Findings Of Fact The following facts were stipulated to by both Petitioner and Respondent: The Petitioner is a Delaware corporation with its principal office at Toledo, Ohio. The Petitioner qualified to do business in Florida December 31, 1970, and was assigned #825570. The Petitioner did incur a net operating loss for the Fiscal Year ending December 31, 1974, which resulted in a carry forward to 1975 and 1976 for Florida purposes. The 1974 net operating loss for federal income tax purposes amounted to $5,432,905 (as adjusted). For Florida return purposes, net 1974 "Schedule I" additions to federal income were $27,817. Net 1974 "Schedule II" subtractions from federal income per the Florida return as filed were $1,451,951. The apportionment factor for 1974 was 1.5645 percent for Florida tax purposes. The 1975 federal taxable income was $1,295,459. For Florida purposes, net 1975 "Schedule I" additions to federal income were $26,276. Net 1975 "Schedule II" subtractions from federal income per the Florida return as filed were $2,313,813. The apportionment factor for 1975 was 1.5197 percent for Florida tax purposes. The assessment of additional income tax for Fiscal Year ending December 31, 1976, by the Department of Revenue, which is the subject of Petitioner's protest, totals $1,889 resulting from the interpretation of the Florida statutes concerning the amounts mentioned in items 4 through 10 preceding. Total disallowed operation loss carry forward to the year 1976 after apportionment was $37,792. The issue of law involved herein is the interpretation of Section 220.13, Florida Statutes, which section is deemed to control the assessment for Fiscal Year ending December 31, 1976.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, upholding the assessment made by the Department of Revenue, and denying the relief requested herein by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: J. W. Neithercut, Vice President Questor Corporation Post Office Box 317 Toledo, Ohio 43691 William D. Townsend, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Shepard King, Esquire Steel, Hector & Davis 1400 S.E. First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Joseph Z. Fleming, Esquire 25 Southeast Second Avenue Ingraham Building, Suite 620 Miami, Florida 33131
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Florida Welding Services Corp., is a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida. The Respondent, Florida Department of Revenue, is the agency charged with enforcing the taxing statutes of this State, including the Florida Income Tax Code, Chapter 220, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Chapter 220, Florida Statutes, the Petitioner is required to file a Florida Corporate Income Tax Return annually with the Respondent. The Return is due on the first day of the fourth month after the close of the tax year. The Petitioner's tax year for 1977 was April 1, 1976, through March 31, 1977. The Florida Corporation Income Tax Return for the 1977 tax year was due on July 1, 1977, and the Petitioner failed to file its Return by this date. The Petitioner's tax year for 1978 was April 1, 1977, through March 31, 1978. The Florida Corporation Income Tax Return for the 1978 tax year was due on July 1, 1978, and the Petitioner failed to file its Return by this date. In January 1977, all of the Petitioner's corporate records were seized, pursuant to a subpoena issued in the United States Federal District Court in and for the Southern District of Florida. (See Exhibit 1) The Petitioner's records were not returned to it for over a year. On September 15, 1978, the Petitioner filed a Tentative Income Tax Return and Application for Extension of Time to File Income Tax Return, wherein Petitioner requested an extension of time until November 15, 1978, in which to file its Florida income tax return for the 1977 and 1978 tax years. (See Exhibit 2) On October 5, 1978, the Department of Revenue denied the Petitioner's request for an extension of time on grounds that the request had been filed after the respective due dates of July 1, 1977, and July 1, 1978. (See Exhibit 2) On November 16, 1978, the Department of Revenue received Petitioner's Florida Corporation Income Tax Returns for the tax years 1977 and 1978. The Petitioner also remitted the tax it believed owing for each taxable year, $3,734.96 for 1977 and $6,803.56 for 1978. On February 2, 1979, the Department of Revenue, Corporate Income Tax Bureau, issued a Delinquent Notice of Tax Due to the Petitioner. The Notice indicated that the Petitioner had a balance due of $1,547.28 for the tax year ending March 31, 1977, which amount represented $933.74 penalty and $613.54 interest. (See Exhibit 3) On February 5, 1979, the Department of Revenue, Corporate Income Tax Bureau, issued a Delinquent Notice of Tax Due to the Petitioner. The Notice indicated that the Petitioner had a balance due of $1,986.43 for the tax year ending March 31, 1978, which amount represented $1,700.89 penalty and $285.54 interest. (See Exhibit 4) On March 15, 1979, Mr. Karl J. Leib, Jr., contacted the Department of Revenue on behalf of his client, the' Petitioner, requesting the Department to delay in issuing any tax warrants against the Petitioner until Mr. Leib had an opportunity to communicate with someone from the Department. (See Exhibit 5) A follow-up letter was sent by Mr. Leib to the Department on June 8, 1979. (See Exhibit 6) On April, 23, 1980, the Department of Revenue issued to the Petitioner a Final Notice and Demand for payment in the amount of $1,547.28. (See Exhibit 7) Although no Final Notice and Demand for payment in the amount of $1,986.43 was issued by the Department, the amount is still outstanding and the Department maintains that Petitioner owes this sum as well. It is the Petitioner's position that its inability to timely file its Florida Corporate Income Tax Returns was entirely due to factors beyond its control, i.e., the confiscation of its corporate records. The Petitioner maintains that it should not be assessed penalty and interest for late filing, as its failure to timely file was "due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect," as is provided for in Section 214.40(1), Florida Statutes. The Department's position is twofold. First, the Petitioner's failure to make a timely request for extension of time in which to file its return does constitute willful neglect. Second, that while Section 214.40(1), Florida Statutes, may provide the Department with some discretion in assessing penalties, there is no comparable provision for modifying interest payments and such amount is absolutely mandated by the statute for any late filed returns. In addition to the foregoing, along with the attached Exhibits, the undersigned hereby incorporate by reference and jointly offer as evidence those Exhibits attached to Petitioner's Request for Formal Proceedings. WHEREFORE, both parties respectfully request the Hearing Officer to consider the foregoing facts and exhibits, along with a Memoranda of Law to be filed by each party within 10 days of the filing of this Joint Stipulation, and to issue his Recommended Order, without the necessity of holding a formal hearing.