagee, documentary stamp taxes are due on the transaction." Petitioner, Myron Friedman, contends: That Conquistador Estates, Inc. was just a nominee used for the purpose of securing a mortgage loan; That he is the sole owner of the corporation; That there was no conveyance in full or partial satisfaction of the mortgage since he is the sole owner of the corporation, and he is the grantee and that, therefore, no documentary stamp tax or surtax or penalty is due; That the mortgage itself is assigned and is still in existence. The Respondent contends: That the clear wording of statute, Section 201.02(1), F.S., controls the transaction which was a conveyance by warranty deed; That because the corporation, Conquistador Estates, Inc. has no assets and made no payments to Petitioner, the conveyance by warranty deed was in full satisfaction of the mortgage indebtedness and canceled the written obligation of the corporation to pay $400,000, the unpaid portion of the obligation secured by the mortgage. The Respondent further contends that the partial indebtness of the corporation itself to Petitioner was canceled.
Recommendation Assess the documentary stamp and the documentary surtax against Petitioner, Myron Friedman. Do not assess penalties for failure to pay tax required, inasmuch as it is apparent that the taxes which were paid were paid in good faith and that the taxes which were due and owing were not paid because of a misunderstanding of the requirements of Chapter 201, F.S. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of May, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert H. Carr, Esquire Post Office Box 3798 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Patricia Turner, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Stewart executed a mortgage note dated February 3, 1972 in the amount of $2,943,400 payable to City National Bank of Miami. This note was secured by a mortgage executed by Stewart as mortgagor to City National Bank of Miami as mortgagee of same date. This mortgage was recorded on February 8, 1972 at which time documentary stamp tax and intangible taxes were paid. The note was designated a mortgage note in the face amount of $2,943,400 and taxes paid were predicated on this sum. The mortgage provided, inter alia, in item 24 thereof: "That the funds to be advanced herein are to be used in the construction of certain improvements on the land herein described, in accordance with a building loan agreement between the mortgagor and the mortgagee dated February 8, 1972, which building loan agreement (except such part or parts thereof as may be inconsistent herewith) is incorporated herein by reference to the same extent and effect as if fully set forth and made a part of this mortgage; if the construction of the improvements to be made pursuant to said building loan agreement shall not be carried on with reasonable diligence, or shall be discontinued at any time for any reason other than strikes or lockouts, the mortgagee, after due notice to the mortgagor or any subsequent owner, is hereby invested with full and complete authority to enter upon said premises, employ watchmen to protect such improvement from depredation or injury, and to preserve and protect the personal property therein, and to continue any and all outstanding contracts for the erection and completion of said building or buildings, to make and enter into any contracts and obligation wherever necessary, either in its own name or in the name of the mortgagor, and to pay and discharge all debts, obligations, and liabilities incurred thereby. All such sums so advanced by the mortgagee (exclusive of advances of the principal of the indebtedness secured hereby) shall be added to the principal of the indebtedness secured hereby and shall be secured by this mortgage and shall be due and payable on demand with interest at the rate of the same rate as provided in the note secured hereby, but no such advances shall be insured unless same are specifically approved by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development acting by and through the Federal Housing Commissioner prior to the making thereof. The principal sum and other charges provided for herein shall, at the option of the mortgagee or holder of this mortgage and the note secured hereby, become due and payable on the failure of the mortgagor to keep and perform any of the covenants, conditions, and agreements of said building loan agreement. This covenant shall be terminated upon the completion of the improvements to the satisfaction of the mortgagee and the making of the final advance as provided in said building loan agreement;" Prior to the completion of the project for which the note and mortgage were executed and before the full amount stated in the note had been advanced Stewart went into receivership. No advances were made under the note and mortgage subsequent to December, 1974, and only $1,935,378 had been disbursed to Stewart prior to foreclosure. On March 17, 1976 Stewart requested a refund in the amount of $1512 for documentary stamp taxes and $2016 for intangible taxes paid on the difference between $2,943,400 and $1,935,378.29. By letters dated June 16 and 17, 1976, each of the refund requests was denied by the Comptroller on the ground advanced by Department of Revenue that the claims were barred as not being timely filed. Vanguard executed a note in the amount of $2,000,000 payable to the Chase Manhattan Bank secured by a building loan mortgage from Vanguard as mortgagor to Chase as mortgagee. This mortgage