The Issue Whether Petitioners are liable for sales and use tax, penalty, and interest as assessed by the Department of Revenue (the Department)?
Findings Of Fact Salma is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business at 2231 Del Prado Boulevard, Cape Coral, Florida, 33990. Gausia is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business at 11571 Gladiolus Drive, Fort Myers, Florida, 33908. Petitioners are in the business of operating gas stations with convenience stores. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida and is authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida. Petitioners were selected for audit because their reported gross sales were less than the total cost of items purchased (inventory) for the audit period. The Department issued Salma and Gausia each a Notice of Intent to Conduct a Limited Scope Audit or Self-Audit, dated April 26, 2013, for sales and use tax, for the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2013 (collectively referred to as the Notices). The Notices requested that Petitioners provide the Department: (a) a list of all their vendors for alcohol, tobacco, soda, chips, candy, etc.; (b) their total purchases of alcohol and tobacco, by vendor, for the period July 2010 to June 2011; (c) copies of their federal tax returns for the examination period; (d) purchase receipts for all purchases for the last complete calendar month; and (e) daily register (Z tapes) for the last complete calendar month. The Notices gave Petitioners 60 days to gather the requested documents before the audit was to commence. The Notices also requested that Petitioners complete an attached Questionnaire and Self Analysis Worksheet. In response to the Notices, Petitioners requested a 30- day extension of time until July 18, 2013, to provide the requested documents and to designate a Power of Attorney. Petitioners did not provide the Department any books and records for inspection, nor did they complete and return the questionnaire and self analysis worksheets. As a result, the Department's auditor determined the sales tax due based upon the best information available. To calculate an estimated assessment of sales tax, the Department used the purchase data of Petitioners' wholesalers and distributors of alcoholic beverages and tobacco, for July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011; the 2010 National Association of Convenience Stores average markups and in-store sales percentages of alcoholic beverage and tobacco products; and historical audit data. After reviewing the purchase data for July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, and for July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012, the Department's auditor determined that the data was missing a few vendors. As a result, the Department's auditor estimated the amount of Petitioners' cigarette purchases, based on historical audit data that shows that cigarette sales are generally 4.31 times more than beer sales. The Department's auditor and audit supervisor testified that the estimated gross sales seemed reasonable and consistent with the national averages and the purchase data for July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. The Department estimated gross sales (i.e., the retail sale value of the goods sold) by marking up the taxable sales and exempt sales reported on the sales and use tax returns submitted to the Department by Petitioners. For example, for July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, Salma purchased beer from its wholesalers and distributors for $148,826.15, and the Department marked up the purchase price by 27 percent for a retail value of $189,009.21. For July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, Gausia purchased beer from its wholesalers and distributors for $132,138.65, and the Department marked up the purchase price by 27 percent for a retail value of $167,816.09. The Department's markup on the alcoholic beverage and tobacco products is reasonable because the Department's auditor testified that he used a combination of 2010 National Association of Convenience Stores average markups and the competitive pricing and information from audits of other convenience stores. The Department determined that the exemption ratio reported on the sales and use tax returns submitted to the Department by Petitioners was extremely high for their industry. The Department used an exemption ratio of 15 percent, based on historical audit data for the industry, to calculate Petitioners' estimated taxable sales. A review of Petitioners' sales and use tax returns revealed that they did not apply the tax bracket system to their taxable sales transactions, as required under sections 212.12(9) and (10), Florida Statutes. Instead, Petitioners remitted sales tax on their taxable sales based on their gross receipts at a flat tax rate. The Department's auditor testified that this method of reporting tax is inappropriate and does not accurately reflect the sales activity of the business. The Department calculated the average effective tax rate of 6.0856 percent, based on historical audit data for the industry. To calculate the estimated tax due, the Department multiplied the effective tax rate by the estimated taxable sales and gave Petitioners credit for any tax remitted with their tax returns. The Department issued Salma a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, dated August 8, 2013, for audit number 200149872. The Department issued Gausia a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, dated August 8, 