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the taxpayer owes use tax, penalty and interest on the purchase of tangible personal property under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Iseaseal, LLC, a Delaware corporation, has its principal place of business at 695 East Main Street, Suite 103, Stamford, Connecticut. Its federal employer identification number is 06-1600000. On November 22, 2000, the taxpayer purchased a 1982, 72-foot, Hatteras CPMY yacht, named “Windcrest,” with hull number HATBN3270182 and 60 net tons of admeasurement. The purchase was made through a registered yacht broker. The yacht’s sales price was $725,000. On November 21, 2000, at the closing for the yacht, the taxpayer’s managing member, Paul Bakker, signed an Affidavit for Exemption of Boat Sold for Removal from the State of Florida by a Nonresident Purchaser. The yacht was also registered with the Coast Guard. However, to date, the yacht has not been registered or titled in Florida or any other U.S. state or territory. The taxpayer took possession of the yacht at Pier 66, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on November 22, 2000. Also, on November 22, 2000, the taxpayer was issued a 90-day decal known as a “cruising decal.” A cruising decal, with certain restrictions, exempts the purchase of a yacht from sales tax if the purchaser agrees to remove the yacht from Florida within 90 days after the date of purchase and does remove the purchased yacht. On December 28, 2000, the taxpayer removed the yacht from Florida to the Bahamas. The removal occurred within 90 days after the purchase date. As a result, the sale became exempt from Florida sales tax and the Petitioner did not pay Florida sales tax on the purchase of the yacht. On January 15, 2001, the taxpayer returned the yacht to Florida for repairs. A repair bill shows that the yacht remained at the repair facility for four and a half hours on January 16, 2001. The repair visit was within six months after the departure date of December 28, 2000. There was no evidence that the repair facility was registered with the Department of Revenue or how long the boat remained in Florida waters. The yacht also returned to Florida for repairs on May 21, 2001. Again there was no evidence that the repair facility was registered or how long the boat remained in Florida waters. The evidence did not establish that the tax exemption related to use of Florida waters for 20 days or repairing a boat in Florida apply. Since the purchase date, the Petitioner has leased mooring space in Florida. The Petitioner’s insurance policy also indicates that the yacht was moored in Florida and includes a Florida endorsement for such mooring. Additionally, the Petitioner reported to Connecticut’s Department of Revenue that the yacht was exempt from Connecticut sales tax because the yacht was purchased and berthed in the State of Florida. Based on copies of the bill of sale, closing statement, banking statements, credit card statements, mortgage documents, insurance agreements, mooring agreements, repair and parts receipts and a chronological listing of the yacht’s whereabouts since the date of purchase, the yacht has operated, and continues to operate, in Florida waters. Indeed, the yacht remained in Florida for more than 183 days from July 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002. Moreover, since September 11, 2002, the yacht has been moored or stored in Florida the majority of the time because the main users of the yacht lost interest in sailing the yacht and travel after the terrorist attack on the twin towers in New York City. The Department found that the Petitioner was liable for use tax on its use and storage of the yacht here in Florida. On May 5, 2004, the Department issued an enforcement billing to the Petitioner for use tax, penalty and interest, pursuant to Sections 212.05(1)(a)2 and 212.06(8), Florida Statutes. The Department assessed the Petitioner use tax and interest based on the sales price of the yacht. The Department also assessed the Petitioner a mandatory penalty equal to the tax because it returned the yacht to Florida within six months of the departure date. The Petitioner admitted that, through ignorance of Florida’s tax exemption law, he violated Chapter 212, but argues that the assessment of tax, interest and mandatory penalty is excessive. On May 24, 2004, the Department issued the Petitioner a Notice of Final Assessment for Sales and Use Tax, Penalty and Interest Due. The Notice set forth the basis for the assessment of tax, in the sum of $43,500, penalty, in the sum of $43,500, and interest, in the sum of $14,759.84, plus additional interest that accrues at the rate of $10.73 per day. The Department issued the Petitioner the Final Assessment because it returned the yacht to Florida within six months of the departure date and the yacht remained in Florida for more than 183 days in a calendar year. Since the Petitioner returned the yacht to Florida within 6 months of the purchase date and allowed the yacht to remain in Florida for more than 183 days in a calendar year, the Petitioner is liable for use tax, penalty and interest in the use and storage of the yacht in Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Revenue enter a final order upholding the assessment of use tax, penalty and interest against the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Bakker Iseaseal, LLC 695 East Main Street Stamford, Connecticut 06901 Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Revenue Litigation Section Plaza Level 01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Bruce Hoffman, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to the repayment of funds paid to the State Treasury through overpayment or error, in relation to use taxes? The refund claim is $37,837.91. See Section 215.26, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Rathon Corporation, formerly known as Diversey Corporation, is a Delaware Corporation authorized to do business in Florida. It manufactures various detergents, cleaners, and soaps, and the equipment to dispense those products. The products are marketed in Florida and other states. The customers of the products include hotels, hospitals, factories, and restaurants. The devices that dispense the detergents, cleaners, and soaps are referred to as "feeders." Those feeders can range from simple hand soap dispensers to electronically regulated machines that inject soap into commercial dishwashers. The feeders are loaned to Petitioner's customers at no additional charge for the period of time that the customer continues to purchase the product(s) dispensed by the feeder. These circumstances existed in the period of July 1993 through March 1995. In the period of July 1993 through March 1995, Diversey Corporation, now Rathon Corporation, paid the State of Florida $58,969.22 in use tax associated with the feeders. During the period in question, the Petitioner manufactured the feeders at a facility in Santa Cruz, California. The feeders were not warehoused in the Santa Cruz facility for an extended period. They were prepared for shipment and shipped to customers in the various states, to include Florida and California customers, to be used in the places of business operated by the customers. The feeders being shipped were not packaged with other products. During the period July 1993 through March 1995, the Petitioner not only paid use tax to Florida for the feeders, it paid use tax in forty-four other states and the District of Columbia, based upon the costs of manufacturing the feeders. California was among the other forty-four states. During the period in question, Petitioner accrued and paid use taxes to Florida and California limited to the feeders used by customers in those states, based upon the product sales allocation method it used in relation to the forty-three other states and the District of Columbia. The feeders that were provided to Florida customers were shipped by common carrier. Upon their arrival in Florida no tax had been paid to California pertaining to those feeders. When the feeders arrived in Florida during the period at issue, use tax would be remitted to Florida. Subsequently, the