Findings Of Fact Stewart executed a mortgage note dated February 3, 1972 in the amount of $2,943,400 payable to City National Bank of Miami. This note was secured by a mortgage executed by Stewart as mortgagor to City National Bank of Miami as mortgagee of same date. This mortgage was recorded on February 8, 1972 at which time documentary stamp tax and intangible taxes were paid. The note was designated a mortgage note in the face amount of $2,943,400 and taxes paid were predicated on this sum. The mortgage provided, inter alia, in item 24 thereof: "That the funds to be advanced herein are to be used in the construction of certain improvements on the land herein described, in accordance with a building loan agreement between the mortgagor and the mortgagee dated February 8, 1972, which building loan agreement (except such part or parts thereof as may be inconsistent herewith) is incorporated herein by reference to the same extent and effect as if fully set forth and made a part of this mortgage; if the construction of the improvements to be made pursuant to said building loan agreement shall not be carried on with reasonable diligence, or shall be discontinued at any time for any reason other than strikes or lockouts, the mortgagee, after due notice to the mortgagor or any subsequent owner, is hereby invested with full and complete authority to enter upon said premises, employ watchmen to protect such improvement from depredation or injury, and to preserve and protect the personal property therein, and to continue any and all outstanding contracts for the erection and completion of said building or buildings, to make and enter into any contracts and obligation wherever necessary, either in its own name or in the name of the mortgagor, and to pay and discharge all debts, obligations, and liabilities incurred thereby. All such sums so advanced by the mortgagee (exclusive of advances of the principal of the indebtedness secured hereby) shall be added to the principal of the indebtedness secured hereby and shall be secured by this mortgage and shall be due and payable on demand with interest at the rate of the same rate as provided in the note secured hereby, but no such advances shall be insured unless same are specifically approved by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development acting by and through the Federal Housing Commissioner prior to the making thereof. The principal sum and other charges provided for herein shall, at the option of the mortgagee or holder of this mortgage and the note secured hereby, become due and payable on the failure of the mortgagor to keep and perform any of the covenants, conditions, and agreements of said building loan agreement. This covenant shall be terminated upon the completion of the improvements to the satisfaction of the mortgagee and the making of the final advance as provided in said building loan agreement;" Prior to the completion of the project for which the note and mortgage were executed and before the full amount stated in the note had been advanced Stewart went into receivership. No advances were made under the note and mortgage subsequent to December, 1974, and only $1,935,378 had been disbursed to Stewart prior to foreclosure. On March 17, 1976 Stewart requested a refund in the amount of $1512 for documentary stamp taxes and $2016 for intangible taxes paid on the difference between $2,943,400 and $1,935,378.29. By letters dated June 16 and 17, 1976, each of the refund requests was denied by the Comptroller on the ground advanced by Department of Revenue that the claims were barred as not being timely filed. Vanguard executed a note in the amount of $2,000,000 payable to the Chase Manhattan Bank secured by a building loan mortgage from Vanguard as mortgagor to Chase as mortgagee. This mortgage was recorded and documentary stamp taxes and intangible taxes were paid on April 19, 1973. Other than the amount of the note and the total advanced prior to Vanguard going into receivership, the basic facts were the same as in Stewart. At the time of the last payment in May, 1975 Vanguard had received $1,388,008 of the $2,000,000 evidenced by the note. Vanguard's application for refund of $1224 for intangible taxes paid was denied by the Comptroller for the same reason Stewarts was denied. Here the application dated April 19, 1976 was postmarked in Miami on April 20, 1976 and received by Respondent on April 22, 1976. Worthington executed a building loan note dated October 25, 1972 in the amount of $2,750,000 payable to Trustees of C. I. Mortgage Group which was secured by a mortgage loan of same date. Worthington also went into receivership in December, 1974 after $1,962,750 had been advanced. Application for refund of documentary stamp taxes in the amount of $1180.80 and intangible taxes in the amount of $1574.50 filed March 17, 1976 was denied by the Comptroller on the grounds that the application was not timely filed. All of the above loans, for which the mortgages were recorded, were construction loans and provided for periodic payments to the mortgagor as the construction progressed. Provided the mortgagor complied with the terms of the building agreement the mortgagee was legally required to advance funds when due. In determining valuation for the purpose of computing the intangible taxes due clerks of the circuit court follow 199.122(7) F.S. which provides that obligations for payment of money secured by a mortgage shall be valued at the principal amount of indebtedness evidenced by such transactions. Accordingly in the cases at hand the clerks would have refused to record the mortgages unless the intangible taxes and documentary stamp taxes computed using the principal amount of the obligation were paid. An application for refund of the intangible tax representing the difference between the face amount of the mortgage to secure future advances, and the amount advanced, will be disapproved by the Department of Revenue so long as advances on the face amount of the loan are still being made.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund of nearly $500 thousand on an alleged overpayment of the stamp tax, where Petitioner paid the tax based on the entire undifferentiated consideration it had received, as a lump-sum payment, from the sale of an operating hotel business comprising real estate, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property.