was recorded and documentary stamp taxes and intangible taxes were paid on April 19, 1973. Other than the amount of the note and the total advanced prior to Vanguard going into receivership, the basic facts were the same as in Stewart. At the time of the last payment in May, 1975 Vanguard had received $1,388,008 of the $2,000,000 evidenced by the note. Vanguard's application for refund of $1224 for intangible taxes paid was denied by the Comptroller for the same reason Stewarts was denied. Here the application dated April 19, 1976 was postmarked in Miami on April 20, 1976 and received by Respondent on April 22, 1976. Worthington executed a building loan note dated October 25, 1972 in the amount of $2,750,000 payable to Trustees of C. I. Mortgage Group which was secured by a mortgage loan of same date. Worthington also went into receivership in December, 1974 after $1,962,750 had been advanced. Application for refund of documentary stamp taxes in the amount of $1180.80 and intangible taxes in the amount of $1574.50 filed March 17, 1976 was denied by the Comptroller on the grounds that the application was not timely filed. All of the above loans, for which the mortgages were recorded, were construction loans and provided for periodic payments to the mortgagor as the construction progressed. Provided the mortgagor complied with the terms of the building agreement the mortgagee was legally required to advance funds when due. In determining valuation for the purpose of computing the intangible taxes due clerks of the circuit court follow 199.122(7) F.S. which provides that obligations for payment of money secured by a mortgage shall be valued at the principal amount of indebtedness evidenced by such transactions. Accordingly in the cases at hand the clerks would have refused to record the mortgages unless the intangible taxes and documentary stamp taxes computed using the principal amount of the obligation were paid. An application for refund of the intangible tax representing the difference between the face amount of the mortgage to secure future advances, and the amount advanced, will be disapproved by the Department of Revenue so long as advances on the face amount of the loan are still being made.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Findings contained in paragraphs 1-28, were stipulated to by the parties. Gary D. Miller and Katherine A. Miller made a note to Southeast Bank (Southeast) dated March 27, 1990, in the stated amount of $80,000 (the Note). Gary D. Miller and Katherine A. Miller (the Millers) executed a Future Advance Note, Modification and Cross-Collateralization Agreement (the Mortgage) in favor of Southeast dated March 27, 1990, and recorded in Volume 4178, page 2981, of the official records of Orange County, Florida. Southeast was doing business and in good standing on March 27, 1990. The Note was consolidated with a promissory note made by the Millers dated June 7, 1988 in the stated amount of $350,000 and replaced by a Consolidated Replacement Note dated April 9, 1991, in the stated amount of $371,250 (the Consolidated Note). The Consolidated Note was defined and secured in a Mortgage Modification Agreement between Southeast and the Millers dated April 9, 1991 and recorded at volume 4278, page 0065 of the official records of Orange County, Florida. Southeast was doing business and in good standing on April 9, 1991. First Union National Bank of Florida (First Union) is the owner and holder of the Note, the Consolidated Note and the Mortgage identified in paragraphs 1,2, and 4 above. The Department timely assessed documentary stamp taxes on the Note. The assessment covers the Consolidated Note. There is no evidence that documentary stamps are attached or affixed to the Note, the Consolidated Note or the Mortgage. No documentary stamp tax were paid on the Note, the Consolidated Note or the Mortgage. The Office of the Comptroller of the currency declared Southeast insolvent and appointed the FDIC as receiver for Southeast on September 19, 1991. The FDIC, as receiver, became the owner and holder of all of the promissory notes and mortgages formerly held by Southeast. The FDIC (as Receiver of Southeast, and corporately) and First Union entered into an Assistance Agreement dated September 19, 1991, under which the FDIC, as Receiver, sold and assigned to First Union the Consolidated Note and the Mortgage. The FDIC, as Receiver, executed an Assignment of Mortgage, subsequently filed in volume 588, page 589, of the official records of Orange County, Florida. First Union is not the same entity as Southeast (by name or otherwise). First Union purchased no portion of the stock ownership of Southeast, rather First Union purchased only those assets and liabilities of Southeast detailed in the Assistance Agreement. Under terms of the Assistance Agreement, First Union expressly assumed only certain specified liabilities. First Union did not expressly assume any liabilities of Southeast relating to payment of taxes under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes. Under the terms of the Assistance Agreement, the FDIC and First Union contractually agreed that the FDIC would indemnify First Union for "costs, losses, liabilities, expenses, judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement reasonably incurred in connection with claims against" First Union based upon a liability of Southeast that was not expressly assumed by First Union. A claim entitling First Union to indemnification from the FDIC under the terms of the Assistance Agreement is a