2013, for audit number 200149749. The Department assessed Petitioners sales tax on their sales of alcoholic beverages and tobacco. The Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes gave Petitioners 30 days to request a conference with the auditor or audit supervisor, to dispute the proposed changes. Petitioners did not make such a request. The Department issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment (NOPA) to Salma on March 6, 2014, for tax in the sum of $159,282.26; for penalty in the sum of $39,820.57; and interest as of March 6, 2013, in the sum of $27,772.36. The Department issued a NOPA to Gausia on March 6, 2014, for tax in the sum of $213,754.46; for penalty in the sum of $53,438.62; and interest as of March 6, 2013, in the sum of $36,921.79. Additional interest accrues at $30.55 per day until the tax is paid. The NOPAs became final assessments on May 5, 2014. After filing a request for an administrative hearing, Petitioners completed the Questionnaire and Self Analysis Worksheet and produced the following documents to the Department: (a) a list of all of their vendors for alcohol, tobacco, soda, chips, candy, etc.; (b) a list of vendors for alcohol and tobacco, for the examination period of July 2010 to June 2011; (c) a summary of their taxable sales, for the period February 2010 through December 2012; (d) copies of their federal tax returns, for the tax years 2010 through 2013; (e) copies of its purchase receipts for the months of July 2013; and (f) copies of their daily register (Z-tapes) for the month of July 2013. The Department's auditor testified that aside from being untimely, the records and information provided by Petitioners during these proceedings were not reliable because Petitioners did not provide any source documents that would allow the Department to reconcile the reported figures and confirm the supplied information. In addition, the purchase receipts and Z- tapes were not relevant because they were from outside of the audit period. The Z-tapes are also unreliable because the manager of the convenience store testified at the final hearing that employees purposely and routinely entered taxable sales into the cash registers as tax exempt sales. Petitioners argue that the Department did not use the best information available when estimating the taxes due. Petitioners claim that because their businesses are combination gas station/convenience stores, the national data for standalone convenience stores is inapplicable. However, notably absent from Petitioners' testimony or evidence was any alternative data upon which the Department could have relied for more accurate estimates.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying Petitioners' requests for relief and assessing, in full, the Department's assessments of sales tax, penalty, and interest against both Salma and Gausia. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 9th day of January, 2015.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner owes sale and/or use tax for the purchase/lease of magnetic tapes containing mailing lists used by the Petitioner in its mail order business, as set forth in the Notice of Decision dated December 10, 2003, and, if so, the amount owed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, including the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida. See § 213.05, Florida Statutes (2004). At the times material to this proceeding, Spectramin was a Florida "S" corporation whose home office and principal place of business was located at 5401 Northwest 102 Avenue, Suite 119, Sunrise, Florida. Spectramin was a Florida- registered sales tax dealer. On October 19, 2001, the Department issued to Spectramin a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records for audit number A0127016590, which was a sales and use tax audit covering the Audit Period. On January 15, 2002, the Department and Spectramin signed an audit agreement that delineated the procedures and sampling method to be used by the Department for the audit. Because Spectramin's books and records were voluminous, the Department and Spectramin agreed to employ certain specified sampling procedures. For the audit, the Department examined Spectramin's purchase invoices, general ledgers, and income statements for the 2000 calendar year. At the times material to this proceeding, Spectramin was a mail-order company that sold nutritional supplements throughout the United States. It engaged in direct marketing of its products and employed two methods of direct marketing: Self-mailers were sent to prospective customers, and catalogs were sent to persons who had purchased its products, as a means of educating these buyers and converting them into repeat customers.1 In order to send self-mailers to prospective customers, Spectramin leased mailing lists consisting of names and addresses, and, in some instances, bar codes, compiled by various vendors who sold mailing lists. The contents of the mailing lists were based on demographic criteria specified by Spectramin. Under the terms of the lease, Spectramin was allowed to use the mailing list for only one mailing. Pertinent to this proceeding, Spectramin received some of the mailing lists in the form of data digitally encoded on magnetic tapes. The cost of leasing a mailing list was based on the number of names on the list, and the invoice for a list included a separately-stated, standard charge of $25.00 to cover the cost of the magnetic tape containing the data. The magnetic tapes themselves had no value to Spectramin; the only value of the tapes to