Findings Of Fact On February 23, 2015, Petitioner 1701 Collins (Miami) Owner, LLC ("Taxpayer"), a Delaware limited liability company, entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Agreement") to sell a going concern, namely a hotel and conference center doing business in Miami Beach, Florida, as the SLS Hotel South Beach (the "Hotel Business"), to 1701 Miami (Owner), LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Purchaser"). Purchaser paid Taxpayer $125 million for the Hotel Business. The Hotel Business comprised two categories of property, i.e., real estate ("RE") and personal property ("PP"). The PP, in turn, consisted of two subcategories of property, tangible personal property ("TPP") and intangible personal property ("ITPP"). It is undisputed that the property transferred pursuant to the Agreement included RE, TPP, and ITPP. The sale closed on June 5, 2015, and a special warranty deed was recorded on June 8, 2015, which showed nominal consideration of $10. Pursuant to the Agreement, Taxpayer was responsible for remitting the documentary stamp tax and the discretionary surtax (collectively, "stamp tax"). Stamp tax is due on instruments transferring RE; the amount of the tax, payable per instrument recorded, is based upon the consideration paid for RE. Stamp tax is not assessed on consideration given in exchange for PP. The Agreement contains a provision obligating the parties to agree, before closing, upon a reasonable allocation of the lump-sum purchase price between the three types of property comprising the Hotel Business. For reasons unknown, this allocation, which was to be made "for federal, state and local tax purposes," never occurred. The failure of the parties to agree upon an allocation, if indeed they even attempted to negotiate this point, did not prevent the sale from occurring. Neither party declared the other to be in breach of the Agreement as a result of their nonallocation of the consideration. The upshot is that, as between Taxpayer and the Purchaser, the $125 million purchase price was treated as undifferentiated consideration for the whole enterprise. Taxpayer paid stamp tax in the amount of approximately $1.3 million based on the full $125 million of undifferentiated consideration. Taxpayer paid the correct amount of stamp tax if the entire consideration were given in exchange for the RE transferred to Purchaser pursuant the Agreement——if, in other words, the Purchaser paid nothing for the elements of the Hotel Business consisting of PP. On February 6, 2018, Taxpayer timely filed an Application for Refund with Respondent Department of Revenue (the "Department"), which is the agency responsible for the administration of the state's tax laws. Relying on a report dated February 1, 2018 (the "Deal Pricing Analysis" or "DPA"), which had been prepared for Taxpayer by Bernice T. Dowell of Cynsur, LLC, Taxpayer sought a refund in the amount of $495,013.05. As grounds therefor, Taxpayer stated that it had "paid Documentary Stamp Tax on personal property in addition to real property." Taxpayer's position, at the time of the refund application and throughout this proceeding, is that its stamp tax liability should be based, not on the total undifferentiated consideration of $125 million given in the exchange for the Hotel Business, but on $77.8 million, which, according to the DPA, is the "implied value" of——i.e., the pro-rata share of the lump-sum purchase price that may be fairly allocated exclusively to——the RE transferred pursuant to the Agreement. Taxpayer claims that, to the extent it paid stamp tax on the "implied values" (as determined in the DPA) of the TPP ($7 million) and ITPP ($40.2 million) included in the transfer of the Hotel Business, it mistakenly overpaid the tax.1/ On February 23, 2018, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Make Refund Claim Changes, which informed Taxpayer that the Department planned to "change" the refund amount requested, from roughly $500 thousand, to $0——to deny the refund, in other words. In explanation for this proposed decision, the Department wrote: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the [special warranty deed] was recorded. Please provide supporting information regarding allocation of purchase price on or around the time of the sale." This was followed, on April 2, 2018, by the Department's issuance of a Notice of Proposed Refund Denial, whose title tells its purpose. The grounds were the same as before: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the document was recorded." Taxpayer timely filed a protest to challenge the proposed refund denial, on May 31, 2018. Taxpayer argued that the $125 million consideration, which Purchaser paid for the Hotel Business operation, necessarily bought the RE, TPP, and ITPP constituting the going concern; and, therefore, because stamp tax is due only on the consideration exchanged for RE, and because there is no requirement under Florida law that the undifferentiated consideration exchanged for a going concern be allocated, at any specific time, to the categories or subcategories of property transferred in the sale, Taxpayer, having paid stamp tax on consideration given for TPP and ITPP, is owed a refund. The Department's tax conferee determined that the proposed denial of Taxpayer's refund request should be upheld because, as he explained in a memorandum prepared on or around December 27, 2018, "[t]he taxpayer [had failed to] establish that an allocation of consideration between Florida real property, tangible personal property, and intangible property was made prior to the transfer of the property such that tax would be based only on the consideration allocated to the real property." The Department issued its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial on January 9, 2019. In the "Law & Discussion" section of the decision, the Department wrote: When real and personal property are sold together, and there is no itemization of the personal property, then the sales price is deemed to be the consideration paid for the real property. [2] Likewise, when the personal property is itemized, then only the amount of the sales price allocated for the real property is consideration for the real property and subject to the documentary stamp tax. The first of these propositions will be referred to as the "Default Allocation Presumption." The second will be called "Consensual-Allocation Deference." The Department cited no law in support of either principle. In its intended decision, the Department found, as a matter of fact, that Taxpayer and Purchaser had not "established an allocation between all properties prior to the transfer" of the Hotel Business. Thus, the Department concluded that Taxpayer was not entitled to Consensual-Allocation Deference, but rather was subject to the Default Allocation Presumption, pursuant to which the full undifferentiated consideration of $125 million would be "deemed to be the consideration paid for the" RE. Taxpayer timely requested an administrative hearing to determine its substantial interests with regard to the refund request that the Department proposes to deny. After initiating the instant proceeding, Taxpayer filed a Petition to Determine Invalidity of Agency Statement, which was docketed under DOAH Case No. 19-3639RU (the "Rule Challenge"). In its section 120.56(4) petition, Taxpayer alleges that the Department has taken a position of disputed scope or effect ("PDSE"), which meets the definition of a "rule" under section 120.52(16) and has not been adopted pursuant to the rulemaking procedure prescribed in section 120.54. The Department's alleged PDSE, as described in Taxpayer's petition, is as follows: In the administration of documentary stamp tax and surtax, tax is due on the total consideration paid for real property, tangible property and intangible property, unless an allocation of consideration paid for each type of property sold has been made by the taxpayer on or before the date the transfer of the property or recording of the deed. If the alleged PDSE is an unadopted rule, as Taxpayer further alleges, then the Department is in violation of section 120.54(1)(a). Although the Rule Challenge will be decided in a separate Final Order, the questions of whether the alleged agency PDSE exists, and, if so, whether the PDSE is an unadopted rule, are relevant here, as well, because neither the Department nor the undersigned may "base agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule." § 120.57(1)(e)1., Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the Rule Challenge was consolidated with this case for hearing. The Department, in fact, has taken a PDSE, which is substantially the same as Taxpayer described it. The