claim for a liability for "taxes" of Southeast. The definition of "taxes" in the Assistance Agreement includes stamp taxes imposed by states, including interest and penalty. By a Notice dated January 5, 1995, Respondent issued an Official Request for Information to "Southeast Bank, National Association, First Union Bank/Barbara H. Smith." On March 1, 1995, Respondent issued to "Southeast Bank, NA, First Union Bank, N.A." a Notice of Intent to Make Documentary Stamp Tax and Discretionary Surtax Audit (the Notice of Audit). The Notice of Audit was received by First Union on March 22, 1995. First Union timely responded to the Notice of Audit by letter dated May 31, 1995, stating that "any transaction prior to September 19, 1991, which might precipitate liability becomes the responsibility of the FDIC." Respondent treated the May 31, 1995 letter of First Union as a protest of the audit. On June 20, 1995, Respondent issued to "Southeast Bank, N.A.-First Union Bank, N.A." a Notice of Proposed Assessment of $150.00 representing tax and interest on the original $80,000 note of March 27, 1990, or an assessment of tax and interest on the Consolidated Note. Southeast Bank remains under the receivership of the FDIC. Additional Facts FDIC's sale of the Note and Consolidated Note to First Union under terms of the September 19, 1991 Assistance Agreement imbued First Union with ownership rights inclusive of the right to receive payments of principal and interest on the Note and Consolidated Note, as well as the right to foreclose on the makers of the Note and Consolidated Note for nonpayment. Neither the Note or Consolidated Note qualify for exemption from documentary stamp taxes levied pursuant to provisions of Chapter 201, Florida Statutes. Documentary stamp taxes constitute an excise tax on documents, as opposed to a tax on the underlying transaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered upholding Respondent's full assessment of tax and penalty against Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 25th day of June, 1996. DON W. DAVIS, 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 25th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Petitioner's proposed findings (other than the 28 paragraphs of stipulated findings of fact) consisted of seven paragraphs denominated by letters A-G. No citation to the record was included in these proposed findings. Accordingly, the proposed findings, while reviewed and addressed to the extent possible by the foregoing findings of fact, are rejected. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-28. Stipulated facts adopted. 29.-32. Adopted, although not verbatim. COPIES FURNISHED: William W. Gallogly, Esquire First Union Corporation Legal Division 225 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Scott M. Covell, Esquire Dept. of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact By warranty deed dated July 9, 1973, Floyd L. and Michael Lewis conveyed the fee simple title to certain realty in North Miami Beach to Petitioners Eugene J. Howard and Herbert Seidel. The purchase price for the property was $405,000. The property sold consisted of a twenty-two (22) unit apartment building with twenty (20) furnished apartments and included storage shed, a pool, patio and dock furniture. The closing statement signed by the sellers and purchasers stated: "Florida documentary stamps - on deed - $1,215.00, Florida documentary surtax - on deed - $132.20." $1,347.20 was credited to the Petitioners Howard and Seidel. Petitioners actually paid $10.85 surtax and $132.20 documentary tax. The 1974 tax assessment of the Dade County Property Appraiser for the property was $241,769.00 realty and $14,500.00 for the personalty. Petitioner contends: That part of the purchase price was applicable to -personal property. That the Hearing Officer should make an allocation of the realty included and an allocation for the personalty included. That the Petitioners believe they are entitled to the equitable defense of laches in that the Respondent did not advise Petitioners of the possible error of miscalculation until approximately two years had passed. That if the stamp tax is found to be due and if a penalty is included, the penalty is "excessive penalty" under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and Article I, Section 17, of the Florida Constitution. Respondent contends: That there was an agreement between the Parties, in a signed document that $1,215 in documentary stamps and $132.20 in surtax stamps, reflecting the actual consideration paid for the realty under consideration, would be affixed to the conveyance. That Petitioners failed to fulfill such a an agreement and affixed $132.20 in documentary stamps and $10.85 in surtax stamps to the deed. . That the Department is entitled to the delinquent taxes plus penalty. That the assessment is dated July 9, 1975 and a three- year statute of limitations is applicable. The Hearing Officer further finds: The purchase price for the property under consideration was $405,000. Documentary stamps required on such a purchase were $1,215.; that stamps actually paid were in the amount of $132.20, that $10.85 was actually paid and still due and owing is $121.35. That the Petitioners as well as the Sellers were aware of the proper amount of tax due and signed a receipt reflecting the monies allocable for documentary and surtax stamps. That the Petitioners failed either intentionally or negligently to pay the proper amount of documentary and surtax stamps at the time of recording the deed.