Petitioner paid the State of California a use tax associated with the feeders that had been shipped to Florida customers and upon which a use tax had been imposed by the State of Florida and paid. The California payment is described in detail below. Petitioner had paid Florida use tax on the feeders shipped to Florida customers based on the total manufactured cost of the feeders to Petitioner, including materials, labor, and overhead. The additional use tax paid to California for those feeders was based only on the cost of materials. The overall costs of feeders allocated to Florida for the refund period was $982,803.00. Petitioner remitted a 6% use tax to Florida totaling $58,969.22 for the period in question. In 1996, Petitioner was audited for sales and use tax compliance by the State of California. That audit process included the refund period that is in question in this case, July 1993 through March 1995. Following the audit, the State of California issued a Notice of Determination asserting additional liability for tax and interest that totaled $355,753.95. Petitioner paid that assessment. The California auditor had arrived at the assessment by concluding that Petitioner owed California for 44.57% of all feeders manufactured at Petitioner's Santa Cruz facility. The 44.57% represented all newly manufactured feeders that had been loaned by Petitioner to its customers during the refund period over the entire United States. As a consequence, the assessment of use tax by the State of California included tax on feeders for which Petitioner had paid Florida $58,969.22 in use tax prior to the California assessment of $355,753.95. Petitioner did not apply for credit in California for the portion of the $355,753.95 that would relate to the feeders brought to Florida during the period in question. Petitioner took no action to obtain a credit on the amount paid to Florida as a means to reduce the California tax obligation pursuant to the 1996 audit, because Petitioner had been told that the use tax for the feeders used by Florida customers was legally due in California and not in Florida. In arriving at the determination that 44.57% of the feeders manufactured during the period in question had been loaned to customers within the continental United States, the California auditor took into account that 21.8% of the feeders and feeder parts were sold for export, leaving 78.2% to be used in the United States. Of the 78.2% remaining for the United States, 57% were complete feeders sent to customers within the United States, and 43% were repair parts that were sent to Petitioner's Cambridge Division in Maryland, where those repair parts were being stored for future use. The percentage of 44.57% was arrived at by multiplying 57% times 78.2%, representing the percent of total feeders manufactured for use in the United States that were sent to customers within the United States and not held in inventory as repair parts. Again, California based its use tax for tangible personal property manufactured in that state to include only the cost of materials. Consequently, when the California auditor computed use tax to be collected by California using the 44.57% of total feeders manufactured to be used in the United States by Petitioner's customers in the United States, the California auditor used a cost factor of 55% of overall costs which was attributable to the cost of materials only. The total cost of feeders manufactured by Petitioner in California during the period in question, as related in the California tax audit, was $19,028,714.00. The total cost manufactured for use in the United States was $8,481,098.00, representing 44.57% of the overall cost of manufacturing. When the $8,481.098.00 is multiplied by 55%, representing the cost of materials only, the total costs of the goods subject to the use tax for the period in question is $4,664,604.00. A use tax rate of 7% was applied against the amount of $4,664,604.00. To attribute the portion of use tax paid to California following the 1996 audit associated with feeders that had been sent to Florida during the period in question, the answer is derived by multiplying $982,803.00 by 55% for a total of $540,542.00, and in turn multiplying that amount by 7%, the rate of tax imposed by California. That total is $37,837.91 in use tax that was subsequently paid to California after $58,962.22 had been paid to Florida for use tax on the same feeders. Diversey Corporation sought a tax refund in the amount of $58,977.00, through an application dated August 8, 1996, in relation to the period July 1993 through March. Eventually through the decision by the Respondent in its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial dated July 16, 1997, Respondent refused to grant the refund of $58,977.00. At present, Petitioner requests that it be given a refund of $37,837.91, which represents the portion of use tax paid to Florida that has been duplicated in a payment of use tax to California. Respondent, in its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial entered on July 16, 1997, and based upon the facts adduced at the final hearing, premises its proposed agency action denying the refund request upon the language set for in Section 212.06(1)(a) and (7), Florida Statutes. The determination to deny the refund request was not based upon reliance on Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code. The theory for denying the refund is premised upon Respondent's argument that use tax was due to Florida, "as of the moment" feeders arrived in Florida for use in Petitioner's business operations associated with its customers. Petitioner then paid the use tax to Florida at the time the feeders arrived in Florida. Having not paid California Use Tax prior to paying Florida Use Tax, Respondent concludes, through its proposed agency action, that it need not refund to Petitioner the use taxes it paid to California at a later date. Petitioner had referred to Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, following receipt of the Notice of Proposed Refund Denial issued on December 9, 1996, possibly creating the impression that Petitioner believed that Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, would support its claim for refund. It later developed that Petitioner did not have in mind reliance upon Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, to support its claim for refund. Instead, Petitioner made reference to that rule and specifically Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, as a means to perfect a challenge to Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 15, 1997, claiming that the challenged rule was an invalid exercise of authority. That challenge was assigned DOAH Case No. 97-5908RX. In summary, notwithstanding Petitioner's argument to the contrary, Respondent has never relied upon Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, or any other part of that rule in its proposed agency action denying the refund request. Absent Petitioner's affirmative reliance upon Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, the rule has no part to play in resolving this dispute.