undersigned rephrases and refines the agency's PDSE, to conform to the evidence presented at hearing, as follows: In determining the amount stamp tax due on an instrument arising from the lump-sum purchase of assets comprising both RE and PP, then, absent an agreement by the contracting parties to apportion the consideration between the categories or subcategories of property conveyed, made not later than the date of recordation (the "Deadline"), it is conclusively presumed that 100% of the undifferentiated consideration paid for the RE and PP combined is attributable to the RE alone. According to the PDSE, the parties to a lump-sum purchase of different classes of property (a "Lump—Sum Mixed Sale" or "LSMS") possess the power to control the amount of stamp tax by agreeing upon a distribution of the consideration between RE and PP, or not, before the Deadline.2/ If they timely make such an agreement, then, in accordance with Consensual-Allocation Deference, which is absolute, the stamp tax will be based upon whatever amount the parties attribute to the RE. If they do not, then, under the Default Allocation Presumption, which is irrebuttable, the stamp tax will be based upon the undifferentiated consideration. Simultaneously with the issuance of this Recommended Order, the undersigned is rendering a Final Order in the Rule Challenge, which determines that the PDSE at issue is an unadopted rule. This determination precludes the undersigned, and the Department, from applying the PDSE as an authoritative rule of decision in determining Taxpayer's substantial interests. The undersigned concludes further, for reasons set forth below, that the PDSE does not reflect a persuasive or correct interpretation of the applicable law. Rather, because the stamp tax is assessed only against the consideration given in exchange for RE, the law requires that, in determining the amount of stamp tax due on an instrument arising from an LSMS, a pro-rata share of the undifferentiated consideration must be allocated to the RE. The amount of the undifferentiated consideration that is reasonably attributable to the RE conveyed in an LSMS is a question of fact. To prove its allegation that only $77.8 million of the consideration received from Purchaser for the Hotel Business, and not the entire $125 million, is attributable to the RE conveyed in the LSMS, Taxpayer relies upon the DPA and the testimony of Ms. Dowell, who authored that report. The Department did not present any expert testimony to rebut the opinions of Ms. Dowell concerning the allocation of the undifferentiated consideration. Rather, the Department argues that Ms. Dowell's opinions are unreliable as a matter of law and should be disregarded, if not excluded as inadmissible——a position that depends heavily upon the Daubert standard for screening expert testimony, which does not apply in administrative proceedings, for reasons that will be explained in the Conclusions of Law. Alternatively, the Department asserts, based on Taxpayer's 2015 federal income tax return, that the amount paid for the RE component of the Hotel Business was actually $122 million. Although this argument is inconsistent with the Department's main position, because it concedes that the allocation is a disputable issue of material fact, rather than a legal conclusion driven by the Default Allocation Presumption or Consensual-Allocation Deference, as applicable, the Department is correct that the tax return can be viewed as evidence in conflict with Ms. Dowell's testimony; the undersigned will resolve the evidential conflict in favor of Ms. Dowell's testimony, in findings below. Primarily, though, the Department eschews evidence bearing on the pro-rata allocation of the consideration on the grounds that the Default Allocation Presumption conclusively establishes the taxable amount as a matter of law. In other words, the Department considers Ms. Dowell's opinions to be irrelevant, regardless of her credibility as an expert witness—— or lack thereof. In this respect, the Department has made a strategic error because the Default Allocation Presumption, besides being extralegal, is both irrational and arbitrary. It is irrational to assume that the seller in an arm's length transaction would simply give away valuable PP for nothing of value in return. It is arbitrary automatically to assign all of the undifferentiated consideration paid in an LSMS to one category of property transferred, i.e., RE, to the exclusion of the other property types exchanged. Systematically allocating the entire purchase price to any other involved property class, e.g., TPP, would be equally (un)justifiable. Put another way, there is no rational answer to the question: Why not deem the entire purchase price allocable to the personal property? Why not a 50/50 split instead? Or 60/40? The Default Allocation Presumption, in short, is not even a reasonable inference. Without the Default Allocation Presumption to trump the DPA, the Department is left with the representations of value in the Form 4797 attached to Taxpayer's 2015 federal income tax return as its best, indeed only, rebuttal evidence. The form is used to report gain or loss from sales of business property, such as, in this instance, the Hotel Business. In its return, Taxpayer reported gross sales prices of $20 million for the hotel land, $102 million for the hotel building, and $3 million for the hotel's furniture, fixtures, and equipment. In other words, Taxpayer represented to the Internal Revenue Service that $122 million of the undifferentiated consideration for the Hotel Business was attributable to RE, with the balance going towards TPP. Notably, Taxpayer did not list, much less assign value to, any "section 197 intangible" property, such as goodwill, going concern value, workforce in place, business records, operating systems, permits, licenses, trade names, etc. See 26 U.S.C § 197(d). Taxpayer's Form 4797 statements regarding the cumulative sales price of the RE are admissions that, arguably at least, conflict with Ms. Dowell's opinions as expressed in the DPA. See § 90.803(18), Fla. Stat. What is to be made of these admissions? They are not binding, of course. Taxpayer is free to disavow or distinguish the statements in its Form 4797, which is essentially what it has done. Different taxes, different rules, different reasons—— in these general terms, Taxpayer strives to deflect attention from, and dismiss as irrelevant any serious consideration of, its federal income tax filing. Taxpayer's position is not without merit because, in fact, the stamp tax is fundamentally different from the federal income tax, as are the laws governing these noncomparable revenue raising measures. On the other hand, Taxpayer did declare the gross sales prices of the land, building, and TPP to be as described above, and these statements of apparent historical fact would seem to be true regardless of the specific tax purposes that prompted their making. There is more to this evidence than Taxpayer would have it. Ultimately, however, the undersigned finds the Form 4797 evidence to be less persuasive than the DPA, for several reasons. First, it is undisputed that ITPP was conveyed in the LSMS of the Hotel Business, and this ITPP included section 197 intangibles. But: Was Taxpayer required to segregate, and report separately, the gross sales price of these section 197 intangibles on its Form 4797? The undersigned does not know. Or, was Taxpayer allowed (or even obligated) to put the value of the section 197 intangibles onto, say, the building? Again, the undersigned does not know. To evaluate the persuasive force of the Form 4797 admissions, however, one needs to know these things. If Taxpayer were not required, for example, to report separately the value of the section 197 intangibles, and if, further, there were tax advantages in not doing so, then the admissions at issue would not be very probative. There is no evidence in the record regarding how, from May 2012, when Taxpayer acquired the Hotel Business, Taxpayer valued the attendant section 197 intangibles, for federal income tax purposes. It is possible that, for reasons undisclosed in this proceeding, Taxpayer never segregated the cost of the section 197 intangibles but instead allowed the value of the ITPP to be taxed as part of the value of the building. In any event, topics such as the proper classification of business property under the Internal Revenue Code; the different amortization periods applicable to various types of property; the tax planning strategies an owner might cautiously, aggressively, or even illegally employ to minimize its liability; and the common mistakes made, or advantages overlooked, by tax preparers, are complex