Recommendation Assess the documentary stamps and the documentary surtax against Petitioners together with applicable penalties. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Eugene J. Howard, Esquire 2212 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a tax on a warranty deed is an allowable property cost, as claimed in Petitioner’s Medicaid cost report.
Findings Of Fact Venice operates Sunset Lake, a licensed nursing facility that participates in the Florida Medicaid program as an institutional provider. AHCA is the agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. On or about June 1, 2005, Venice (or an affiliate, which need not be distinguished from Venice for purposes of this proceeding) purchased the nursing facility that is now known as Sunset Lake from Bon Secours-Venice Healthcare Corporation. Venice filed its initial Medicaid cost report with AHCA for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2005. The initial Medicaid cost report for a nursing facility is used to set the per diem rates at which the Medicaid program will reimburse the facility, both retroactively for the initial period of operations, and prospectively until the next cost report is filed and used to set a new per diem rate. AHCA contracted with an outside auditing firm to audit Venice’s initial cost report. The auditing firm produced an audit report, which identified proposed adjustments to Venice’s cost report. The audit report was reviewed by AHCA analyst Steven Diaczyk before it was finalized and sent to Venice. Venice initially contested 17 adjustments in the final audit report. Before the final hearing, Venice withdrew its challenge to 16 of the 17 adjustments. The only remaining dispute to be resolved in this proceeding is whether audit adjustment number four, which disallowed $49,540.00 of costs in the category of “Property Taxes – Real Estate,” should be reduced by $12,203.80. The disallowed $12,203.80 represents one-half of the tax assessed pursuant to section 201.02, Florida Statutes (2005),1/ on the warranty deed conveying the Sunset Lake real property (including the land, land improvements, and the building) to Venice. Venice claimed one-half of the tax on its cost report because that is the amount paid by Venice; the other half was paid by the seller. Venice contends that this tax is an ad valorem tax and/or a property tax,2/ which is an allowable property cost on the Medicaid cost report. AHCA contends that the tax on the warranty deed is an excise tax, not a property tax, and, therefore, not an allowable property cost. The audit report did not explain the reason for disallowing the $12,203.80 tax, as part of the $49,540.00 adjustment. Instead, the audit report explained the entire $49,540.00 adjustment as necessary to “disallow unsupported costs,” suggesting a lack of documentation. However, no non- hearsay evidence was offered at hearing to prove that Venice failed to give the auditors sufficient documentation of the costs disallowed in adjustment number four. At least with respect to the disallowed $12,203.80 item, sufficient documentation was offered at hearing to support the cost as an actual cost incurred by Venice. The question is whether the documented cost is allowable as an ad valorem tax or property tax, as Venice claims. Documentation for the $12,203.80 tax on the warranty deed is found in the buyer/seller closing statement and on the face of the warranty deed. The closing statement sets forth the total purchase price of $7,500,000.00, which is also the amount of a mortgage loan from Bank of America. The closing statement allocates the total purchase price to the land ($477,000.00), land improvements ($496,500.00), the building ($2,513,250.00), FFE--furniture, fixtures, and equipment ($992,250.00), and personal property ($3,021,000.00). The closing statement also shows a separate category called credits and/or prorations, to appropriately account for items accruing over the calendar year. The first line item in this category is for “Ad Valorem Taxes.” If ad valorem taxes were due for calendar year 2005, they would have been prorated. However, the amount is shown to be zero. As confirmed at hearing, no ad valorem taxes were due for the Sunset Lake property in 2005, because as of January 1, 2005, the property was owned by a not-for-profit entity, making the property exempt from ad valorem taxes. The second line item in this category, for “Non-Ad Valorem Assessments,” for which there was no exemption, shows a total amount for 2005 of $8,235.29, which was prorated to credit the buyer for $3,270.65. The closing statement proration had the effect of charging the seller with its share of the assessments for the part of the year prior to closing.3/ A separate category on the closing statement addresses “Recording Fees.” The first line item in this category is for “Transfer Tax-snf [skilled nursing facility].” The taxable amount is shown as $3,486,800.00. The tax of $24,407.60 is split equally between buyer and seller, with $12,203.80 charged to each. The next line is for “Stamp Tax on mtg. [mortgage].” The taxable amount is