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's request for repayment of funds paid to the State Treasury in the amount of $37,837.91, paid as use taxes for all years in question, be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Michael Madsen, Esquire Vickers, Madsen, and Goldman, LLP Suite 101 1705 Metropolitan Boulevard CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1998. Tallahassee, Florida 32308-3765 John N. Upchurch, Esquire James McCauley, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 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 The parties have agreed that there are no issues of fact to be determined in this matter, and that the relevant facts are set out in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Petition which was received in evidence at the hearing as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. This matter involves a determination for Florida corporate income tax purposes of the net income derived by the Petitioner in connection with the purchase, development, and sale of certain property in Dade County, Florida. Petitioner purchased the property prior to January 1, 1972, the date upon which the Florida Income Tax Code became effective. Petitioner expended, through a subsidiary corporation, $369,058 in developing the property. These expenditures also occurred prior to January 1, 1972. For Federal income tax purposes the Petitioner had deducted these expenditures as business expenses during the years that they were incurred. Petitioner sold the property during 1972. Because the Petitioner had deducted the expenditures as business expenses, the expenditures could not properly have been included in the base price of the property for Federal income tax purposes, and the net income for Federal tax purposes was computed by subtracting the original purchase price from the sale price. Since the Florida Income Tax Code was not in effect at the time the expenditures were made, the Petitioner received no Florida tax benefit for the expenditures. In computing the net income for Florida tax purposes derived from the sale, the Petitioner included the expenditures in the base price of the property, and calculated its net income by subtracting the sum of the purchase price of the property and the expenditures from the sale price. The Department, contending that the $369,058 should not have been included in the base price of the property, issued a deficiency assessment which reflected the net income from the sale of property as the difference between the sale price and the purchase price. Petitioner originally contended that it was entitled to add the amount that the property appreciated prior to January 1, 1972 to the base price of the property. Petitioner is no longer contesting the deficiency assessment based upon a disallowance of that addition to the base price of the property. The Department was originally contending that it was entitled to interest at 12 percent per annum calculated retrospectively from the due date of the alleged deficiency. The Department has agreed to abandon its effort to impose that rate of interest. The issue raised in this case is whether the development expenses incurred by the Petitioner and deducted for Federal income tax purposes as business expenses prior to 1972 can be subtracted from Federal taxable income for the purpose of determining taxable income derived from the sale for Florida tax purposes.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business and domicile in Texas, has an obligation to collect and remit Florida sales taxes on sales it made to a Massachusetts-domiciled corporation, in view of the facts found below.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a Delaware Corporation whose principal place of business is in Austin, Texas. The Petitioner designs, develops, and markets portable computer equipment, chiefly portable "tablet" personal computers with related "peripherals," which it sells and delivers in multiple states, including Florida. It sells these products to "re-sellers" and distributors, as well as to "end users." The Petitioner, by the Department's admission in Exhibit "A" (audit) does not maintain a physical presence in the State of Florida. It does employ one sales person for business in Florida, but maintains no warehouse or other facilities, vehicles nor other indicia of physical locations or operation in the state of Florida. The Petitioner is registered as a "dealer" with the State of Florida, Department of Revenue under the Florida Sales and Use Tax Law. The Petitioner does engage in some sales to Florida "end customers" or to re-sale purchasers in Florida. These transactions, however, are not at issue in this case. The dispute solely relates to transactions between the Petitioner and Advantec Computer System, Inc., of Marlboro, Massachusetts. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the regulation, control, administration, and enforcement of the sales and use tax laws of the State of Florida embodied in Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and as implemented by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 12A-1. The Respondent conducted an audit of the books and records of the Petitioner, resulting in this proceeding, for the audit period April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2006. That audit was conducted by Xena Francis, and revealed, according to the Department's position, a purported sales tax payment deficiency on the part of the Petitioner in the above-referenced amounts. The Department, upon completion of the audit, issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, thus advising the Petitioner of the amount of the tax penalty and interest it was assessing as a result of the audit. The transactions which the Department maintained were questionable, in terms of taxes not being paid with regard thereto, were those where the Petitioner sold computer products to entities who did not produce to the Petitioner a certificate of exemption from collection of sales tax by Florida on that transaction, and where the product was shipped by the Petitioner into Florida by common carrier. The Department essentially takes the position that, since the Petitioner has a state sales and use tax "dealer certificate," that it is responsible to prove any transactions as being exempt from the relevant taxing provisions of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and the above rule chapter. The Department apparently presumes as a part of this position that the fact that the product in question was shipped to ultimate users in Florida by common carrier from the Petitioner's place of business outside the state that such were Florida sales tax transactions. It thus contends that the burden is on the Petitioner to prove that they are exempt from such tax and collection. After it was advised of the audit findings and the basis for the assessment, the Petitioner provided to the Department certain exemption certificates for a number of the entities and transactions for which shipment had not been made into Florida. The Department accepted these and the assessment was adjusted downward to reflect the exempt status of those transactions, pursuant to the further information provided the Department by the Petitioner. The other disputed transactions for which no exemption certificate was provided by the Petitioner, were deemed by the auditor to be taxable. In essence, the auditor took the position, as does the Department, that every person making sales into the State of Florida is subject to sales and use tax unless specifically exempt and that it is incumbent upon the selling dealer (which it maintains is the Petitioner) to establish the exempt status of the transaction, at the time of sale, with a supporting re-sale certificate or some documentation to support the transactions, exempt status.1/ The sales which are the subject of this dispute are exclusively those between the Petitioner and Advantec Computer Systems, Inc. Advantec is a Massachusetts Incorporated and domiciled corporation. It apparently does not possess a Florida "re-sale certificate" or "dealer certificate." The Petitioner sold various computers and related products, as shown by the invoices in evidence, to Advantec. The