Spectramin lay in the data encoded on the tapes, and the greatest part of the cost of the one-time lease was the cost of the data encoded on the magnetic tapes; for example, Spectramin paid $75.00 per 1,000 names for one of the mailing lists it leased, plus the $25.00 charge for the magnetic tape. Spectramin did not pay sales tax in Florida on the cost of the data encoded on the magnetic tapes at the time it leased the mailing lists. Spectramin did not have the computer equipment necessary to read the data on magnetic tapes, so it contracted with third-party letter shops and printers to process the magnetic tapes. The letter shops with which Spectramin has done business since 1991 are all located outside the state of Florida. Once a letter shop received magnetic tapes from Spectramin, the data on the tapes were downloaded to a computer, and cleaned, and sorted into usable names and addresses; the letter shop then sent the cleaned and sorted data to a print shop, which printed the names and addresses onto self-mailers provided by Spectramin. The letter shop sorted the self-mailers by zip code and mailed them. All of these operations took place outside Florida. At one time, Spectramin's practice was to have the mailing-list vendors ship the magnetic tapes encoded with the data directly to a letter shop specified by Spectramin. The letter shop held the Spectramin magnetic tapes until it had accumulated several tapes, and then it would process the data from the tapes, have the names and addresses printed on the self-mailers, and mail the self-mailers. Spectramin found that the letter shops with which it did business sometimes lost track of the tapes received for Spectramin's mailings, and it cost Spectramin additional time and money to track down the tapes or to purchase mailing lists. Because of the additional time and money Spectramin spent to track down the lists, it stopped having the magnetic tapes sent directly to the letter shop. At the times material to this proceeding, the magnetic tapes containing the digitally-encoded mailing lists were shipped directly to Spectramin by the mailing-list vendors, and Spectramin took delivery of the tapes at its principal place of business in Florida. The vendors sent the mailing lists to Spectramin's Florida office by overnight delivery through either Federal Express or United Parcel Service. It was Spectramin's usual business practice for an employee to take delivery of the magnetic tapes containing the mailing lists and to place them on a shelf in the front of the office. The boxes containing the magnetic tapes were not opened. When Spectramin had accumulated several boxes of magnetic tapes, an employee put the boxes into a larger box and sent the tapes by overnight delivery to one of the out-of-state letter shops with which Spectramin did business. Spectramin did not keep the tapes in its Florida office more than one or two days because the mailing lists it had leased lost their value with time.2 The only value of the magnetic tapes was in the names and addressed encoded on the tapes, and the only use to which Spectramin put the data was to cause the names and addresses it had leased to be printed on self-mailers and mailed to the prospective customers. Because the letter shops that printed the names and addresses and mailed the self-mailers were located outside of Florida, Spectramin did not "use" the data or the magnetic tapes in Florida. The only contact the magnetic tapes had with Florida was during the short period of time the tapes sat on the shelf at Spectramin's office before being shipped out of the state for processing. Spectramin did not pay use tax in Florida on the cost of the data encoded on the magnetic tapes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order withdrawing the sales and use tax assessment against Spectramin, Inc., for the audit period extending from September 1, 1996, through August 31, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 24th day of January, 2005.
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.
Findings Of Fact The parties executed and filed a Prehearing Stipulation in this proceeding stipulating to the facts and agreeing that there were no issues of fact which remain to be litigated. Based upon the stipulation of facts, the facts found relevant to the issues in this rule challenge proceeding are as follows: Petitioner, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, is the parent corporation of the "Bell System," a group of corporations consisting of twenty- three associated operating telephone companies and other related corporations. For the 1972, 1973 and 1974 tax years, petitioner and its qualified subsidiaries filed a consolidated return for federal income tax purposes. Having made a valid election of the 100 percent dividend received deduction under Section 243 of the Internal Revenue Code, the Internal Revenue Service did not tax dividends received by petitioner from its affiliates. Petitioner's federal income tax returns were audited by the Internal Revenue Service and the respective tax liabilities were determined and paid for each of the years in question. For the same 1972, 1973 and 1974 tax years, petitioner filed Florida income tax returns on a separate unconsolidated basis. Petitioner did not elect and was not required to file a Florida consolidated income tax return under Section 220.131, Florida Statutes. Having timely made a valid election of the 100 percent dividend received deduction under Section 243 of the Internal Revenue Code for the 1972, 1973 and 1974 tax years, such dividends