Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral argument of the parties and the evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the pleadings, the following pertinent facts are found: On June 30, 1973, an agreement for purchase and sale was executed between Bayshore 21, Inc., as purchaser, and Arthree, Inc., as seller, for the purchase and sale of real estate commonly known as the Carriage House. This agreement was executed by Bayshore 21, Inc. in its corporate name, and not as a trustee or other representative capacity. The provisions of this agreement were individually guaranteed by Marvin Glick, the president and sole stockholder of Bayshore 21, Inc. The purchase and sale agreement discloses that the total purchase price of the property is $19,500,000, payable by taking subject to a first mortgage held by the Prudential Insurance Company with the remainder, subject to certain prorations, to be paid in cash. An earnest money deposit in the amount of $500,000.00 was placed in escrow by Bayshore at the time of execution of the purchase and sale agreement. Bayshore 21, Inc. represented and warranted in said agreement that it was a corporation duly organized and in good standing with full capacity to make and execute the agreement and to consummate the transaction embodied therein. Further, Bayshore warranted that there was no provision in its charter or bylaws, nor was it a party to any agreement, which would limit or prevent its consummation of the agreement. Also, Bayshore reserved the right to assign it's interests to any other party upon the assignee's assumptions of Bayshore's obligations or to direct Arthree, Inc. that the deed or other closing instruments would run in favor of a designated grantee other than Bayshore. Pursuant to the agreement for purchase and sale described above, Arthree, Inc. conveyed the Carriage House to Bayshore 21, Inc. by warranty deed dated August 17, 1973. There was evidence that the transaction was not closed until August 23, 1973. Bayshore 21, Inc. took title in its own corporate name, and not as a trustee or in a representative capacity. Proper documentary stamps were attached to this document. On either August 22 or 23, 1973, Bayshore 21, Inc. executed a $1,300,000.00 note and mortgage to Commercial Trading Company, Inc. and a $5,000,000.00 note and mortgage to Security Mortgage Investors. These notes and mortgages were in the corporate name of Bayshore 21, Inc. but were guaranteed by the petitioner and Marvin Glick. These guarantees contain language that the mortgagee may proceed directly against the guarantors in the event of default. There was evidence that utilization of Bayshore 21, Inc. to effectuate the loans from Commercial Trading Company and Security Mortgage Investors was required by said mortgagees because of the fact that the then prevailing interest rate levels were in excess of the noncorporate statutory interest limit. On August 23, 1973, a joint venture agreement was entered into between petitioner and Marvin Glick. This joint venture agreement provided that "The parties acknowledge that BAYSHORE 21, INC. has taken title to certain property as trustee for ZUCKERMAN-VERNON CORP. and MARVIN GLICK and, upon completion of the financing arrangements, will convey the property to ZUCKERMAN-VERNON CORP. and MARVIN GLICK, a fifty (50 percent) percent interest being conveyed to each party. The property that is the subject of this joint venture is the CARRIAGE HOUSE, located at 54th Street and Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, each party to this agreement having a fifty (50 percent) percent interest in said property." On August 27, 1973, title to the Carriage House was conveyed by quitclaim deed from Bayshore 21, Inc. to Marvin Glick and petitioner, each to have an undivided fifty percent interest. Minimal stamps were affixed to this document, which bore the notation "No documentary stamps are required on this Deed inasmuch as the Grantor took title solely as Trustee for the Grantees herein." Thereafter, the respondent Department of Revenue assessed the parties to this August 27, 1973 deed for the documentary stamp taxes due, based upon the $18,550,000.00 existing mortgages on the property at the time of the conveyance ($12,250,000.00 to Prudential, $5,000,000.00 to Commercial Trading Company and $5,000,000.00 to Security Mortgage Investors). The delinquent documentary stamp taxes were assessed in the amount of $55,649.70, and a penalty was assessed in a like amount, making the total amount due $111,299.40.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that petitioner be assessed the taxes and penalties set forth In the proposed Notice of Assessment of Tax and Penalty under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, dated April 23, 1975. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ed Straughn Executive Director Department of Revenue Room 102, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Paul R. Lipton, Esquire 17071 West Dixie Highway North Miami Beach, Florida Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida
Findings Of Fact On July 17, 1975, petitioner and his wife executed a mortgage encumbering certain real property in Broward County and a promissory note in the principal amount of fifty-seven thousand five hundred dollars ($57,500.00) in favor of William J. and Carol M. Galione. Respondent's exhibit No. 1. This instrument was recorded the same day in the official records of Broward County. At that time, petitioner paid documentary stamp tax in the amount of eighty-six and one quarter dollars ($86.25); and intangible tax in the amount of one hundred fifteen dollars ($115.00). Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. On February 1, 1977, petitioner and his wife entered into a mortgage modification agreement by which the same real property was encumbered as security for indebtedness to the Galiones in the principal amount of ninety- thousand dollars ($90,000.00). Joint exhibit No. 1. By the same instrument, the monthly payments petitioner and his wife had originally undertaken to pay the Galiones were increased and a new maturity date for the balance was established. On February 8, 1977, this instrument was recorded in the official records of Broward County. In connection with this recordation, petitioner paid documentary stamp tax in the amount of fifty-one and fifteen hundredths dollars ($51.15) and intangible tax in the amount of sixty-eight and thirteen hundredths dollars ($68.13).
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's proposed assessment against petitioner be made final. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin J. Stacker, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert W. Crawford, Esquire 1215 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
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 The issue is whether the Respondent's certification should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact William H. Wood was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on November 16, 1973, and issued certificate number 02-9291. On September 22, 1986, Wood answered an advertisement in a publication known as Linn's Stamp News. The publication caters to the interests of stamp collectors. The advertisement read as follows: MINT POSTAGE wanted. Ungummed, uncancelled postage under 10 and postage dues - 50%, ungummed, uncancelled postage over 9 , special deliveries, postal stationary and officials - 65%. The advertisement was placed by a Maryland stamp dealer who was assisting United States Postal Service inspectors. The advertisement was placed in an effort to identify persons engaged in the unlawful activity of reuse of previously used postage stamps for mailing. Wood answered the advertisement on September 22, 1986, by letter. He stated in the letter: Sir, you advertised in Linn's Stamp News that you are buying ungummed mint postage. The ad had no shipping instructions. I have the following. A quantity and various denomination of stamps that's listed, with dollar value at the stated percentage in the ad. Please advise shipping instructions. The cooperating stamp dealer forwarded a reply to Wood on September 29, 1986, which indicated a willingness to begin buying stamps from Wood if they were "ungummed, uncancelled." "Ungummed" refers to the condition of a postal stamp which lacks the adhesive backing usually present on unused postage stamps. "Uncancelled" postage refers to stamps which have not been previously utilized to post a letter or a parcel. "Mint" postage refers to stamps which are gummed, uncancelled, and in pristine condition. On October 6, 1986, Wood forwarded about 1800 postage stamps of various denominations with an aggregate face value of about $258.00 to the cooperating Maryland stamp dealer. Soon thereafter, Wood was sent a check for $164.89 in payment for the stamps. Many of the stamps supplied by Wood bore evidence of being previously used to post a letter or a parcel. The cooperating stamp dealer sent a letter to Wood on October 15, 1986, which thanked him for his shipment of stamps and indicated a need for stamps of $100.00 face value per month. The letter also stated that the stamp dealer knew a friend named Jenkins who was in the mail order business and had similar needs for stamps. On January 6, 1987, the cooperating stamp dealer, "Chuck," received another shipment of postage stamps from Wood. "Chuck" forwarded a check payable in the amount of $32.92 to Wood