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 On February 16, 1979, I-B-A, Inc., a Florida corporation, executed a Declaration of Trust pursuant to Section 689.071, Florida Statutes (1977), designating I-B-A, Inc., as Beneficiary and Lewis H. Harmon as Trustee. The trust agreement defined and declared the interest of the Beneficiary to be personal property only. Pursuant to the terms of the trust agreement I-B-A, Inc., conveyed legal title to the real property described in the Declaration of Trust to the Trustee by Warranty Deed. I-B-A, Inc., assigned its beneficial interest to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. Following the assignment, the Trustee, upon direction of the Beneficiary, conveyed legal title to the property to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. by Special Warranty Deed. These documents were all executed on February 16, 1979, and only minimal documentary stamps were placed on the Warranty Deed and the Special Warranty Deed. The consideration paid for the assignment of the beneficial interest from I-B-A, Inc., to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. was $49,101,000. On June 27, 1978, attorneys for taxpayer requested a private ruling from DOR respecting the documentary stamp taxes due on conveyances transferring real property through a Florida land trust established pursuant to Section 689.071, Florida Statutes. By letter dated July 10, 1978, DOR responded to this inquiry by opining that if the necessary documentation exists to comply with the statute the two recorded conveyances would require only minimal documentary tax stamps. One or more articles and/or editorials appeared in Miami newspapers following the February 16, 1979, transaction above discussed pointing out that some $200,000 in documentary stamp taxes had not been collected by the State on the transfer of a large downtown office building from one owner to another. On November 8, 1979, taxpayer received a Notice of Proposed Assessment under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, in which DOR claimed $268,939.10 in taxes, penalties and interest due on the Special Warranty Deed by which the Trustee conveyed the trust property to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. Following an informal conference between Taxpayer's attorneys and DOR, DOR on June 18, 1980, issued a Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, in which DOR claimed $283,939.76 in taxes, penalties and interest, with interest accruing at the rate of $66.18 per day. In this assessment DOR claimed taxes were due on the Special Warranty Deed from Trustee to Taxpayer or, in the alternative, on the assignment of the beneficial interest under the trust from I-B-A, Inc., to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. Both the Warranty Deed from I-B-A, Inc., to the Trustee and the Special Warranty Deed from the Trustee to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. were recorded. The Trust Agreement was not recorded. DOR's basis for the assessment issued in this transaction was that no recorded instrument contained a provision declaring the interests of the beneficiaries under the Trust Agreement to be personal property-only. Following receipt of the Revised Assessment, the Trustee and One Biscayne Tower, N.V. filed suit in the Circuit court in and for Dade County seeking to reform the Warranty Deed from I-B-A, Inc., to the Trustee to include a provision specifically stating that the interest of the beneficiaries under the Trust Agreement was personal property only. I-B-A, Inc., was joined as a defendant. On 18 July 1980, the parties to this suit submitted a stipulation to the court that final judgment may be entered ex parte without delay, reforming the Warranty Deed ab initio in accordance with the Complaint. By Final Judgment entered 12 August 1980, Circuit Judge Dan Satin reformed this Warranty Deed ab initio to include the language in a recorded instrument specified in Section 689.071(4), Florida Statutes. The purpose of the parties in setting up a Florida land trust through which to transfer the property was to avoid the payment of documentary stamp taxes and surtaxes on the $49,101,000 purchase price which a bankruptcy court had approved for the sale of this asset. Accordingly, the reformation of the Warranty Deed was to comply with the intent of the parties at the time the Warranty Deed was executed and delivered.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the Hearing Officer recommends that the office of the Comptroller and the Department of Revenue honor the claims for refund of the documentary stamp taxes in the amount of $1,027.50 and the surtax stamp taxes in the amount of $376.75, refunding these amounts to the Petitioner. DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of September, 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Maxie Broome Assist Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 G. Kristin Delano, Esquire Post Office Box 180 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731
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.