and beyond the scope of the current record.3/ As a result, the statements regarding asset prices in Taxpayer's 2015 federal income tax return, which sit in the record practically devoid of meaningful context, are consistent with too many alternative possibilities to be credited as persuasive admissions about the respective values of the land and building in question.4/ Second, as mentioned, Taxpayer did not state, on the Form 4797, that ITPP was sold for a price of $0, in which case one might expect Taxpayer also to have reported a loss on the sale of section 197 intangible property. Rather, Taxpayer did not disclose the sale of any ITPP in the LSMS at issue. This is important, from a weight-of-the-evidence standpoint, because it is an undisputed historical fact that valuable ITPP was conveyed to Purchaser in the subject transaction, which makes it unreasonable to infer a gross sales price of $0 for the ITPP. Imagine, however, the probative force the Form would have had if Taxpayer had listed a gross sales price of, say, $1 million for the ITPP, together with corresponding reductions in the prices of the RE and TPP; in such a hypothetical situation, the Form 4797 admissions would have been much more persuasive as an apportionment of the undifferentiated consideration. As it stands, however, the reasonably inferable likelihood is that Taxpayer did not report the sales price of the ITPP because it did not report the sale of ITPP——not because there was no sale (for there was) or because the sales price was $0 (which is unlikely), but for other reasons, unknowable on the instant record. Third, for purposes of levying Taxpayer's 2015 real estate property taxes, the Miami-Dade Tax Collector appraised the RE at $39 million. (This figure is the higher of two contemporaneous assessments by the local taxing authority.) This is less than one-third of $122 million——but, in contrast, constitutes 50% of Ms. Dowell's pro-rata allocation of consideration to the RE. There is no evidence in the record regarding the reliability of the local tax collector's appraisals of hotel property, or specifically the percentage of fair market value such assessments are reasonably likely to reflect. Therefore, the undersigned does not place too much weight on the 2015 ad-valorem tax assessments. Still, one cannot help but notice that Ms. Dowell's opinions on the RE's implied value are much closer to the Miami-Dade County Tax Collector's appraisal than the Form 4797 admissions.5/ Having found that the Form 4797 admissions possess some, but not much, probative value regarding the allocation of the undifferentiated consideration, the DPA emerges largely unscathed. As fact-finder, the undersigned has the discretion, nevertheless, to reject, as not credible, the expert testimony of Ms. Dowell. But he credits her opinions, both because Ms. Dowell is a qualified authority on the subject matter, and because the opinions she has expressed are objectively reasonable and logically supported. As for Ms. Dowell's credentials, she has a bachelor of science degree and a master of science degree, both in finance. She has worked in the field of property valuation for around 30 years. Working for major hotel companies, Ms. Dowell routinely performed the sort of allocation of value between asset classes that she has conducted in this case. In 2007, Ms. Dowell formed Cynsur, Inc., which performs value allocations for hospitality industry clients, predominately for taxation purposes, as here. Ms. Dowell has conducted approximately 1,000 deal pricing analyses for clients around the country. In the niche of implied value allocations between the categories of property transferred in LSMS transactions involving hotel operations, Ms. Dowell is clearly an experienced, knowledgeable, and credible expert. The DPA that Ms. Dowell prepared is not an independent appraisal of the hotel property per se, but an allocation of the undifferentiated consideration, which uses estimates of value as the basis for dividing the lump-sum purchase price into three shares, each representing an amount reasonably attributable to a type of property conveyed in the LSMS. The estimates of value that provide the grounds for determining the implied price-per- category are a kind of appraisal, but the DPA is not designed or expected to produce a total valuation that might exceed, or fall short of, the $125 million lump-sum purchase price that is being apportioned. Again, to be clear, the goal of the DPA is to divide the $125 million into asset classes, not to verify whether $125 million was the fair market value of the Hotel Business in 2015, because the stamp tax applies, not to fair market value as such, but to that portion of the undifferentiated consideration fairly attributable to the RE conveyed. Ms. Dowell's approach to apportionment is to determine the "implied values" of the RE and TPP by analyzing the income an owner would expect to receive on a separate investment in the RE or TPP, as the case may be, apart from the Hotel Business as a whole. She starts with a discounted cash flow analysis of the Hotel Business as a going concern, using the Purchaser's pro forma projections as developed at the time of the LSMS. In this instance, Purchaser had presented a five-year projection of cash flow to analyze the investment, which assumed that the Hotel Business would be sold at the end of year five. Using Purchaser's assumptions, Ms. Dowell determined that the hotel acquisition would yield an implied rate of return on (and of) investment of 11.99%. With this in mind, Ms. Dowell sought to quantify the present value of the income that an owner would expect to receive on an investment in the hotel RE alone, based on a hypothetical or proxy rent for this asset in isolation. To determine the hypothetical rent, Ms. Dowell needed to make certain assumptions, which are set forth in the DPA. She determined, ultimately, that 12% of gross operating revenue represents a reasonable approximation of the proxy rent for the RE assets in question. Of course, the assumptions underlying this determination are not necessarily, or even probably, the only reasonable assumptions that could have been made. The Department, however, did not offer any expert opinion evidence that challenged Ms. Dowell's assumptions, nor did it present alternative rental scenarios. Ms. Dowell discounted the projected, five-year RE income stream at 10%, reflecting the more conservative nature of a pure RE investment as compared to an investment in the Hotel Business as a going concern. The Department did not offer any expert opinion testimony disputing this discount factor. Ms. Dowell concluded that the net present value of the RE at issue was $77,803,500 ($77.8 million when rounded), which represents about 62% of the undifferentiated consideration for the Hotel Business. The undersigned credits this opinion and finds that $77.8 million is a reasonable allocation of consideration to the RE component of the Hotel Business. Ms. Dowell performed a similar analysis of a hypothetical standalone investment in the hotel TPP and calculated a net present value of $7 million, using a discount rate of 11%. This left the remainder of $40,196,500 to be allocated to ITPP. For present purposes, the breakdown between TPP and ITPP is relatively unimportant because the stamp tax is not payable on consideration given for PP of any stripe. Indeed, the ultimate factual determination that $77.8 million of the undifferentiated consideration is reasonably attributable to RE is the material finding; from that, it follows mathematically that the remaining balance of $47.2 million reflects consideration for the PP, however that figure might be allocated between TPP and ITPP. Thus, having found that $77.8 million is a reasonable allocation of consideration to the RE component of the Hotel Business, the undersigned is bound to determine that $47.2 million is a reasonable allocation of consideration to the PP. Because Taxpayer paid stamp tax on $125 million instead of $77.8 million, it overpaid the tax and is due a refund. It is undisputed that the amount of the stamp tax that Taxpayer paid on the excess consideration above $77.8 million is $495,013.05.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order approving Taxpayer's claim and authorizing payment of $495,013.05 to Taxpayer as a refund of overpayment of the stamp tax, plus statutory interest if and to the extent section 213.255, Florida Statutes, requires such additional compensation. (If a dispute of material fact arises in connection with the payment of interest, the Department should return the matter to DOAH for a hearing.) DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 17th day of December, 2019.