were excluded from taxable income on petitioner's Florida income tax returns. For each of the tax years in question, petitioner reported on line 1 -- "federal taxable income (line 30, Form 1120 or corresponding line on related form in 1120 series, 990C or 990T)" -- of its Florida corporation income tax return (Form F-1120) its taxable income for federal income tax purposes computed as if petitioner had filed a separate federal income tax return for each of the years in question and for each preceding taxable year for which it was a member of an affiliated group. Petitioner, on its Florida corporation income tax return for each of the years in question, made the additions and subtractions required by the return in computing "adjusted federal income" and apportioned this amount of the prescribed three-factor formula to obtain "Florida net income." The Department of Revenue adjusted the amount of "federal taxable income" and hence "Florida net income" of petitioner for each of the years in question by adding thereto 15 percent of the dividends received from petitioner's affiliates which were deductible for federal income tax purposes under Section 243(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The income which the respondent seeks to tax is derived from dividends received by petitioner primarily from earnings generated by the property and employees of petitioner's affiliates which are devoted to furnishing intrastate and inter- state telecommunications services in their operating territories in states other than the State of Florida. These earnings are subject to income taxes in all states in which the petitioner's affiliates provide telecommunications services that impose income taxes on corporations. On April 10, 1978, the Department of Revenue issued a notice of proposed deficiency for petitioner's tax years ended December 31, 1972, December 31, 1973 and December 31, 1974, representing a potential tax liability to the petitioner in the amount of $304,103 for 1972, $387,429 for 1973, and $439,626 for 1974, plus accrued interest on each proposed deficiency. Petitioner timely filed a protest to the proposed deficiencies, an informal conference was held and, on April 16, 1981, the respondent Department of Revenue issued a final notice of proposed deficiency. This document applied the policies which are being challenged in this proceeding so as to add back to petitioner's taxable income an amount equal to 15 percent of the dividends received by petitioner from affiliated corporations which were not incorporated, located or engaged in business in the State of Florida. Stated differently, the respondent's policy is to allow the 100 percent dividend received deduction for those dividends received from subsidiaries or affiliates subject to the Florida tax, but to allow only an 85 percent deduction on those dividends received from subsidiaries which are not subject to the Florida tax. This policy has been applied to other similarly situated taxpayers in Florida and it has not been promulgated as a rule. The Florida corporate income tax forms in use for 1972, 1973 and 1974 did not require taxpayers to add back any amount of dividends received from affiliates. There is no existing statute or rule which specifically imposes such a requirement.
Findings Of Fact During the three year period from October 1, 1974 through September 30, 1977 Air Jamaica purchased prepared meals from Jerry's Caterers at Miami (Jerry's) in the total amount of $740,760.04 and Taca purchased prepared meals from Jerry's in the total amount of $161,379.72. Sales tax, penalty and interest through March 20, 1978 were assessed against Air Jamaica in the amount of $35,291.54 on the total paid for meals from Jerry's. Sales tax plus interest through November 20, 1977 were assessed against Taca in the amount of $9,359.86 on the total paid for meals from Jerry's. These figures are accepted as accurately representing 4 percent of the cost of meals purchased plus interest and penalties. The operations with respect to the meals were identical for both Air Jamaica and Taca. Prepared meals were delivered to the aircraft by Jerry's in trays holding 25 meals. These trays are supplied with heating elements and act as ovens in which the meals are heated. When placed aboard the aircraft by Jerry's' employees the trays holding meals intended to be served hot are plugged into electrical outlets on the plane. Prepared food delivered to the aircraft by Jerry's intended to be served cold obviously are not plugged into the electrical outlets. Air Jamaica departs from Miami and serves only Montego Bay and Jamaica. Taca departs from Miami and serves the cities of Belize, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Panama. Some 30 to 50 minutes after leaving Miami each company serves a meal for which no separate charge is made to the passenger. At the time these meals are served the aircraft is well outside the boundaries of Florida and either over Cuba or international waters. Although no separate charge is made for the meal served the cost of the meal, like every other operational and administrative cost, is considered in arriving at the air fare charged to the passenger for the transportation from Miami to destination. Jerry's bills the airlines for the number of meals delivered at a wholesale price of $3.48 per meal for meals served to first class passengers and $2.19 for meals served to economy passengers. Each airline provided Jerry's with tax resale certificates which relieved Jerry's from the collection of sales tax on meals delivered to the aircraft.