Findings Of Fact The individual taxpayers purchased a motel giving not secured by a mortgage on the motel as a portion of the consideration paid to the grantors. The individual taxpayers subsequently conveyed an undivided one-half interest in the motel to 6804 East, Inc., a corporation wholly owned by the individual taxpayers. Although no consideration was recited in the conveyance, the corporation assumed responsibility for 50 percent of the mortgage indebtedness which was stipulated to have been $96,250. Subsequently, 6804 East, Inc. transferred the property to 6804 Motel, Inc., another corporation wholly owned by the individual taxpayers. Again, no consideration was recited in the conveyance; however, 6804 Motel, Inc. assumed responsibility from 6804 East, Inc. for 50 percent of the indebtedness on the property. The Department of Revenue asserts that documentary stamp taxes are due on both of the transfers pursuant to Section 201.02, Florida Statutes, there having been only nominal documentary stamp taxes placed on the documents. The individual taxpayers and 6804 Motel, Inc., controvert the assessment of taxes on the basis that there was no consideration because the individual taxpayers were never relieved of any responsibility for the debt because they fully owned the two corporations and because they had such an equity investment in the purchase that they could not stand aside and see the corporations default. 6804 Motel, Inc. also questions the assessment of the taxes against it as the grantee in the transfer from 6804 East, Inc. In support of their arguments, the taxpayers introduced evidence that the individual taxpayers intended, prior to purchase, to convey an interest in the motel to 6804 East, Inc., and that after the transfer to 6804 Motel, Inc., the individual taxpayers paid all deficit operating expenses for the motel.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the Hearing Officer recommends that the petition of the taxpayers in this case is denied and that the documentary stamp taxes, as proposed in assessments M-65 and M-66, together with a 25 percent penalty and 1 percent interest per month on the unpaid tax be assessed. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of August, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph Monroe 7211 North Dale Mabry Tampa, Florida 33614 Maxie Broome, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is in the land development business. Petitioner sold residential lots to various purchasers and contracted through a sister corporation to construct homes on the lots. At the time the lots were conveyed no improvements had been made. Petitioner placed documentary tax stamps and documentary surtax stamps upon the deeds reflecting the consideration for the deeds as the price of the lots. Respondent contends that stamps should have been placed on the deeds reflecting the consideration as the price of the lots plus improvements. Accordingly Respondent is proposing to assess additional stamp taxes, surtaxes, penalties and interest upon the Petitioner in the total amount of $13,002.10. The pleadings, answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for admissions establish that unless Rule 12A-4.13(22), Florida Administrative Code is invalid, Petitioner is liable for the taxes Respondent proposes to assess. The transactions which form the basis of the proposed assessment are package deals within the meaning of the Rule.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the hearing the parties jointly moved to consolidate the two (2) above styled cases and stated the stipulation would cover both 76-2197, D.O.A.H., and 77-604, D.O.A.H. The former involved six (6) deeds and the latter three (3) deeds. The following facts were stipulated to by the parties: The Respondent, Department of Revenue, imposed a documentary stamp tax upon six (6) deeds which transferred the title to properties from individual persons to Petitioner Corry. The transfer came about as a result of the following: In each of the six (6) transfers under question, Petitioner Corry sold property to certain individuals. The Petitioner gave to the individuals a deed and took back a purchase money mortgage. The purchasers made essentially no payments on the mortgage to Petitioner Corry and ultimately the purchasers deeded the property back to the Petitioner. The deeds were recorded in the courthouse records. In one of the deeds there is a specific statement that the deed is executed in lieu of foreclosure and that the purchaser is released from all liability. There is no such specific statement in the other deeds. By a Proposed Notice of Assessment dated August 3, 1976, the Respondent, Department of Revenue, sought to impose a documentary stamp tax upon the six (6) deeds. The consideration upon which the tax is based in cases like the instant case is usually the amount of mortgage debt forgiven but in the instant case no such information was provided and the tax was based on the assessed values of the property. Petitioner Corry is contesting the legal liability of Petitioner for the assessment and is not contesting the legal liability of Petitioner for the assessment and is not contesting the mathematical computation of the amount allegedly due. It is Petitioner's contention that the six (6) deeds are not subject to documentary stamp taxation inasmuch as the Petitioner paid nothing for the deeds and were signed by the mortgagors at the request of the Petitioner to clear title of the equitable owner. It is the Respondent Department of Revenue's contention that the six (6) deeds are subject to documentary stamp taxation since they are deeds in lieu of foreclosure or are deeds given when debts are rendered unenforceable. At the time the six (6) deeds were recorded on December 22, 1975, in Taylor County, the Deputy Clerk asked Petitioner how much he paid for the six (6) deeds in question and when he responded that he paid nothing for the deeds the Deputy Clerk advised him that he owed no documentary stamp tax or surtax thereon. Relying on the Deputy Clerk's advice, the deeds were recorded and no taxes were paid, only the recording fees. The Hearing Officer further finds: The deeds in question were secured for the purpose of clearing title to the equitable owner. The Petitioner paid nothing to the mortgagor for the deeds. The stipulation controls both cases No. 76-2197 and 77-604.