The Issue Whether the petitioners are entitled to a refund of the documentary stamp taxes paid on a Special Warranty Deed conveying real property from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation to one of the petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Based on the facts alleged in the petition for administrative hearing, the responses to requests for admission, and the facts stipulated to at the hearing on the motion for recommended summary final order, the following findings of fact are made: On September 27, 1994, Freddie Mac conveyed to Abe Saada by a Special Warranty Deed real property located in Dade County, Florida. Regina Saada is not a party to the Special Warranty Deed. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Settlement Statement prepared for the closing on the property showed that $9,600.00 in "state tax/stamps" was owed on the deed, of which $4,800.00 was to be paid from the funds of the seller, Freddie Mac, and $4,800.00 was to be paid from the funds of the borrower, Abe Saada. Pursuant to its agreement with Mr. Saada, Freddie Mac paid $9,600.00 to the Clerk of Court as the documentary stamp tax on the deed on or about September 28, 1994. The deed was recorded in the Dade County Official Records at Book 16525 at pages 3583-3585. Abraham Saada is not exempt from the documentary stamp tax.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Chapter 120 Administrative Hearing to Contest Denial of Stamp Tax Refund filed by Abraham Saada and Regina Saada. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Petitioners are entitled to refund of documentary stamp taxes paid pursuant to Sections 201.01 and 201.08 Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Both Petitioners are limited partnerships validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Florida. (Petitioner's exhibits No. 1 and No. 5.) Sugar Creek Business Center Phase I, Ltd. ("Sugar Creek") As to this Petitioner, the parties have further stipulated: On or about March 27, 1986, Petitioner and First Union National Bank, a national banking association, with its principal office located in Charlotte, North Carolina (the "Lender"), entered into a certain Construction Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement"). Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, Lender agreed to make and Petitioner agreed to accept a loan in the amount of $6,300,000.00 (the "Loan") to be used solely for the purpose of paying for the cost of developing and constructing a commercial building in Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina. The Lender retained the law firm of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P. A., Post Office Box 1438, 501 E Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700, Tampa, Florida 33602, as its Florida counsel in connection with closing the Loan. Petitioner retained the law firm of Peirsol, Boroughs, Grimm, Bennett & Griffin, Professional Association, Post Office Box 3309, Orlando, Florida 32802, as its counsel in connection with closing the Loan. On or about March 27, 1986, the General Partners of Petitioner executed a promissory note in the amount of $6,300,000.00 payable to Lender (the "Note"), a Deed of Trust and Security Agreement securing the Note in favor of Gibson L. Smith, Jr. Trustee, and First Union National Bank, Beneficiary (the "Mortgage"), and all other loan closing documents pursuant to the Loan Agreement. The Mortgage encumbers only land and the improvements thereon located in Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina and was filed in the Public Records of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina on March 27, 1986, subsequent to closing upon the Loan Agreement. The proceeds of the Loan evidenced by the Note and secured by the Mortgage were used solely to develop and construct a commercial building upon the land encumbered by the Mortgage in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Florida documentary stamps were purchased from the area office of the Department of Revenue located in Tampa, Florida on May 1, 1986 and affixed to the Note to evidence payment of Florida documentary stamp tax with respect to the Note in the amount of $9,450.00 pursuant to Sections 201.00 and 201.08, Florida Statutes. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1) John Simpson, Jr., Esquire of Peirsol, Boroughs, Grimm, Bennett and Griffin, P. A. represented Sugar Creek in the purchase of property and the acquisition and closing of construction financing for improvements. The loan documents were mailed to him. He gave them to his client in Orlando, who signed and delivered them back to him in escrow. Simpson took the documents to Charlotte, North Carolina, for the closing on or around March 27, 1986. The purchase of property and loan closed simultaneously and the funds were disbursed in Charlotte. (Testimony of John Simpson, Jr., Esquire) One Dezavala Center, Ltd. As to this Petitioner, the parties have stipulated: On or about July 30, 1985, Petitioner and the First National Bank of Chicago, a national banking association, with its principal office located in Chicago, Illinois (the "Lender"), entered into a certain Construction Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement"). Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, Lender agreed to make and Petitioner agreed to accept a loan in the amount of $6,600,000.00 (the "Loan") to be used solely for the purpose of paying for the cost of developing and constructing four commercial buildings located in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. The Lender retained the law firm of Holland & Knight, 1200 Brickel Avenue, Post Office Box 015441, Miami, Florida 33101, as its Florida counsel in connection with closing the Loan. Petitioner retained the law firm of Peirsol, Boroughs, Grimm, Bennett & Griffin, Professional Association, Post Office Box 3309, Orlando, Florida 32802, as its counsel in connection with closing the Loan. On or about July 30, 1985, the General Partners of Petitioner executed a promissory note in the amount of $6,600,000.00 payable to Lender (the "Note"), a Deed of Trust, Mortgage, and Security Agreement securing the Note in favor of Harry M. Roberts, Jr., Esquire, Trustee (the "Mortgage"), and all other loan closing documents as required under the Loan Agreement. The Mortgage encumbers only land and the improvements thereon located in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas and was