shown as $7,500,000.00, the amount of the mortgage loan. The tax of $26,250.00 is charged to the buyer. Another line item is shown for “Intangible Tax on mtg.” Again, the taxable amount is shown as $7,500,000.00, and the tax of $15,000.00 is charged to the buyer. The top right corner of the warranty deed conveying the Sunset Lake property contains the following printed or stamped text in the space marked “(Space reserved for Clerk of Court):” RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS INSTRUMENT # 2005117710 7 PGS 2005 JUN 01 05:01 PM KAREN E. RUSHING CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA MMARSH Receipt#635187 Doc Stamp-Deed: 24,407.60 [Bar/Scan Code with instrument number] As Venice’s representative confirmed, the reference on the face of the warranty deed to “Doc Stamp-Deed: 24,407.60,” affixed by the clerk of the court in the official records entry, means that a documentary stamp tax on the deed in the amount of $24,407.60 was paid. Because the tax was split between buyer and seller, Venice actually paid $12,203.80. Although the closing statement shows that the tax at issue was called a transfer tax and categorized as a “recording fee,” and not an “ad valorem tax,” Venice contends here that the documentary stamp tax on the deed was an ad valorem property tax, because the tax was assessed on the value of the property. As Venice summarized its position: That irrespective of whether the transfer tax is called an excise tax, a doc stamp tax or any other type of tax, the fact that it is based solely on the value of the assets makes it an ad valorem tax, which is considered by the state of Florida in all cases under Medicaid cost reporting purposes [sic] as a property tax. (AHCA Exh. 3, p. 14). AHCA disagrees. AHCA contends that the documentary stamp tax on the deed is an excise tax, assessed on the consideration for the property transferred by the deed. The parties do agree that the documentary stamp tax rate, applied to either the value of the property or the consideration for the property, was 70 cents per $100.00.4/ The parties also agree that the “property” at issue, which was conveyed by the warranty deed, includes the land, land improvements, and the building. That being the case, it appears from the closing statement that the “taxable amount” used to determine the documentary stamp tax on the deed (referred to as the “transfer tax-snf”) was the sum of the purchase price allocations for the land ($477,000.00), land improvements ($496,500.00), and the building ($2,513,250.00).5/ The documentary stamp tax on the warranty deed was based on the consideration for the property stated in the closing statement.6/ Venice asserts that the documentary stamp tax was based on the “assessed value of the property (land, land improvements and the building) [of] $3,486.750.00[.]” (Venice PRO at ¶ 24, n. 1). However, Venice offered no evidentiary support for this assertion. The amount Venice calls the “assessed value” is actually the amount of the total purchase price allocated in the closing statement to the land, land improvements, and the building. In contrast, the “assessed value” for this property in 2005, according to the Sarasota County Tax Collector’s bill, was $3,724,300.00. The documentary stamp tax on the warranty deed was not based on the assessed value of the property. Venice also contends that subsequent action by the Department of Revenue supports Venice’s position that the documentary stamp tax on the deed was based on the value of the property and not on the consideration for the property. Venice offered in evidence portions of correspondence between representatives of Venice’s parent company with the Department of Revenue in 2008 that resulted in a determination that Venice owed additional documentary stamp tax on the Sunset Lake warranty deed. According to Venice, “the Department [of Revenue] did not agree with the value of assets that Venice had reported and paid taxes on.” (Venice PRO at ¶ 32). Contrary to Venice’s characterization, the portions of correspondence with the Department of Revenue in evidence confirm that the documentary stamp tax on the Sunset Lake warranty deed was based on the consideration for the real property (i.e., the land, land improvements, and the building). The Department of Revenue sought additional information from Venice to establish what the consideration was. The Department of Revenue “Official Request for Information” form asked for “Total Consideration (Purchase/Transfer Price)” for the property conveyed by warranty deed. The form completed on Venice’s behalf reported that the consideration was $3,486,750.00--the purchase price allocation in the closing statement to the land, land improvements, and the building. Along with the completed form, a letter of explanation on Venice’s behalf (with attachments not offered in evidence) went into great detail in an attempt to justify these purchase price allocations, and ended on the following note: We are hopeful that the enclosed documentation and the foregoing explanation of the purchase price allocations will provide sufficient information