Recommendation Hold the assessments as valid assessment. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Caroline C. Mueller, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William W. Corry, Esquire Post Office Box 527 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 1977.
The Issue The sole issue posed herein is: Whether or not the transfer to Petitioner by individuals Hugh P. Conser, Stewart L. Krug and Sidney Barbane1 of certain real property located in Pinellas County, Florida, on or about October 26, 1974, constitutes a conveyance subject to the Documentary Stamp Tax Act, pursuant to Chapter 201, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 26, 1974, the Petitioner received title to certain real property located Pinellas County, Florida, from Stewart L. Krug, Sidney Barbanel and Hugh P. Conser, the principals in KBC Development Corporation, which was recorded in Official Records Book 4229, page 1052, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. The only consideration, as evidenced by the deeds filed in the case, is that the conveyance was for "good and valuable consideration and ten dollars". This other good and valuable consideration, according to Petitioner and the other record evidence, consisted of the issuance of all one hundred shares of the authorized stock of KBC Development Corporation, Petitioner, as evidenced by the Minutes of the Shareholders Meeting of such corporation which was held on July 18, 1973. (See the minutes reflected in an attachment to Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1.) The issued stock had a par value of $5.00. The corporate entity, KBC, as Petitioner, was formed for the purpose of taking title to the property in question and, as evidenced by the record, had no other assets when the subject property was conveyed. On May 6, 1975, the Florida `Department of Revenue, Respondent, recorded in the office of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, a warrant for collection of delinquent documentary stamp taxes in connection with the above-referenced transaction in the amount of $27,599.70, plus an identical amount of penalty, for a total sum of $55,212.40. Said warrant is recorded in O.R. Book 4286, page 31, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. Following a conference with the Department of Revenue, the taxes were paid by the Petitioner under protest. That payment set the stage for the Petitioner's filing of the claim for refund with the Respondent, the Comptroller of the State of Florida, pursuant to Florida Statutes section 215.26. The Petitioner argues that the only taxable consideration resulting from the subject conveyance was the par value of the stock, of which amount sufficient documentary stamps were affixed to the deeds in question. In support of this position, the Petitioner cites the fact that there are no income tax returns filed by the corporation, FIG; no business activities pursued by the corporation; no bank account of the corporation; and no assets held by the corporation, except as agents for the three individuals, Krug, Barbanel and Conser, all of which were acknowledged by all of the mortgagees. Additionally, the Petitioner urges that the bank and lending institutions involved regarded and held each individual personally liable for the indebtedness in connection with the loans advanced for the property in question. Finally, the Petitioner urges that, based on the conveyance in question, there was no shift in the economic burden to the corporation and, therefore, no taxable transaction occurred when the property in question was conveyed from the individuals, Krug, Barbanel and Conser, to FIG Development Corporation.