invoices and the testimony adduced by the Petitioner established that those sales were between the Petitioner and Advantec, the Massachusetts corporation. Advantec, in turn, sold the products or some of them to Florida customers. Those customers did not pay the Petitioner for the sales, but paid Advantec. Advantec directed that delivery from the Petitioner be made not to Advantec itself, but to its Florida-end customer via common carrier from the Petitioner's out-of-state location or from its overseas supplier. In any event, delivery was made from outside Florida to the Florida Advantec customers by common carrier. The Petitioner billed no Florida customer and had no relationship with any Florida customer of Advantec. Instead it invoiced and billed Advantec for the price of the products involved on a "net 30-day" basis. Advantec would then pay the Petitioner for the amount invoiced by the Petitioner to Advantec. As to the Advantec sales at issue, there was no nexus, substantial or otherwise, between the Petitioner and Advantec's customers in Florida, except that the product was "drop shipped" from the Petitioner's relevant location out of the State of Florida to the Florida customer by common carrier, not by any vehicle owned, leased, or operated by any person or entity affiliated with the Petitioner. In fact, the deliveries in question were made by Federal Express as a drop shipment. Advantec's principal business activity is the re-sale and distribution of computers and related products. It has no presence in Florida and is not a registered dealer in Florida. When the Petitioner made the sales to Advantec Computer Systems, as shown by the invoices and testimony in evidence, it billed Advantec for the sales and did not collect sales tax. While the Petitioner has in its possession Advantec's Massachusetts-issued tax-exempt certificate, the Petitioner does not have a Florida tax-exempt certificate on-file for Advantec, because Advantec is not registered in Florida, and the sale by the Petitioner to Advantec is a Massachusetts sale with no Florida nexus. The Petitioner offered three Technical Assistance Advisements (TAA) into evidence, which it obtained from the Department in support of the fact that the transactions in question are not taxable. (See Exhibits 2, 3, 4 in evidence.) These exhibits were admitted on a limited basis over the Department's objection as being possibly material to a determination as to the weight and credibility of the Department's evidence in this case, but not as being legally binding or constituting legal precedent, which last quality is precluded by Section 213.22(1), Florida Statutes (2006). Additionally, the Petitioner offered and had admitted Petitioner's Exhibit 7, which was an e-mail received from a representative of the Department, in response to an inquiry by the Petitioner. This was admitted over hearsay objection as a party statement offered by the opposing party.2/ In that exchange between the Petitioner and the Department, the Petitioner, as shown by testimony and the exhibit, related the facts involved in the sales to Advantec. The Department's response indicated that, if indeed, the buyer and seller were both located outside the State of Florida and the goods when purchased were outside the State of Florida, then the sale is not a Florida sale, between the out-of-state buyer and the out- of-state seller (the Petitioner). If the goods were then delivered by common carrier to the out-of-state buyer's ultimate customers in Florida, from the Petitioner's out-of-state location, then the transaction between the Petitioner and the out-of-state buyer is not subject to the Florida sales tax law and, in essence, is non-jurisdictional, not as a "Florida nexus sale." In summary, the Petitioner sold the goods in question to Advantec and invoiced Advantec at its Massachusetts domicile and address on "net 30-day" term. No Florida customer, person, or entity was billed for the sales in question, nor was any payment collected from any individual or business entity located in the State of Florida. Once the sale was consummated between the Petitioner and Advantec, the Petitioner merely "dropped shipped," by common carrier, the goods purchased by Advantec to Advantec's ultimate customer located in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Revenue, vacating and dismissing the assessment of the subject sales tax and interest to the Petitioner, Motion Computing, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of December, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner ("DEPARTMENT") is entitled to assess sales or use taxes, penalties, and interest against Respondent ("VOLPE") pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, as set out in its Notice of Proposed Assessment dated March 20, 1980.
Findings Of Fact During 1975-1977, VOLPE was a general contractor engaged in the construction of a United States Post Office and Vehicle Maintenance Facility at Miami, Florida. In connection with that construction project, VOLPE purchased materials from numerous subcontractors, including Hardware Lighting and Emporium, and Jemco, Inc. (Testimony of Alford, Danca; P.E. 2, 3) On March 8, 1979, after audit of VOLPE's records, the DEPARTMENT proposed to assess VOLPE for delinquent sales and use tax, together with interest and penalties thereon, which it claimed were due from VOLPE's purchase of materials from various subcontractors. The DEPARTMENT's proposed assessment was based on its inability to verify, to its satisfaction, that sales and use tax due from those sales transactions was paid by VOLPE to the vendors, and subsequently remitted to the DEPARTMENT. (Testimony of Alford, P.E. 3.) With the DEPARTMENT's encouragement, VOLPE then wrote its vendors in the various sales transactions requesting proof that the requisite Florida sales or use tax had been remitted to the DEPARTMENT. In response, two vendors, Ohio Medical Products and Power Wash, remitted tax vendors, (collected from VOLPE at time of sale) to the DEPARTMENT, in the amounts of $10,070 and $1,635.50, respectively. In addition, VOLPE discovered that it had not paid the requisite tax to a vendor in one transaction and remitted a payment to the DEPARTMENT in the amount of $1,442.53. (Testimony of Danca, Alford, P.E. 1.) These late tax payments made by Ohio Medical Products, Power Wash, and VOLPE in partial satisfaction of the DEPARTMENT's March 8, 1979, proposed assessment consisted only of the tax due on the individual sales, including interest thereon. No penalty payments were made because Salvatore Danca, VOLPE's comptroller involved in collecting the sales tax from the various vendors, reasonably and in good faith believed that the DEPARTMENT would waive penalties if late tax payments were promptly submitted. Although Louis A. Crocco, the DEPARTMENT's representative, by affidavit denies making such a representation, he admits that the possibility of adjusting the penalties, otherwise due, was discussed with Danca. In the absence of more explicit evidence from the DEPARTMENT concerning those discussions, or attacking the credibility of Danca's testimony, it is determined that, based on discussions with DEPARTMENT representatives, Danca reasonably and in good faith believed penalties would be waived. (Testimony of Danca; P.E. 1, 6, R.E. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.) As a result of partial payments and adjustments made to the DEPARTMENT's proposed sales and use tax assessment, the DEPARTMENT issued a fourth revision of the proposed assessment on March 20, 1980. By that revision, the DEPARTMENT asserts VOLPE, as of March 20, 1980, is liable for payment of tax, interest, and penalties as follows: Sales Transaction Sales And Use Tax Due Interest Penalties (25 Percent) Jemco, Inc., sale of mechanization equipment to VOLPE, per agreement dated December 5, 1975. $16,229.53 $4,047.88 Hardware, Lighting and Emporium, sale of finished hardware and accessories to VOLPE per VOLPE Purchase Order dated October 2, 1975. 