Findings Of Fact FMCC is a corporation organized and existing under Delaware law. FMCC maintains its principal place of business in Dearborn, Michigan. FMCC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company. FMCC qualified and is authorized to do business in the State of Florida pursuant to the foreign corporation provisions of Chapter 607, Florida Statutes, and has continuously maintained a registered office and agent in this state during the audit years at issue. During the tax years 1980-1982, inclusive, FMCC and Ford filed corporate tax returns in Florida and paid the taxes due thereon under the Florida Income Tax Code; FMCC maintained 7 to 8 branch offices and employed approximately 200 people in Florida; and Ford had contractual relationships with approximately 130 to 150 authorized Ford dealers in Florida. A copy of a representative agreement between Ford and the dealers is Exhibit 3 to this Stipulation. FMCC's principal business is financing the wholesale and retail sales of vehicles manufactured by Ford Motor Company. During the audit period FMCC provided financing for the purchase of vehicles as authorized by Ford dealers from Ford Motor Company. FMCC also: provided financing for the purchase of automobiles by the public from the dealers; and engaged in commercial, industrial and real estate financing, consumer loan financing, and leasing company financing in the State of Florida as well as other states. Attached as Composite Exhibit 4 are sample documents utilized by FMCC in the above financing. The majority of the intangibles in question are accounts receivables held by FMCC and owned by Florida debtors in connection with the purchase of tangible personal property shipped to or located in the State of Florida. FMCC is the holder of security agreements executed by thousands of Florida debtors. These security agreements gave FMCC a lien on tangible personal property located in the State of Florida. The Florida Secretary of State's Office was utilized by FMCC during the assessment period to perfect and protect its liens created under these security agreements with Florida debtors by the filing of U.C.C. financing statements. None of the original notes are stored in Florida. During the assessment period, FMCC utilized or could have utilized the Florida Courts to recover sums due by Florida debtors on delinquent accounts receivable. In addition, FMCC utilizes the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to perfect its liens on motor vehicles pursuant to Chapter 319, Florida Statutes. In 1983, the Department conducted an audit of the FMCC intangible tax returns for tax years 1980 through 1982, inclusive. On June 3, 1983, the Department proposed an assessment of tax, penalty and interest in the total amount of $2,560,379.00. See Exhibit 5. FMCC filed a timely protest. On October 8, 1984, the Department issued a Notice of Decision. See Exhibit 2. On December 12, 1984, the Department acknowledged receipt of FMCC's timely November 8, 1984 Petition for Reconsideration. On February 18, 1985, the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration. See Exhibit 6. FMCC elected to file a Petition for Formal Proceedings, which was received on April 8, 1985. On the basis of the revised audit report, the Department of Revenue imposed the intangible tax on FMCC for the tax years 1980 through 1982, inclusive, in the following categories, and in the taxable amounts listed as follows: 1/1/80 1/1/81 1/1/82 Commercial Finance Receivables-- $342,892,615 $403,061,571 $486,412,164 Retail Commercial Finance Receivables-- 218,591,180 241,993,462 228,303,569 Wholesale Simple Interest Lease Receivables-- 66,345,902 75,978,095 71,315,777 Retail Lease Finance Receivables N/A N/A N/A Capital Loan Receivables 3,112,877 2,064,698 2,419,770 Consumer Loan Receivables 10,144,531 14,122,666 18,578,699 Service Equipment Financing--Dealer I.D. 481,869 368,186 422,108 Receivables Ford Rent-A-Car Receivables 27,825,283 26,179,377 20,362,896 Ford Parts & Service Receivables -0- 10,499,401 10,800,313 (10) Accounts Receivables--Customers & Others 3,452,194 4,581,629 4,952,234 (11) Accounts Receivables--Affiliate 1,617,880 2,914,094 4,438,849 (12) C.I.R. Receivables 23,243,257 27,387,938 24,222,621 TOTAL FLORIDA RECEIVABLES------ 697,707,588 809,151,117 872,229,000 TAX AT 1 MILL---- 697,708 809,151 872,229 LESS ORIGINAL TAX PAYMENT------ 312,703 351,976 339,142 LESS PETITION PAYMENT ON AGREED CATEGORIES------ 51,069 53,567 44,586 TOTAL REMAINING TAX ASSESSED------ $333,936 $403,608 $488,501 TOTAL TAX FOR ALL YEARS----- $1,226,045 REVISED ASSESSMENT FIGURES DOES NOT INCLUDE $1,386.18 OF THE PETITION PAYMENT At the time it filed its petition for a formal hearing, FMCC agreed to and paid the 1 mill tax, but no interest or penalty, on the following amounts. The taxability of these items is no longer in dispute, only penalty and interest. 1980 1981 1982 (8) Ford Rent-A-Car 27,825,283 26,179,377 20,362,896 Receivables (12) CIR 23,243,257 27,387,938 24,222,621 Receivables Capital Loan Receivables (item 5 of paragraph 11) reflect amounts of money owed by Ford dealers to FMCC. The obligation arises from loans made to Ford dealers located in Florida to expand showroom or other facilities and for working capital. The items located as (10) Accounts Receivable - Customers and Others and (11) Accounts Receivables - Affiliates in paragraph 11 reflect only the amount of accrued interest to which FMCC is entitled on notes from non-affiliates and affiliates, respectively, from the last settlement date prior to year end until the end of each respective year. The principal amounts owed on these notes, which are not secured by realty, are included in other categories. The Department does not assess a tax for similar interest when the amount owed is secured by realty. Wholesale and retail intangibles were created and handled in 1980, 1981 and 1982 by FMCC in the manner set forth in Exhibit 7. The Department of Revenue has imposed penalties in the amount of $543,968 composed of $330,051 as the 25% delinquent penalty imposed pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 199.052(9)(a) (1983), and $15,886 as the 15% undervalued Property penalty imposed pursuant to Section 199.052(9)(d)(1983), Florida Statutes. The Department offered abatement of the 15% omission penalty ($198,031) imposed pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 199.052(9)(c) (1983). The closing agreement required pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 213.21 reflecting this reduction of penalty was not signed by petitioner. FMCC's intangible tax returns have been audited on prior occasions. The manner of reporting was identical to the manner in which FMCC reported its intangibles for tax years 1980 through 1982. The 1973-1975 and the 1976-1978 audits were "no change" audits. FMCC's method of reporting receivables generated from Florida sales was challenged by the Department of Revenue. The challenge was dropped because the Department of Revenue did not have the statutory authority to assess sales of tangible personal property with an f.o.b. point other than Florida. Chapter 77-43, Laws of Florida amended Section 199.112, Fla. Stat. to allow tangible personal property (sic) [to be taxed] regardless of the f.o.b. point of sale. This amendment applied to the January 1, 1978 taxable year. There was a 1978-1980 "no change" audit. Ford Motor Company has filed refund claims for certain categories for the tax year 1981 and 1982. Ford Motor Company claims that it inadvertently paid intangible tax on accounts receivable owned by FMCC. As presented in the Notice of Decision, no refund will be made as it will be handled as a credit against taxes due by Ford Motor Company. While not an announced policy, the Department of Revenue drafted and utilized proposed rules relating to compromising penalties. These rules are not final. Attached as Exhibit 8 are the proposed rules. A copy of these rules was provided to Petitioner by letter dated July 28, 1986. In addition, while not an announced policy the Department of Revenue utilized guidelines established by the Internal Revenue Service and federal court for compromising penalties.
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 the Department of Revenue (DOR) has properly issued an assessment against Petitioner for sales and use tax, interest, and penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida resident. In 1996, Petitioner began doing business as a sole proprietor under the name of "Duraline Industries" and registered with DOR as a sales tax dealer. Later, this entity was called "Dura Steel." Petitioner also operated as a corporation, Steel Engineered Design Systems, Inc. Petitioner's Florida sales tax numbers are 42-11-009271-63 and 40-00-003416- For purposes of these consolidated cases, Petitioner has been audited and charged individually as "Charles R. Bielinski," because the audit revealed that no checks were made out to the corporation(s) and that the monies received were received by Mr. Bielinski as a sole proprietor in one or more "doing business as" categories. Petitioner engaged in the business of fabricating items of tangible personal property, i.e., prefabricated steel buildings, many of which later became improvements to real property in Florida. Petitioner used some of the steel buildings in the performance of real property contracts by installing the buildings as improvements to real property. Petitioner also engaged in the business of selling buildings and steel component parts such as sheets and trim in Florida. Petitioner sold buildings and component parts in over- the-counter retail sales, also. On October 7, 2002, DOR issued Petitioner a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records for the period of September 1, 1999 through August 31, 2002. This audit was assigned number AO226920428. In 2002, Petitioner provided DOR's auditor with his sales activity records, such as contracts and job information. A telephone conversation/interview of Petitioner was conducted by the auditor. Over a period of several months, the auditor attempted to get Petitioner to provide additional records, but none were forthcoming. DOR deemed the contracts and job information provided by Petitioner to be an incomplete record of his sales activity for the audit period. Petitioner claimed that most of his sales activity records had been lost or destroyed. Due to the absence of complete records, DOR sampled Petitioner's available records and other information related to his sales in order to conduct and complete its audit. Petitioner purchased materials used to fabricate his steel buildings. Petitioner sometimes would erect the buildings on real property. Petitioner fabricated main frames for smaller buildings at a shop that he maintained at the Bonifay Airport. Otherwise, Petitioner subcontracted with like companies to fabricate main frames for larger buildings. Petitioner made some sales to exempt buyers, such as religious institutions and government entities. When he purchased the materials he used to fabricate the buildings, Petitioner occasionally provided his vendors with his resale certificate, in lieu of paying sales tax. Petitioner did not pay sales tax on the materials he purchased to fabricate buildings when such buildings were being fabricated for exempt buyers such as churches and governmental entities. On June 23, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (Form DR-840), for audit number AO226920428, covering the period of November 1, 1997 through August 31, 2002. DOR has assessed Petitioner sales tax on the buildings, sheets, and trim he sold over-the-counter in Florida. DOR has assessed Petitioner use tax on sales of the materials used in performing real property contracts in Florida. The auditor calculated a method of estimating taxes based on the limited documentation that had been provided by Petitioner. She used a sampling method based on Petitioner's contract numbering system; isolated the Florida contracts; and divided the Florida contracts between the actual sale of tangible property (sale of just the buildings themselves) and real property contracts (where Petitioner not only provided the building but also provided installation or erection services). The auditor