in payment for the receipt of stamps with a face value of $51.00. "Chuck" enclosed a letter to Wood with the check which stated in part: You will notice that it is a J.J. Enterprise check. Jeff has been needing so much of this postage for his business mailings he has been buying most all of my shipment that I get in. Therefore, if you would be kind enough to just send any future shipments directly to his address, I would appreciate it. I will still make my share. Thank you. For your records his address again is Jeff Jenkins, J.J. Enterprises, Box 22015, Baltimore, Maryland 21203. . . . "Jeff Jenkins" is an assumed name of Postal Inspector John T. Evans, acting in an undercover investigative capacity. "J.J. Enterprises" likewise is a fictitious, non-existent business created for purposes of the investigation of Wood by the Postal Service. Subsequent to January 6, 1987, seven more shipments of stamps were received from Wood by postal inspectors. The last arrived on June 16, 1988. In each case, Wood received a check in payment for the stamps. The types of stamps forwarded by Wood in all the shipments would have been of little value for stamp collection purposes. Accordingly, the market value for such a purpose would have been far below the amounts paid to Wood for the stamps. The sum of the face value of the stamps was $753.10. The price paid to Wood was consistent with the value of used stamps which were to be unlawfully reused for postage to lower mailing expenses. In one of the correspondences forwarded by Postal Inspector John Evans, posing as "Jeff Jenkins," Wood was told of a friend, Don Wilson, who lived in Alabama. The Respondent was told that Don Wilson was interested in buying "these type stamps." "Don Wilson" is an assumed name of Postal Inspector Larry Dodson, acting in an undercover investigative capacity. On June 23, 1988, Inspector Dodson telephone Wood, posing as Don Wilson. Inspector Dodson told Wood that he was interested in buying stamps in order to reduce mailing expenses. Wood stated that he would be willing to sell stamps to Don Wilson. On June 29, 1988, Inspector Dodson and four other postal inspectors served a search warrant at Wood's home. The search yielded thirteen shallow plastic trays and a plastic tub of the type used to soak stamps off paper envelopes. Inspector Dodson also found a quantity of stamps which had been removed from the corners of envelopes by soaking. Inspector Dodson found approximately 5100 mailing envelopes utilized by the West Florida Gas Company to receive utility payments. He also located about 1800 mailing envelopes utilized by Gulf Coast Electrical Cooperative to receive utility payments. The utilities' envelopes bore some cancelled and some uncancelled postage stamps. Inspector Dodson also found about 173,000 used postage stamps of various denominations, most packaged in glassine envelopes, one hundred stamps per envelope. The quantities and types of stamps which Wood had stored were of little collector value. On April 11, 1989, pursuant to federal charges filed against him by the United States Attorney in the Northern District of Florida, Wood pleaded guilty to the charge of dealing in cancelled postage stamps in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1720.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order and therein revoke the certification of William H. Wood. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1990. Copies furnished to: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William H. Wood 104 North Claire Drive Panama City, Florida 32401 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The validity of proposed assessment of documentary stamp taxes and penalty against Petitioners, pursuant to Sections 201.08 and 201.17, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On or about November 13, 1973, R. Bartow Rainey, Velma C. Rainey, J. Howard Nichols, and Barbara M. Nichols executed a $1,800,000.00 promissory note to The Commonwealth Corporation, a Florida corporation secured by a mortgage of even date and a leasehold interest on real estate in Leon County, Florida. The note provided for monthly interest payments at varying rates as determined by a formula set forth in the note. The principal was due and payable in full on or before twenty-four months from the date of the instrument, i.e., November, 1975. Documentary stamps under Section 201.08(1), Florida Statutes, in the proper amount of $2,700.00, were affixed to the note. (Exhibits 3,4, Stipulation). On February 28, 1974, The Commonwealth Corporation assigned the aforesaid note and mortgage to Schumacher Mortgage Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, said assignment being recorded on June 26, 1974 in O.R. Book 66, Page 