filed in the Public Records of Bexar County, Texas on August 1, 1985, subsequent to closing upon the Loan Agreement. The proceeds of the Loan evidenced by the Note and secured by the Mortgage were used solely to develop and construct four commercial buildings on the land encumbered by the Mortgage in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Florida documentary stamps were purchased from the area office of the Department of Revenue located in Miami, Florida on August 5, 1985, and affixed to the Note to evidence payment of Florida documentary stamp with respect to the Note in the amount of $9,900.00 pursuant to Sections 201.00 and 201.08 Florida Statutes. John Simpson, Jr., Esquire, also represented One Dezavala in the closing for the acquisition of the property and the loan. The note and other loan documents were signed in Orlando by Petitioner's General Partners. The documents were given to the lender's Florida Counsel in escrow, who sent the documents to the lender's Texas counsel. Closing on the acquisition of property and the loan took place simultaneously in San Antonio, Texas and the funds were disbursed in San Antonio. (Testimony of John Simpson, Jr., Esquire) Photocopies of the notes and stamps were admitted as Exhibits No. 3 and No. 7. The parties, by oral stipulation at the final hearing, agreed that before the Comptroller could be compelled to issue a Final Order authorizing the refund of such money as may properly be found owing Petitioners, Petitioners would make available to the Comptroller or his representatives, for inspection, cancellation and/or obliteration, the original documentary stamps forming the basis for the request for refund.
Findings Of Fact This case comes on for consideration based upon the request of the Petitioner, Fanpac Corporation, for a formal administrative hearing on the question of the propriety of the December 8, 1976 assessment, A-54, of the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Revenue. The claimed assessment pertains to an assignment of lease, recorded at Book 4182, Page 562, Public Records, Duval County, Florida. The assessment states that documentary stamp tax is owed in the amount of $5,404.50, together with accrued interest and a penalty in the amount of the claimed documentary stamp tax. The assessment also states that documentary surtax is owed in the amount of $370.15, together with accrued interest and a penalty in the amount of the claimed documentary surtax. In furtherance of the consideration of the case, the parties have submitted a factual stipulation to be examined by the undersigned in arriving at the terms of the recommended order. Quoting from the stipulation it states:
Recommendation It is recommended that the compromise agreement entered into by the parties, that the Petitioner pay documentary stamp tax and documentary surtax and interest on those amounts in the aggregate of $6,519.06 be accepted. It is further recommended that penalties in the amount of 25 percent of $5,404.50, documentary stamp tax, together with a penalty in the amount of 25 percent of $370.15 documentary surtax, be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Paul M. Harden, Esquire Smith, Davenport, Peek and Bloom 2601 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Revenue The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's request for a refund pursuant to F.S. 215.26 be denied. Respectfully submitted and entered this 4th day of March, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE T. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald L. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Carl R. Pennington, Jr. Pennington, Wilkinson and Sauls Post Office Box 3985 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Patricia S. Turner Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact By warranty deed dated July 9, 1973, Floyd L. and Michael Lewis conveyed the fee simple title to certain realty in North Miami Beach to Petitioners Eugene J. Howard and Herbert Seidel. The purchase price for the property was $405,000. The property sold consisted of a twenty-two (22) unit apartment building with twenty (20) furnished apartments and included storage shed, a pool, patio and dock furniture. The closing statement signed by the sellers and purchasers stated: "Florida documentary stamps - on deed - $1,215.00, Florida documentary surtax - on deed - $132.20." $1,347.20 was credited to the Petitioners Howard and Seidel. Petitioners actually paid $10.85 surtax and $132.20 documentary tax. The 1974 tax assessment of the Dade County Property Appraiser for the property was $241,769.00 realty and $14,500.00 for the personalty. Petitioner contends: That part of the purchase price was applicable to -personal property. That the Hearing Officer should make an allocation of the realty included and an allocation for the personalty included. That the Petitioners believe they are entitled to the equitable defense of laches in that the Respondent did not advise Petitioners of the possible error of miscalculation until approximately two years had passed. That if the stamp tax is found to be due and if a penalty is included, the penalty is "excessive penalty" under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and Article I, Section 17, of the Florida Constitution. Respondent contends: That there was an agreement between the Parties, in a signed document that $1,215 in documentary stamps and $132.20 in surtax stamps, reflecting the actual consideration paid for the realty under consideration, would be affixed to the conveyance. That Petitioners failed to fulfill such a an agreement and affixed $132.20 in documentary stamps and $10.85 in surtax stamps to the deed. . That the Department is entitled to the delinquent taxes plus penalty. That the assessment is dated July 9, 1975 and a three- year statute of limitations is applicable. The Hearing Officer further finds: The purchase price for the property under consideration was $405,000. Documentary stamps required on such a purchase were $1,215.; that stamps actually paid were in the amount of $132.20, that $10.85 was actually paid and still due and owing is $121.35. That the Petitioners as well as the Sellers were aware of the proper amount of tax due and signed a receipt reflecting the monies allocable for documentary and surtax stamps. That the Petitioners failed either intentionally or negligently to pay the proper amount of documentary and surtax stamps at the time of recording the deed.