scheduled the real property contracts and assessed only the material amounts as taxable in Florida. Since she had only 19 out of 47 probable contracts, or 40 percent, she projected up to what the taxable amount should be and applied the sales tax and surtax at the rate of seven percent, as provided by law. She then divided that tax for the entire audit period by the 58 months in the audit period, to arrive at a monthly tax amount. This monthly tax amount was broken out into sales and discretionary sales tax. Florida levies a six percent State sales tax. Each county has the discretion to levy a discretionary sales tax. Counties have similar discretion as to a surtax. The auditor determined that Petitioner collected roughly $22,000.00 dollars in tax from one of his sales tax registrations which had not been remitted to DOR. During the five-year audit period, Petitioner only remitted tax in May 1998. DOR gave Petitioner credit for the taxes he did remit to DOR during the audit period. The foregoing audit processes resulted in the initial assessment(s) of August 28, 2003, which are set out in Findings of Fact 25-31, infra. On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR-832/833), for additional discretionary surtax, in the sum of $2,582.19; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $782.55; and penalty, in the sum of $1,289.91; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.50 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0008) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional sales and use tax in the sum of $154,653.32; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $50,500.06; and penalty, in the sum of $77,324.54, plus additional interest that accrues at $31.54 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0009) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional local governmental infrastructure surtax, in the sum of $7,001.82; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $2,352.09; and penalty in the sum of $3,497.35; plus additional interest that accrues at $1.45 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0010) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional indigent care surtax, in the sum of $513.08; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $156.33; and penalty, in the sum of $256.24; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.10 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0011) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional school capital outlay surtax in the sum of $3,084.49; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $922.23; and penalty, in the sum of $1,540.98; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.60 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0012) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional charter transit system surtax, in the sum of $2,049.22; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $766.07; and penalty, in the sum of $1,023.27; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.46 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0013) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), additional small county surtax, in the sum of $10,544.51; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $3,437.85; and penalty in the sum of $5,282.30; plus additional interest that accrues at $2.15 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0014) However, the auditor testified at the May 13, 2004, hearing that she attended Petitioner's deposition on March 18, 2004. At that time, Petitioner provided additional documentation which permitted the auditor to recalculate the amount of tax due. The auditor further testified that she separated out the contracts newly provided at that time and any information which clarified the prior contracts she had received. She then isolated the contracts that would affect the Florida taxes due. Despite some of the new information increasing the tax on some of Petitioner's individual Florida contracts, the result of the auditor's new review was that overall, the contracts, now totaling 33, resulted in a reduction in total tax due from Petitioner. These changes were recorded in Revision No. 1 which was attached to the old June 23, 2003, Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, which was sent by certified mail to Petitioner. The certified mail receipt was returned to DOR as unclaimed. The auditor's calculations reducing Petitioner's overall tax are set out in Respondent's Exhibit 16 (Revision No. 1). That exhibit appears to now show that taxes are owed by Petitioner as follows in Findings of Fact 34-40 infra. For DOAH Case No. 04-0008, discretionary surtax (tax code 013), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $1,937.37, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0009, sales and use tax (tax code 010), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $111,811.04, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0010, local governmental infrastructure surtax (tax code 016), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $5,211.00, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0011, indigent care surtax (tax code 230), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $317.39, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0012, school capital outlay tax (tax code 530), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $2,398.68, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0013, charter transit system surtax (tax code 015), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $1,558.66, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0014, small county surtax (tax code 270), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $7,211.83, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order upholding the amount of tax calculated against Petitioner in its June 21, 2003, Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, Revision No. 1, in the principal amounts as set forth in Findings of Fact Nos. 34-40, plus interest and penalty accruing per day as provided by law, until such time as the tax is paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of July, 2004.