Conclusions The documentary stamp tax provided by Florida Statutes section 201.02 is an excise tax imposed on particularly described transactions, and in the case of instruments relating to realty, is based upon the total consideration involved in the transfer or conveyance. Thus, the key point in determining whether documentary stamps are to be affixed to an instrument transferring an interest in realty is in the presence or absence of consideration for the transfer. Rule 12A-4 .14, Florida Administrative Code, describes conveyances not subject to the documentary stamp tax as those "conveyances of realty without consideration, including. . .a deed to or by a trustee not pursuant to a sale . . . ." The facts of this case clearly do not illustrate an express or resulting trust relationship between KBC Development Corporation and its principals, Stewart L. Krug, Sidney Barbanel and Hugh P. Conser. When KBC took title to the property from Krug, Conser and Barbanel, the consideration was $10.00 and other valuable consideration and, based on the face of the instrument, the conveyance was not made to KBC subject to payment of any mortgages, etc., by KPC (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1). Section 201.02(1), Florida Statutes (1975). See Florida Department of Revenue v. De Maria, 338 So.2d 838 (Fla. 1976). Additionally, the facts herein reveal that the banks and lending institutions involved in the transaction required the personal guarantees of the individuals, Krug, Barbanel and Conser. No evidence was introduced indicating that Petitioner, KBC Development Corporation, was anything more than an entity whereby the lending institutions had advanced funds for the primary mortgages to Continental Investment and Development Company, which was in no way related to the present corporation, KBC, and that the corporate entity was used to protect the lending institutions from any possible violations of usurious transactions. As stated, the personal endorsements and/or guarantees of the individuals, Barbanel, Krug and Conser, were required by the lending institutions before the primary mortgagee, Continental Investment and Development Company, would be released. Krug, Barbanel and Conser were no more nor less obligated to pay and perform under the obligation, after the conveyance than before. Although there was a change in the form of the obligation, there was no change in the substance. See e.g., Straughn v. Story, 334 So.2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) cert. discharged 348 So.2d 954 (1977). (See Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3 and 4.) For all of these reasons, it is the considered opinion of the undersigned that the Respondents have failed to demonstrate that the consideration for the conveyances in question were anything more than the par value of the stock and, accordingly, documentary stamp taxes should only be assessed in the amount of $4.10. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the excess assessments which Petitioner paid under protest be refunded.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner be refunded the amount of taxes and penalties it paid to the Respondent, Department of Revenue, under protest, over and above the amount it should have paid on the par value of the stock of KBC Corporation when the abovedescribed conveyance was made during October, 1974. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building MAILING ADDRESS: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Donald R. Hall, Esquire Goza, Hall & Peacock, P.A. 100 North Belcher Road Clearwater, Florida 33518 Cecil L. Davis, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA KBC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1596 GERALD LEWIS, as COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondents. / NOTICE TO: DONALD R. HALL, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER GOZA, HALL & PEACOCK, P.A. 100 NORTH BELCHER ROAD CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33518 CECIL L. DAVIS, JR., ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENTS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL THE CAPITOL LL04 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304 You will please take notice that the Governor and Cabinet, acting as head of the Department of Revenue at its meeting on the 12th day of June, 1979, approved the Respondent's Substituted Order, in lieu of the Division of Administrative Hearing's Recommended Order dated April 3, 1979. A copy of the Respondent's Proposed Substituted Order is attached. This constitutes final agency action by the Department of Revenue. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF FLORIDA ROOM 104, CARLTON BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice was furnished by mail to Donald R. Hall, Esquire, Goza, Hall & Peacock, P.A. 100 North Belcher Road, Clearwater, Florida 33518, Attorney for Petitioner; by hand delivery to Cecil L. Davis, Jr., Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, The Capitol LL04, Tallahassee, Florida 32304, Attorney for Respondents and James E. Bradwell, Esquire, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration, Room 530, Carrolton Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32304, this 14th day of June, 1979. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY Attachment STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