Recommendation Assess the documentary stamps and the documentary surtax against Petitioners together with applicable penalties. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Eugene J. Howard, Esquire 2212 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Petitioners were desirous of having a custom built home on a lot of their choice. During the course of this endeavor they met Jack Brolsma, President of Jack Brolsma & Associates (hereinafter called Brolsma) a builder, and also learned that a particular lot owned by Yanow in which they were interested was for sale at a price of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) plus interest on mortgage. On July 17, 1977 the Greenes entered into a contract with Brolsma to construct a house on Lot 12, Plat IV, The President Country Club in West Palm Beach, Florida for one hundred thirty five thousand dollars ($135,000). Brolsma at all times here involved, was a builder of custom homes and not a land developer as that term is generally recognized. Jack Brolsma owned fifty percent of the corporation bearing his name. The contract provided that Greene would obtain a construction money mortgage and pay to Brolsma one hundred thirty five thousand dollars ($135,000) for the house and lot with the understanding that the lot would be deeded to Greene at cost to Brolsma plus a cost for de-mucking which previous testings had indicated would be required to provide a stable foundation. By Warranty Deed dated August 1, 1977 (Exhibit 10) Brolsma acquired title to Lot 12 from the Yanows. Documentary stamp taxes attached to this deed indicates that the total price was thirty one thousand nine hundred dollars ($31,900). By Warranty Deed dated August 1, 1977 (Exhibit 4) Brolsma deeded Lot 12 to the Greenes. This deed was recorded August 9, 1977. The Greenes qualified for a one hundred eight thousand dollar ($108,000) mortgage with Sun First National Bank of Delray Beach, and on August 8, 1977 executed a mortgage (Exhibit 7) and the transaction closed. Buyers and sellers closing statements are contained in Exhibit 3. At the closing on August 8, 1977 documentary stamps in the amount of four hundred five dollars ($405) and surtax of one hundred forty eight dollars and fifty cents ($148.50) was charged to buyer and affixed to deed. At closing buyers paid some twenty seven thousand five hundred dollars ($27,500) and the previous mortgage on the land was satisfied. Thereafter the construction was commenced with the mortgagee making disbursement to Brolsma per schedule (Exhibit 13). Prior to the time Lot 12 was purchased by Brolsma, Petitioners were aware of the ownership of this lot and that it was for sale for approximately thirty thousand dollars ($30,000). Since Brolsma was more familiar with acquiring land than were Petitioners he agreed to obtain the lot upon which Petitioners had contracted to have their house built.
The Issue The issue in this unadopted-rule challenge is whether Respondent, in connection with the administration of the stamp tax, has formulated a statement of general applicability for allocating undifferentiated, lump-sum payments made in purchase- and-sale transactions involving joint real estate/personal property transfers; which meets the statutory definition of a rule but has not been adopted pursuant to the rulemaking procedure; and, as used by Respondent, has the effect of creating an entitlement to collect tax on 100% of the undifferentiated consideration.
Findings Of Fact On February 23, 2015, Petitioner 1701 Collins (Miami) Owner, LLC ("Taxpayer"), a Delaware limited liability company, entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Agreement") to sell a going concern, namely a hotel and conference center doing business in Miami Beach, Florida, as the SLS Hotel South Beach (the "Hotel Business"), to 1701 Miami (Owner), LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Purchaser"). Purchaser paid Taxpayer $125 million for the Hotel Business. The Hotel Business comprised two categories of property, i.e., real estate ("RE") and personal property ("PP"). The PP, in turn, consisted of two subcategories of property, tangible personal property ("TPP") and intangible personal property ("ITPP"). It is undisputed that the property transferred pursuant to the Agreement included RE, TPP, and ITPP. The sale closed on June 5, 2015, and a special warranty deed was recorded on June 8, 2015, which showed nominal consideration of $10. Pursuant to the Agreement, Taxpayer was responsible for remitting the documentary stamp tax and the discretionary surtax (collectively, "stamp tax"). Stamp tax is due on instruments transferring RE; the amount of the tax, payable per instrument recorded, is based upon the consideration paid for RE. Stamp tax is not assessed on consideration given in exchange for PP. The Agreement contains a provision obligating the parties to agree, before closing, upon a reasonable allocation of the lump-sum purchase price between the three types of property comprising the Hotel Business. For reasons unknown, this allocation, which was to be made "for federal, state and local tax purposes," never occurred. The failure of the parties to agree upon an allocation, if indeed they even attempted to negotiate this point, did not prevent the sale from occurring. Neither party declared the other to be in breach of the Agreement as a result of their nonallocation of the consideration. The upshot is that, as between Taxpayer and the Purchaser, the $125 million purchase price was treated as undifferentiated consideration for the whole enterprise. Taxpayer paid stamp tax in the amount of approximately $1.3 million based on the full $125 million of undifferentiated consideration. Taxpayer paid the correct amount of stamp tax if the entire consideration were given in exchange for the RE transferred to Purchaser pursuant the Agreement——if, in other words, the Purchaser paid nothing for the elements of the Hotel Business consisting of PP. On February 6, 2018, Taxpayer timely filed an Application for Refund with Respondent Department of Revenue (the "Department"), which is the agency responsible for the administration of the state's tax laws. Relying on a report dated February 1, 2018 (the "Deal Pricing Analysis" or "DPA"), which had been prepared for Taxpayer by Bernice T. Dowell of Cynsur, LLC, Taxpayer sought a refund in the amount of $495,013.05. As grounds therefor, Taxpayer stated that it had "paid Documentary Stamp Tax on personal property in addition to real property." Taxpayer's position, at the time of the refund application and throughout this proceeding, is that its stamp tax liability should be based, not on the total undifferentiated consideration of $125 million given in the exchange for the Hotel Business, but on $77.8 million, which, according to the DPA, is the "implied value" of——i.e., the pro-rata share of the lump-sum purchase price that may be fairly allocated exclusively to——the RE transferred pursuant to the Agreement. Taxpayer claims that, to the extent it paid stamp tax on the "implied values" (as determined in the DPA) of the TPP ($7 million) and ITPP ($40.2 million) included in the transfer of the Hotel Business, it mistakenly overpaid the tax.1/ On February 23, 2018, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Make Refund Claim Changes, which informed Taxpayer that the Department planned to "change" the refund amount requested, from roughly $500 thousand, to $0——to deny the refund, in other words. In explanation for this proposed decision, the Department wrote: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the [special warranty deed] was recorded. Please provide supporting information regarding allocation of purchase price on or around the time of the sale." This was followed, on April 2, 2018, by the Department's issuance of a Notice