The Issue The issue presented is what is Peaches' basis in the Sterling stock?
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute as to the material facts in the instant case, Exhibit 1 presented at the hearing is a composite exhibit which is comprised of the Petitioner's U.S. Corporate Income Tax Return and Florida Corporate Income Tax Return for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973. Exhibit 3 is the Respondent's document entitled "Income Tax Audit Changes" which reflects the adjustments made by the Respondent based upon a review of the Petitioner's return and the reasons for assessing the deficiency. Exhibit 2 is a composite exhibit comprised of the Petitioner's Amended Protest of the proposed deficiency and the Respondent's letter denying the same. Petitioner's federal return (Exhibit 1) Schedule D, Part II, reflects the 31,500 shares were acquired in 1958 at a cost basis of $10,191.00. These shares were subsequently sold by Peaches in 1972 for $1,160,131.00 or a gain of $1,149,940.00. This gain was reported on line 9(a) of the federal tax return as a portion of the "net capital gains." On its 1973 Florida Corporate Income Tax Return, Petitioner computed the income using the basis for the stock as of January 2, 1972, thereby reducing its reported income by $1,013,040.00 from the federal tax. The $1,013,040.00 reflects the amount of appreciation in the value of the stock between the transferrer's acquisition and January 1, 1972, the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax code. The shares of stock of Sterling Drugs were acquired by Peaches in 1971 from the controlling stockholder who made a contribution to capital to the corporation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Petitioner's petition be denied and that the assessment against the Petitioner in the amount of $29,435.00 together with interest be assessed. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin J. Stacker Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James S. Moody, Jr., Esquire Trinkle and Redman, P.A. 306 West Reynolds Street Plant City, Florida 33566 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA PEACHES OF FLORIDA, INC. Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-1433 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. / NOTICE TO: JAMES S. MOODY, JR., ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER TRINKLE AND REDMAN, P. A. 306 WEST REYNOLDS STREET PLANT CITY, FLORIDA 33566 E. WILSON CRUMP, II, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE BOX 5557 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304 You will please take notice that the Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida, acting as head of the Department of Revenue, at its meeting on the 5th day of April, 1979, approved the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer dated January 22, 1979, with paragraph 3 of the "Findings of Fact" therein amended to read as follows: "The shares of stock of Sterling Drugs were acquired by Peaches in 1972 from the controlling stockholder who made a contribution to capital to the corporation", in accordance with Stipulation of the Petitioner and Respondent filed in the case on March 1, 1979. This constitutes final agency action by the Department of Revenue. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF FLORIDA ROOM 104, CARLTON BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice was furnished by mail to James S. Moody, Jr., Esquire, Trinkle and Redman, P. A., 306 West Reynolds Street, Plant City, Florida 33566, Attorney for Petitioner; by hand delivery to Wilson Crump, II, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Post Office fox 5557, Tallahassee, Florida 32304, Attorney for Respondent and Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings; Room 530, Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida this 5th day of April, 1979. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY
The Issue Does Petitioner have standing to challenge Rule 12A- 1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code? If Petitioner has standing, is Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority? See Section 120.56, 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. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties to this action in accordance with Sections 120.56, 120.569(1), and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner sought repayment of funds paid into the State Treasury for use taxes for the period of July 1993 through March 1995. See Section 215.26(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent, in defending its decision to deny the repayment, has consistently relied upon provisions within Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, as well as the language within Section 215.26(1), Florida Statutes. In particular, Respondent has relied upon the language at Section 212.06(7), Florida Statutes, in defending its proposed agency action. Petitioner did not look to the provisions of Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, to assist the Petitioner in its refund claim. Instead, Petitioner claims that an inference has been created that Respondent utilized Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, to determine the refund question adverse to the interest of Petitioner. Petitioner believes this creates the opportunity to challenge the rule. Given that Respondent did not rely upon Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, to defend against the Request for Repayment of Funds, Petitioner is not substantially affected by the rule and is not entitled to seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule. Upon consideration, it is ORDERED: That Petitioner's challenge to the validity of Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, is DISMISSED.1 DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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.