for the Department to determine that the correct amount of documentary stamp taxes was paid on each of the deeds, based in each case on the agreed consideration paid for the respective real estate assets. Thus, from the evidence offered by Venice, the focus of the Department of Revenue inquiry, as well as the Venice response to the inquiry, was entirely on the consideration paid for the property. The fact that the Department of Revenue ultimately determined that Venice owed more documentary stamp taxes on the warranty deed than was paid is not evidence that the tax was assessed on the “value” of the real property, as Venice argues. Instead, the material suggests that the Department of Revenue disagreed with what Venice contended was the total consideration and/or with Venice’s allocation of the total purchase price to the real property (the land, land improvements, and the building) and to the other assets acquired in the transaction, including furniture, equipment, and personal property. Venice also takes the position that the tax on the warranty deed is an allowable cost pursuant to two provisions in the federal Provider Reimbursement Manual (PRM), which is one of the sources used to determine allowable costs. First, PRM section 2122.1 provides the “general rule” that “taxes assessed against the provider, in accordance with the levying enactments of the several States and lower levels of government and for which the provider is liable for payment, are allowable costs.” Next, PRM section 2122.2 provides in pertinent part: Certain taxes . . . which are levied on providers are not allowable costs. These taxes are: * * * C. Taxes in connection with financing, refinancing, or refunding operations, such as taxes on the issuance of bonds, property transfers, issuance or transfer of stocks, etc. Generally, these costs are either amortized over the life of the securities or depreciated over the life of the asset. They are not, however, recognized as tax expense. Venice contends that the documentary stamp tax paid on the warranty deed must be allowed because it is a tax that meets the general rule in section 2122.1, and it is not an excluded tax under section 2122.2(C). The documentary stamp tax paid by Venice on the warranty deed satisfies the general elements of section 2122.1; AHCA does not contend otherwise. Instead, AHCA contends that the documentary stamp tax must be considered an excluded tax under section 2122.2(C). AHCA is correct that the documentary stamp tax on warranty deeds transferring real property is essentially a transfer tax. However, it is not a tax in connection with financing, refinancing, or refunding operations. An example of such a tax would be the documentary stamp tax that Venice paid on the mortgage on Sunset Lake, because it was a tax in connection with the financing for the property. Venice correctly points out that, grammatically, section 2122.2(C) suggests that the only taxes excluded under that subsection are taxes in connection with financing, refinancing, or refunding operations. The use of the phrase “such as” suggests that everything that follows that phrase must be considered an example of what precedes the phrase. AHCA acknowledges that consideration of the grammatical structure of section 2122.2(C) alone would support Venice’s interpretation. However, AHCA’s expert testified, reasonably and without contradiction, that Venice’s interpretation would render the phrase “property transfers” meaningless. As AHCA’s expert explained, a tax on a property transfer is not a tax on financing, refinancing, or refunding operations. Therefore, despite the grammatical structure, taxes on property transfers must be considered a separate type of excluded tax under section 2122.2(C). As further support for this interpretation, AHCA’s expert pointed to the second sentence, providing that the excluded costs referred to in the first sentence “are either amortized over the life of the securities or depreciated over the life of the asset.” AHCA’s expert explained that taxes on financing, refinancing, or refunding operations would all be amortized, whereas taxes on property transfers would be depreciated over the life of the depreciable assets transferred (i.e., the land improvements and the building). Venice relies solely on the grammatical structure of section 2122.2(C), offering no response to AHCA’s reasoning for interpreting the subsection in a way that is contrary to the meaning suggested only by grammatical structure. Venice did not explain how a tax on property transfers could be considered a tax on financing, refinancing, or refunding operations (so as to give meaning to the phrase “property transfers”), nor did Venice explain when taxes on financing, refinancing, or refunding operations would be depreciated over the life of the asset (so as to give meaning to that phrase in the second sentence).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order disallowing $12,203.80 claimed as a property tax expense in Venice’s initial Medicaid cost report. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 25th day of July, 2014.