1,556.10 389.02 Ohio Medical Products' Power Wash's, and unidenti- fied vendor's sale to VOLPE for which late payments of tax due and interest have been made. -0- 2,737.43 TOTAL: $17,856.10 $5,779.42 $7,174.33 (Testimony of Alford, Danca, 3.) Stipulation of Counsel; P.E. 1, 2, [AS TO JEMCO, INC./VOLPE TRANSACTION] By its standard Agreement dated December 5, 1975, VOLPE agreed to purchase from Jemco, Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas, post office mechanization equipment for the contract price of $347,900. Subsequent change orders resulted in an adjustment to $405,689.70. In order to minimize on-site installation problems, Jemco, Inc., was required to maximize assembly of the mechanization equipment at its out-of-state plant prior to shipping to the Miami job site. (Testimony of Danca; P.E. 2, R.E. 1.) The written sales Agreement, including attachments, between Jemco, Inc., and VOLPE expressly states, in three separate places, that the total contract sales price includes Florida sales tax. The DEPARTMENT admits that VOLPE has paid all monies due Jemco, Inc., under the contract. By virtue of its full payment of the contract price which expressly included sales tax, it must be concluded that VOLPE paid the requisite sales or use tax to Jemco, Inc. (Stipulation of Counsel; P.E. 2.) VOLPE's standard form, entitled "Subcontractor's Application for Payment" was used as a basis to make incremental payments to Jemco, Inc., pursuant to the Agreement. That form required the subcontractor to certify that, among other things, it had complied with state tax laws applicable to performance of the Agreement. (Testimony of Danca; R.E. 11.) VOLPE's actions in connection with the Jemco, Inc., sales transaction were consistent with its standard practice when entering contracts with vendors or subcontractors. That practice is to require that the sales price include the payment of necessary sales tax, the vendor or subcontractor is required to remit the required tax to the appropriate government entity. After performance of the contract, the subcontractor is required to certify that these requirements have been satisfied. The certification is in the form of a General Release which discharges VOLPE from all claims, debts and liabilities which the subcontractor may have against VOLPE because of the contract. In this case, Jemco, Inc., executed such a General Release in favor of VOLPE. (Testimony of Danca; R.E. 1.) The DEPARTMENT has not audited Jemco, Inc.'s records, thus, it does not know whether the tax it seeks to assess against VOLPE has already been remitted by Jemco, Inc. (Testimony of Alford.) The DEPARTMENT offered no affirmative evidence to contravene VOLPE's assertion that it had paid the requisite sales or use tax to Jemco, Inc. Its claim rests solely on the fact that VOLPE's evidence of payment does not contain a sales invoice or other documentation which itemizes, or separately states the amount of sales tax due from VOLPE. [AS TO HARDWARE AND LIGHTING EMPORIUM TRANSACTION] By purchase agreement dated October 2, 1975, VOLPE agreed to purchase finished hardware from Hardware and Lighting Emporium of Miami, Florida, for the contract price of $23,877, which expressly included Florida state sales tax. Each billing invoice issued by Hardware and Lighting Emporium separately itemizes and states the Florida sales tax due. In applying for payment under the agreement, Hardware and Lighting Emporium completed the VOLPE "Subcontractor's Application for Payment" forms certifying compliance with state sales tax laws in performing the agreement. VOLPE has fully satisfied its payment obligations under the purchase agreement. (Testimony of Danca; P.E. 3, R.E. 9, 10.)
Conclusions Conclusions: VOLPE established by a preponderance of evidence that it previously paid to its several vendors the sales and use tax which the DEPARTMENT now seeks. Accordingly, the proposed tax assessment, with penalties and interest thereon, cannot be sustained. Recommendation: That the DEPARTMENT's Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties, and Interest, under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, dated March 20, 1980, be DISMISSED. Background By written notice issued on March 20, 1980, Petitioner ("DEPARTMENT") proposed to assess Respondent ("VOLPE") taxes, penalties, and interest allegedly due pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. In response, VOLPE claimed that it had previously paid the tax in question, and requested an opportunity to submit proof at a formal hearing. On April 17, 1980, the DEPARTMENT forwarded VOLPE's request to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and asked that the requested hearing be conducted by a hearing officer. On May 15, 1980, final hearing was set for July 18, 1980. On June 17, 1980, the DEPARTMENT filed a motion to realign the parties. As grounds, it stated that VOLPE had the burden of proof, and the duty to present a prima facie case at hearing since VOLPE requested the hearing and was the party seeking relief. At the DEPARTMENT's request, ruling on its motion was withheld until presentation of arguments at final hearing. At hearing, the DEPARTMENT's motion was denied for the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law below. In support of its proposed assessment against VOLPE, the DEPARTMENT called Marvin P. Alford, a tax examiner, as its only witness, and offered Petitioner's Exhibits 1/ 1 through 6, inclusive, each of which was received into evidence. VOLPE called Salvatore Danca, its comptroller, and Harold G. Gregory, its branch manager, as its witnesses, and offered Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 11, inclusive, each of which was received. At the conclusion of hearing, the parties were granted the opportunity to submit proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and memoranda within ten (10) days after filing of the transcript of hearing. The post-hearing submittals were filed by August 21, 1980. Based on the evidence submitted at hearing, the following facts are determined:
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the DEPARTMENT's Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties, and Interest, Under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, dated March 20, 1980, be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1980.