800, Public Records of Leon County, Florida. (Exhibit 2) On May 22, 1975, Petitioners and Schumacher Mortgage Company, Inc. entered into an agreement entitled "Amendment to Note and Mortgage" (hereinafter "Amendment") which was recorded on July 17, 1975, in O.R. Book 725, Page 727, Public Records of Leon County, Florida. Pursuant to this document, the parties agreed that the original note and mortgage be amended to increase the principal sums recited therein from $1,800,000.00 to $1,850,000.00. The interest rate specified in the note and the repayment provisions thereof were amended to provide for a fixed rate of interest of 11% per annum and the time for payment of principal and any unpaid interest thereunder was extended to May 1, 1977, with an option of the makers, upon payment of $18,500.00 on or before the due date, to further extend the term of the note for a period of an additional year. The agreement further provided that except as therein modified, the terms and conditions of the original promissory note and mortgage should remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Paragraph 9 of the agreement provided as follows: 9. This amendment is made pursuant to an agree- ment between the parties dated August 26, 1974, the remaining terms of which are incorporated herein by reference. Petitioner paid documentary stamp tax on the Amendment under Section 201.08(1), F.S., in the amount of $75.00, representing the amount due on the $50,000.00 in difference between the amount of the original note and the amended principal sum shown in the Amendment. (Exhibit 2, Stipulation) On October 13, 1975, Respondent issued a Proposed Notice of Assessment of Tax-and Penalty against Petitioners in the amount of $5,400.00 representing $2,700.00 in documentary stamp taxes alleged to be due for "notes and written obligations to pay money, Section 201.08, F.S. "and a penalty in a like amount. The tax asserted was in the sum of $2,775.00, less $75.00 tax paid, based on a taxable value of $1,850,000.00 represented by the Amendment. The amount of tax and penalty is correctly computed, assuming that it is due and payable. (Exhibit 1, Stipulation)
Recommendation That Petitioners be relieved from payment of proposed assessment of documentary stamp tax and penalty as set forth in Proposed Notice of Assessment, dated October 13, 1975. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of November. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edgar M. Moore, Esquire SMITH & MOORE 300 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE R. BARTOW RAINEY, et al., Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 75-1949 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. /
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 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.
The Issue There are two issues raised in this case: Whether the transaction evidenced by the written instrument is taxable-under provisions of Sections 201.08, F.S., 201.01 and 201.08(1), F.S.; and Whether the amendment to the note and mortgage involved in this case is a promissory note taxable pursuant to Section 201.08(1), F.S.
Findings Of Fact There are two issues raised in this case: Whether the written document which evidences the transaction is taxable under the provisions of Sections 201.01 and 201.08(1), F.S.; and Whether the amendment to the note and mortgage involved in this case is a promissory mote or written obligation to pay money and taxable pursuant to Section 201.08(1), F.S. The facts are that on February 28, 1974, the Petitioners, except for Joe R. Hughes, III, and W. Comer Cherry, executed a promissory mote to Lewis State Bank for $405,000 with interest at 10 percent per annum, payable monthly, beginning March 1, 1974, with the entire amount of the principle ($405,000) due on or before February 28, 1975. Said Petitioners executed a mortgage to Lewis State Bank as security for said loan. On April 8, 1975, the due date of the principle was extended to August 28, 1975. The Lewis State Bank then assigned the note and mortgage to Thomas County Federal on July 7, 1975. On July 2 and July 7, 1975, the Petitioners including Hughes and Cherry, but not Rainey, signed the instrument in Tallahassee, Florida, upon which the tax being challenged is assessed. Rainey took the instrument which appears on its face to be an Amendment to the aforementioned Note and Mortgage dated February 28, 1974, to Thomas County Federal Savings and Loan, Thomas County, Georgia. The Amended Note and Mortgage was signed by Rainey and accepted by Thomas County Federal as assignee of said original note and mortgage in Thomas County, Georgia, on July 7, 1975. The other obligors who were jointly and severally liable had signed in