Findings Of Fact By warranty deed dated July 29, 1974 Marco Cove, Inc. conveyed certain property to the Barnett Bank of Naples, Florida as Trustee. At the time of these conveyances the properties were subject to a first mortgage dated September 14, 1971 in an original principal amount of $1,400,000 to AMI Investments, Inc. mortgagee and a second mortgage dated August 24, 1973 in the amount of $130,278 to Joseph R. Lynch, Inc. By quitclaim deed dated November 5, 1974 (Exhibit 8) Donald P. Landis conveyed his interest in Apartment Number C-3 in the condominium here involved to the Barnett Bank of Naples, Trustee. It appears that at the time of the conveyances here involved Marco Cove, Inc. was delinquent on both mortgages, owed materialmen's liens on the property, had sold some of the units to innocent purchasers without giving clear title, and had not placed in escrow the sums so received from these purchasers. Barnett Bank accepted title as trustee, so the various rights of the parties could be resolved without foreclosure proceedings. Although Petitioner contested that Barnett Bank was Trustee for AMI Investments, Inc., Exhibit 10, which was admitted into evidence without objection, clearly shows the bank understood they were trustees for AMI Investments, Inc. and accepted the deeds here involved. At the time of the conveyances the balance owned on the first mortgage was $63,356.16 and on the second mortgage $130,278. Respondent's third Notice of Proposed Assessment (Exhibit 3) assesses documentary stamp taxes and penalties in the amount of $59.25 on each of the three condominium units conveyed to the Trustee and documentary stamp tax and penalty in the amount of $547.88 on the conveyance of the entire condominium for a total tax and penalty of $725.63. No surtax is claimed. The conveyances to the Trustee did not extinguish the mortgages and the Trustee took title to the properties subject to these mortgages. Petitioner has subsequently sold its rights as first mortgagee to a third party for some $66,000.
The Issue By this petition, American Foam Rubber Distributors, Inc. (AFRD) and Edward Rothbard seek to have the Department of Revenue's assessment for documentary stamp tax and penalties on a transfer of real property by quit claim deed from Edward Rothbard to AFRD set aside. Petitioners contend that the transfer was without consideration and therefore nontaxable under sec. 201.02, F.S. , while Respondent contends that consideration flowed to the grantor by virtue of the grantee making the mortgage payments; and therefore, documentary tax stamps were due on the deed of conveyance computed on the amount of the mortgage at the time of transfer. One witness testified in behalf of Petitioners and four exhibits were admitted into evidence. From the pleadings, interrogatories and evidence presented at the hearing, the facts are largely undisputed and are as follows:
Findings Of Fact Edward Rothbard owns 100 percent of the outstanding stock of AFRD and he has been the sole shareholder and chief executive officer of the company since the company s inception in 1962. On March 9, 1973 the Seaboard Coastline Railroad (SCL) entered into an agreement with AFRD to sell a tract of land in Miami to the latter at an agreed price of $116,978.00 with certain conditions. The principal condition was that the grantee erect a warehouse on the property within one year from the date of the transfer. By deed dated August 23, 1973 the property was conveyed by SCL to Edward Rothbard rather than as per the contract. This deed was apparently delivered in late October, 1973 and the proper documentary stamp tax was paid on this transaction. Mr. Rothbard's testimony that the sole reason for taking the property in his name was to expedite the transaction was not rebutted. In exhibits 1 and 2 copies of letters from SCL dated September 21 and 26, 1973, SCL referred to Rothbard as nominee of AFRD to be grantee of the property. Exhibit 4, the title page of an interim title insurance binder, indicates that the title insurance policy on the property purchased from SCL was intended to be in the name of AFRD. In August, 1974 the building erected on the site for the use and benefit of AFRD was completed and Edward Rothbard mortgaged the property to secure a note in the amount of $550,000.00. His wife also executed the note and mortgage. AFRD occupied the building in September, 1975 and made all mortgage payments to the mortgagee including the first payment. By quitclaim deed executed February 26, 1975 Edward Rothbard conveyed the property here involved to AFRD subject to the mortgage. Minimum documentary tax stamps were placed on this deed. On February 26, 1975 the outstanding balance due on the mortgage was $543,969.59.