The Issue The two issues for determination are: (1) whether Rhinehart Equipment Co. (Rhinehart) a foreign corporation domiciled in Rome, Georgia, during the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005, had "substantial nexus" with the state of Florida through its advertising, sale, and delivery into Florida of new and used heavy tractor equipment, sufficient to require it to collect and remit sales tax generated by these sales to the Florida tax authorities; and (2) Whether the applicable statute of limitations for assessing sale tax had expired when DOR issued its "final assessment" on September 11, 2009.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Rhinehart Equipment Co. (“Rhinehart”) is a retail heavy equipment dealer located in Rome, Georgia, and does not own or maintain a showroom or office location in Florida or directly provide financing to any Florida resident for any of its sales. Rhinehart does not provide Florida customers with any after-sale services such as assembly, technical advice, or maintenance. Rhinehart does not have any employees residing in Florida. Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the regulation, control, administration, and enforcement of the sales and use tax laws of the state of Florida embodied in Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and as implemented by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 12A-1. Background In early March 2005, the Department received an anonymous tip pursuant to section 213.30, Florida Statutes. The caller alleged that Rhinehart was selling equipment to Florida residents without including sales and use tax in the sales price and was delivering the equipment to Florida customers using its own trucks. The tipster also alleged that Rhinehart was advertising in a commercial publication Heavy Equipment Trader, Florida Edition. By letter dated March 31, 2005, Respondent contacted Rhinehart and advised that its business activities in the state might be such as to require Rhinehart to register as a “dealer” for purposes of assessing Florida sales and use tax, and that it could be required to file corporate income tax returns, potentially subjecting it to liability for other Florida taxes. Included with this letter was a questionnaire for Rhinehart to complete and return to the Department "to assist us in determining whether Nexus exists between your company and the State of Florida." On May 2, 2005, Rhinehart, without the advice of counsel, responded to the Department’s inquiry by returning the completed questionnaire, which was signed by its president, Mark Easterwood. By letter addressed to Mr. Easterwood dated May 4, 2005, the Department advised that it had determined that Rhinehart had nexus with the state of Florida and that therefore Rhinehart was required to register as a dealer to collect and remit Florida sales and use tax. According to the letter, the Department's determination was "based on the fact that your company makes sales to Florida customers and uses the company's own truck to deliver goods to customers in the State of Florida." By application effective July 1, 2005, Rhinehart registered to collect and/or report sales and use tax to the state of Florida, In a letter dated June 8, 2005, the Department invited Rhinehart to self-disclose any tax liability that it may have incurred during the three-year period prior to its registration effective date, to wit, July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005 (the audit period). Specifically, the letter stated: At this time, we would like to extend an opportunity for you to self-disclose any tax liability that you may have incurred prior to your registration effective date (for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005). This Self-Disclosure Program affords you an opportunity to pay any applicable tax and interest due for the prior three-year period (or when Nexus was first established) without penalty assessments. In response to the Department's June 8, 2005, letter, Rhinehart's legal counsel sent a letter dated August 8, 2005, requesting a meeting or conference call to discuss a "few legal issues" concerning the Department’s determination regarding nexus. Thereafter, Rhinehart began filing the required tax returns relating to its Florida sales, noting in writing by cover letter that the returns were being filed “under protest.” Rhinehart began collecting and remitting sales and use tax starting in July 2005. However, Rhinehart declined to provide any information regarding sales made prior to July 1, 2005. On September 30, 2005, Rhinehart's legal counsel sent the Department a detailed protest letter and advised that, in Rhinehart's view: (1) the Department had not established “substantial nexus” with Florida as interpreted under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution; and (2) Rhinehart was not required to register as a Florida dealer for sales and use tax purposes. On May 23, 2008, the Department issued a "Notice of Intent to Make an Assessment," and on September 11, 2009, a "Notice of Final Assessment," for the audit period. The assessment totaled $354,839.30, which was comprised of $229,695.00 in taxes and $125,144.30 in interest. The assessment was calculated by Respondent using Rhinehart’s sales tax returns filed from July 2005 through March 2008. The Notice of Final Assessment advised Rhinehart that the final assessment would become binding agency action unless timely protested or contested through the informal protest process, or by filing a complaint in circuit court or petition for an administrative hearing. Rhinehart unsuccessfully sought to resolve the matter through informal review and then ultimately filed its petition seeking an administrative hearing to challenge the Department's September 11, 2009, assessment. Based on sales records and other information provided by Rhinehart, on March 9, 2011, the Department revised its September 11, 2009, assessment. The revised assessment totaled $380,967.89, which included the past due sales and use tax liability, and interest accrued through that date. Rhinehart's Florida Activities Rhinehart produced records of its sales to Florida customers during the audit period. Those records reflected sales to 116 different Florida customers as follows: one sale in the second-half of 2002; 12 sales in 2003; 84 sales in 2004; and 19 sales thorough June 2005. The total value of the merchandise sold to Florida residents was $2,928,981.00. The majority of Rhinehart's sales during the audit period were "sight unseen" by the customer, and were negotiated by telephone. Numerous hurricanes made landfall in Florida during the 2004 and 2005 hurricane season. Since 2005, Rhinehart’s sales to Florida customers have substantially dropped, with no sales occurring in some quarters. During the audit period Rhinehart accepted a number of trade-ins toward the purchase of new equipment. The records showed trade-in transactions as follows: none (0) in 2002; five (5) in 2003; eleven (11) in 2004; and none in 2005. Concurrent with the delivery of the new equipment purchased from Rhinehart, used equipment taken in trade was transported by Rhinehart employees using Rhinehart transport equipment back to Rhinehart’s location in Georgia. In these instances, the trade-in equipment remained with the Florida customer following negotiation of the sale and prior to Rhinehart physically taking possession of it. During the audit period the equipment accepted as trade-ins had a total value of $168,915.00. The valuation of trade-in equipment was done based on a customer’s representations (i.e. sight unseen, with no Rhinehart employee personally inspected the equipment) and pursuant to industry guidelines. Rhinehart’s drivers would deliver the purchased equipment, load any trade-in equipment, and return to Georgia, if possible, on the same day. To the extent that the Department of Transportation regulations mandated that they cease driving in a given day, the drivers would rest in the back of their trucks for the required amount of time, sometimes overnight, and then complete their journey back to Georgia. Rhinehart's dealership is located approximately 300 miles north of the Florida state line. Sales invoices reflect that Rhinehart's customers were located throughout the state of Florida, as far south as Miami on the east coast and Naples on the west coast. During the audit period, Rhinehart placed advertisements with with the Trader Publishing Company, located in Clearwater, Florida. The Trader Publishing Company is the publisher of the Heavy Equipment Trader magazine which is distributed in Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee. Trader Publishing Company publishes a "Florida Edition" of the magazine which is directed to potential heavy equipment customers located in Florida. Stipulated Exhibit 19 consists of advertising invoices for advertisements placed by Rhinehart in the Florida Edition of Heavy Equipment Trader magazine during the audit period. These invoices establish that Rhinehart regularly and systematically purchased advertising for its products which was targeted toward potential customers located in Florida.