Florida. See R-16-21. The purpose of the amendment to the note and mortgage was to refinance the Jefferson Towers Apartments project located in Tallahassee, Florida. See R-14. Thereafter, the money was tendered under the Amendment to Note and. Mortgage, in Georgia, by Thomas County Federal to the agent of the borrowers [Petitioners] Rainey. R-14. The Petitioners, on July 8, 1975, in Leon County, recorded the amendment to note and mortgage, the only instrument reflecting the new outstanding obligation of $412,000 and the only instrument setting forth the Petitioner's promise to pay this new obligation in O. R. Book 724, page 24, et. seq. The Petitioners affixed documentary stamp taxes in the amount of $10.50 on the amendment to the note and mortgage. (See R-21) Whether the instrument entered into between the Petitioners and Thomas County Federal is considered a new obligation or an amendment of the assigned note and mortgage, the essential factors are that the execution and delivery of the instrument, and exchange of the funds therefor occurred in Georgia. Based on the foregoing facts, the Department of Revenue finds as a matter of law that: To be taxed there must be a Florida transaction evidenced by a promissory note or written obligation to pay money. Sec. 201.08(1), F.S. The Amendment to Note and Mortgage involved in this case was made, signed and executed, in the State of Florida, save one signature of the multiple obligors, who were jointly and severally liable and the loan was used in Florida to refinance a Florida project which had been originally financed in Florida. The Amendment to Note and Mortgage, the only instrument reflecting the outstanding obligation of $412,000 and evidencing the Petitioners' promise to pay this new obligation, was recorded in Leon County, Florida, and has all essential factors of a Florida transaction percent thus subject to documentary stamp tax provided for in Sections 201.01 and 201.08(1), F.S. The Amendment to Note and Mortgage clearly evidences a transaction between the Petitioners and Thomas County Federal pursuant to which the Petitioners are obligated to pay suns of money to Thomas County Federal. Such a written obligation to pay money may be exempt if it meets the criteria of Sec. 201.09, F.S. The document in question does not meet the criteria of Sec. 201.09, F.S., because it did not extend or continue only the identical contractual obligations of the original promissory note but there was a substantial change in the principle amount. No documentary stamps have been affixed to the document which was recorded nor is there any notation on the document that said stamps were placed on any other document, except affixing of documentary stamps in the amount of $10.50; therefore, the document in question is subject to tax under Sec. 201.08(1), F.S., in the amount of $607.50 plus penalty at $607.50. Section 201.08(1) and Section 201.17(2), F.S. Regarding the issue of whether the document would have been taxable as an amendment to the original note and mortgage, the Department concurs with the findings of the Hearing Officer that the document does evidence a transaction in which the taxpayer would have been obligated to pay money to the lending institution. Because the principal amount was increased from $406,000 to $412,000 there was a substantial change in principal amount. Therefore, the exemption provision of Section 201.09, F.S., would not apply.
Conclusions The assessment of the Department of Revenue in the amount of $607.50 under Section 201.08(1), F.S., for delinquent documentary stamp taxes on the amendment to Note and Mortgage and the assessment for penalty under Section 201.17(2), F.S., in the amount of $607.50 are valid. CERTIFICATION I certify that the foregoing is the Final Order of the Department of Revenue adopted by the Governor and Cabinet on July 20, 1976. J. Ed Straughn, Executive Director State of Florida Department of Revenue Room 102, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dated this 21st day of July, 1976
Recommendation The Hearing Officer recommends based on the foregoing findings fact and conclusions of law, than neither the tax or penalty be assessed. Done and ordered this 10th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph C. Mellichamp, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Respondent Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Edgar M. Moore, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner Smith and Moore, P.A. P.O. Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE I. RAINEY, JR., et al., Mortgagors; THOMAS COUNTY FEDERAL, Thomasville, Georgia, Mortgagee, Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 75-1899 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. /