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.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Petitioners are entitled to refund of documentary stamp taxes paid pursuant to Sections 201.01 and 201.08 Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Both Petitioners are limited partnerships validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Florida. (Petitioner's exhibits No. 1 and No. 5.) Sugar Creek Business Center Phase I, Ltd. ("Sugar Creek") As to this Petitioner, the parties have further stipulated: On or about March 27, 1986, Petitioner and First Union National Bank, a national banking association, with its principal office located in Charlotte, North Carolina (the "Lender"), entered into a certain Construction Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement"). Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, Lender agreed to make and Petitioner agreed to accept a loan in the amount of $6,300,000.00 (the "Loan") to be used solely for the purpose of paying for the cost of developing and constructing a commercial building in Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina. The Lender retained the law firm of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P. A., Post Office Box 1438, 501 E Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700, Tampa, Florida 33602, as its Florida counsel in connection with closing the Loan. Petitioner retained the law firm of Peirsol, Boroughs, Grimm, Bennett & Griffin, Professional Association, Post Office Box 3309, Orlando, Florida 32802, as its counsel in connection with closing the Loan. On or about March 27, 1986, the General Partners of Petitioner executed a promissory note in the amount of $6,300,000.00 payable to Lender (the "Note"), a Deed of Trust and Security Agreement securing the Note in favor of Gibson L. Smith, Jr. Trustee, and First Union National Bank, Beneficiary (the "Mortgage"), and all other loan closing documents pursuant to the Loan Agreement. The Mortgage encumbers only land and the improvements thereon located in Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina and was filed in the Public Records of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina on March 27, 1986, subsequent to closing upon the Loan Agreement. The proceeds of the Loan evidenced by the Note and secured by the Mortgage were used solely to develop and construct a commercial building upon the land encumbered by the Mortgage in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Florida documentary stamps were purchased from the area office of the Department of Revenue located in Tampa, Florida on May 1, 1986 and affixed to the Note to evidence payment of Florida documentary stamp tax with respect to the Note in the amount of $9,450.00 pursuant to Sections 201.00 and 201.08, Florida Statutes. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1) John Simpson, Jr., Esquire of Peirsol, Boroughs, Grimm, Bennett and Griffin, P. A. represented Sugar Creek in the purchase of property and the acquisition and closing of construction financing for improvements. The loan documents were mailed to him. He gave them to his client in Orlando, who signed and delivered them back to him in escrow. Simpson took the documents to Charlotte, North Carolina, for the closing on or around March 27, 1986. The purchase of property and loan closed simultaneously and the funds were disbursed in Charlotte. (Testimony of John Simpson, Jr., Esquire) One Dezavala Center, Ltd. As to this Petitioner, the parties have stipulated: On or about July 30, 1985, Petitioner and the First National Bank of Chicago, a national banking association, with its principal office located in Chicago, Illinois (the "Lender"), entered into a certain Construction Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement"). Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, Lender agreed to make and Petitioner agreed to accept a loan in the amount of $6,600,000.00 (the "Loan") to be used solely for the purpose of paying for the cost of developing and constructing four commercial buildings located in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. The Lender retained the law firm of Holland & Knight, 1200 Brickel Avenue, Post Office Box 015441, Miami, Florida 33101, as its Florida counsel in connection with closing the Loan. Petitioner retained the law firm of Peirsol, Boroughs, Grimm, Bennett & Griffin, Professional Association, Post Office Box 3309, Orlando, Florida 32802, as its counsel in connection with closing the Loan. On or about July 30, 1985, the General Partners of Petitioner executed a promissory note in the amount of $6,600,000.00 payable to Lender (the "Note"), a Deed of Trust, Mortgage, and Security Agreement securing the Note in favor of Harry M. Roberts, Jr., Esquire, Trustee (the "Mortgage"), and all other loan closing documents as required under the Loan Agreement. The Mortgage encumbers only land and the improvements thereon located in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas and was filed in the Public Records of Bexar County, Texas on August 1, 1985, subsequent to closing upon the Loan Agreement. The proceeds of the Loan evidenced by the Note and secured by the Mortgage were used solely to develop and construct four commercial buildings on the land encumbered by the Mortgage in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Florida documentary stamps were purchased from the area office of the Department of Revenue located in Miami, Florida on August 5, 1985, and affixed to the Note to evidence payment of Florida documentary stamp with respect to the Note in the amount of $9,900.00 pursuant to Sections 201.00 and 201.08 Florida Statutes. John Simpson, Jr., Esquire, also represented One Dezavala in the closing for the acquisition of the property and the loan. The note and other loan documents were signed in Orlando by Petitioner's General Partners. The documents were given to the lender's Florida Counsel in escrow, who sent the documents to the lender's Texas counsel. Closing on the acquisition of property and the loan took place simultaneously in San Antonio, Texas and the funds were disbursed in San Antonio. (Testimony of John Simpson, Jr., Esquire) Photocopies of the notes and stamps were admitted as Exhibits No. 3 and No. 7. The parties, by oral stipulation at the final hearing, agreed that before the Comptroller could be compelled to issue a Final Order authorizing the refund of such money as may properly be found owing Petitioners, Petitioners would make available to the Comptroller or his representatives, for inspection, cancellation and/or obliteration, the original documentary stamps forming the basis for the request for refund.