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Revenue: Confirming that substantial nexus existed during the audit period and that Petitioner was therefore subject to the taxing authority of the state of Florida; Confirming that the assessment at issue is not time- barred; Allowing Petitioner a reasonable period of time to determine whether any of the sales it made during the audit period would have qualified as exempt sales pursuant to section 212.08(3) and if so, to obtain the required certifications from the purchasers; and Imposing on Petitioner an assessment for the unpaid taxes, with accrued interest, for all sales during the audit period not qualifying for exemption. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 27th day of August, 2012.
The Issue Broadly stated, the issue in this proceeding the validity of the proposed deficiency in petitioner's corporate income in the amount of $25,712.80 for the 1972 fiscal year. More specifically, the issue is whether Florida may lawfully tax for the gain it realized on the sale of securities in the of $941,418.00. Included within this issue is the question of whether the apportionment formula set forth in Florida Statutes is applicable to petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the pleadings, the stipulations the parties and the record in this proceeding, the following relevant During the calendar year 1972, petitioner was a foreign " Corporation subject to the Florida Corporate Income Tax, imposed Chapter 220, Florida Statutes. Petitioner also operated a business in St. Louis, Missouri. January 1, 1972, petitioner held a 95 percent interest in Bal Harbour Joint Venture, which owned and operated the Ivanhoe Hotel and Restaurant in Bal Harbour, Florida. On December 15, 1972, petitioner was the sole owner of the Ivanhoe Hotel and Restaurant. November 16, 1972, the petitioner acquired by merger 100 percent interest in the Clearwater Beach Hilton, a motel and restaurant business located in Clearwater, Florida, and continued to own this interest on December 31, 1972. The Clearwater and Ivanhoe hotel and restaurant businesses in Florida and the petitioner's business in Missouri have separate, individual general managers. There is no central purchasing by the hotels and no centralized operating records are maintained by petitioner. There are no central reservation services available between the hotels and the hotels advertise separately and unilaterally in local publications in the cities in which they are located. No standardized product lines exist. On November 2, 1972, petitioner sold certain securities which resulted in a realized gain to petitioner for federal income tax purposes of $941,418.00. Said securities were purchased, located and sold in the State of Missouri, and had no relationship to petitioner's Florida transactions. Petitioner timely filed its 1972 Florida corporate income tax return on which it subtracted from its federal taxable income the gain realized from the sale of the securities. Its "Florida net income" and its "total tax due" were thus reported as "none." On or about May 8, 1974, respondent advised petitioner of a proposed deficiency in petitioner's 1972 tax in the amount of $29,392.00. In accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes Sec. 214.11, petitioner timely filed with respondent its protest of the proposed deficiency assessment. After a hearing, respondent issued to petitioner its Notice of Decision in which the proposed, deficiency was reduced to $25,712.80, and the reasons therefor were set forth. Petitioner requested reconsideration by respondent. On March 11, 1975, the parties stipulated that further proceedings in this cause would be, processed under the Florida Administrative Procedures Act. The petition for hearing was forwarded by respondent to the Division of Administrative Hearings, the undersigned was duly assigned as the Hearing Officer.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that: the proposed deficiency assessment in the amount of $25,712.80 be vacated and set aside; and The respondent permit petitioner to file an amended 1972 return utilizing, within the discretion of the respondent, the employment of either separate accounting, a monthly averaging formula or another method which would effectuate an equitable apportionment of petitioner's income to the State of Florida. Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Pleasants Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings and Evans Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601 Louis de la Parte, Jr. 725 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Patricia S. Turner Assistant General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Associated Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation duly authorized to transact business in the State of Florida, having an office in Daytona, Florida, and doing business in Florida itself, or through its wholly owned subsidiaries. (Petition) Petitioner, on a consolidated basis with its subsidiaries, duly filed its Florida corporation income tax returns for the fiscal years ending December 31, 1977, and December 31, 1978. (Petition) The Florida Department of Revenue, after audit of these returns, alleged a deficiency in both years totaling $1,247.00. In both fiscal years in question and pursuant to Section 220.13(1)(b) 3, Florida Statutes, a "New Jobs Credit" of 100,000 was taken by Petitioner for each year. During each of such years the amount of wages and salaries paid or incurred by Petitioner within the State of Florida for each of the taxable years in question exceeded $100,000, but the maximum credit applicable pursuant to the U. S. Internal Revenue Code is $100,000, such limitation being adopted in Section 220.13(1)(b)3, Florida Statutes. (Petition, Exhibit 1) Respondent's audit of Petitioner's returns resulted in adjustments producing the alleged tax deficiency by reducing Petitioner's deductions for "New Jobs Credit" under Section 220.13(1)(b)3, Florida Statutes, to $92,396.00 in 1977 and $51,742.00 in 1978. The reduction of these deductions was based upon application of Respondent's Rule 12C-1.13(1)(b)3, Florida Administrative Code, which limits the deduction for salaries and wages paid in creating new jobs in Florida to a prorata amount of the total expended in all states for which credit is given under Section 280C of the Federal Internal Revenue Code. Since Petitioner expended $222,437.00 in such wages and salaries in Florida in 1977, with a total of $240,759.00 being expended by it everywhere, it was allowed only some ninety-two percent of the federal maximum of $100,000 for New Jobs Credit as a deduction on its tax return. Similarly, in 1978, it was allowed about fifty-one percent since its Florida expenditures amounted to $221,656.00 for new jobs, and a total everywhere, of $428,386.09. (Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That the petition herein be DISMISSED and that the tax deficiency against Petitioner be appropriately enforced. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Wilson Crump, II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David C. Latham, Esquire Post Office Box 17711 Orlando, Florida 32860 Randy Miller, Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