of Proposed Refund Denial, whose title tells its purpose. The grounds were the same as before: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the document was recorded." Taxpayer timely filed a protest to challenge the proposed refund denial, on May 31, 2018. Taxpayer argued that the $125 million consideration, which Purchaser paid for the Hotel Business operation, necessarily bought the RE, TPP, and ITPP constituting the going concern; and, therefore, because stamp tax is due only on the consideration exchanged for RE, and because there is no requirement under Florida law that the undifferentiated consideration exchanged for a going concern be allocated, at any specific time, to the categories or subcategories of property transferred in the sale, Taxpayer, having paid stamp tax on consideration given for TPP and ITPP, is owed a refund. The Department's tax conferee determined that the proposed denial of Taxpayer's refund request should be upheld because, as he explained in a memorandum prepared on or around December 27, 2018, "[t]he taxpayer [had failed to] establish that an allocation of consideration between Florida real property, tangible personal property, and intangible property was made prior to the transfer of the property such that tax would be based only on the consideration allocated to the real property." The Department issued its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial on January 9, 2019. In the "Law & Discussion" section of the decision, the Department wrote: When real and personal property are sold together, and there is no itemization of the personal property, then the sales price is deemed to be the consideration paid for the real property. [2] Likewise, when the personal property is itemized, then only the amount of the sales price allocated for the real property is consideration for the real property and subject to the documentary stamp tax. The first of these propositions will be referred to as the "Default Allocation Presumption." The second will be called "Consensual-Allocation Deference." The Department cited no law in support of either principle. In its intended decision, the Department found, as a matter of fact, that Taxpayer and Purchaser had not "established an allocation between all properties prior to the transfer" of the Hotel Business. Thus, the Department concluded that Taxpayer was not entitled to Consensual-Allocation Deference, but rather was subject to the Default Allocation Presumption, pursuant to which the full undifferentiated consideration of $125 million would be "deemed to be the consideration paid for the" RE. Taxpayer timely requested an administrative hearing to determine its substantial interests with regard to the refund request that the Department proposes to deny. Taxpayer also filed a Petition to Determine Invalidity of Agency Statement, which was docketed under DOAH Case No. 19-3639RU (the "Rule Challenge"). In its section 120.56(4) petition, Taxpayer alleges that the Department has taken a position of disputed scope or effect ("PDSE"), which meets the definition of a "rule" under section 120.52(16) and has not been adopted pursuant to the rulemaking procedure prescribed in section 120.54. The Department's alleged PDSE, as described in Taxpayer's petition, is as follows: In the administration of documentary stamp tax and surtax, tax is due on the total consideration paid for real property, tangible property and intangible property, unless an allocation of consideration paid for each type of property sold has been made by the taxpayer on or before the date the transfer of the property or recording of the deed. If the alleged PDSE is an unadopted rule, as Taxpayer further alleges, then the Department is in violation of section 120.54(1)(a). The questions of whether the alleged agency PDSE exists, and, if so, whether the PDSE is an unadopted rule, are common to Taxpayer's separate actions under sections 120.57(1) and 120.56(4), respectively, because neither the Department nor the undersigned may "base agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule." § 120.57(1)(e)1., Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the Rule Challenge was consolidated with Taxpayer's refund claim for hearing. It is determined that the Department, in fact, has taken a PDSE, which is substantially the same as Taxpayer described it. The undersigned rephrases and refines the Department's PDSE, to conform to the evidence presented at hearing, as follows: In determining the amount stamp tax due on an instrument arising from the lump-sum purchase of assets comprising both RE and PP, then, absent an agreement by the contracting parties to apportion the consideration between the categories or subcategories of property conveyed, made not later than the date of recordation (the "Deadline"), it is conclusively presumed that 100% of the undifferentiated consideration paid for the RE and PP combined is attributable to the RE alone. According to the PDSE, the parties to a lump-sum purchase of different classes of property (a "Lump—Sum Mixed Sale" or "LSMS") possess the power to control the amount of stamp tax by agreeing upon a distribution of the consideration between RE and PP, or not, before the Deadline.2/ If they timely make such an agreement, then, in accordance with Consensual-Allocation Deference, which is absolute, the stamp tax will be based upon whatever amount the parties attribute to the RE. If they do not, then, under the Default Allocation Presumption, which is irrebuttable, the stamp tax will be based upon the undifferentiated consideration. The Department has not published a notice of rulemaking under section 120.54(3)(a) relating to the PDSE. Nor has the Department presented evidence or argument on the feasibility or practicability of adopting the PDSE as a de jure rule. It is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that the PDSE has the effect of law because the Department, if unchecked, intends consistently to follow, and to enforce compliance with, the PDSE. Because, in the Department's hands, the PDSE creates an entitlement to collect stamp taxes while adversely affecting taxpayers, it is an unadopted rule.
Findings Of Fact Charles Schwartz, an unlicensed building contractor built several houses in St. Lucie County including the house now owned by Salvatore and Cecelia Patti. In early 1976, Schwartz was in serious financial trouble and after commencing construction of the house here involve and placing a mortgage in the amount of $29,600 on the property on February 20, 1976, found himself unable to make the mortgage payments. This mortgage provided for interest payments only until June 20, 1976 when both principal and interest payments would start. Patti had done work as a subcontractor for Schwartz and was aware Schwartz was anxious to dispose of the property subject to the above mortgage. In April, 1976, before the house was completely finished, Patti purchased the house from Schwartz but didn't obtain a deed or assignment of mortgage until a later date. Patti agreed to assume the mortgage and complete the unfinished work as consideration for transfer of the property. Schwartz advised Patti that he, Schwartz, would record the warranty deed and have it sent to Patti. This deed was recorded on June 1, 1976 and documentary stamp taxes in the amount of $0.30 and surtax stamps in the amount of $0.55 were placed on the deed. When Patti received a copy of the recorded deed he paid no attention to the documentary stamps that had been placed on this instrument. After recording the warranty deed upon the representation to the clerk that the property consisted of unimproved land, Schwartz left town and numerous creditors "holding the bag". Schwartz had also advised Patti that the ad valorem taxes for 1976 had been paid on the property. Patti learned in late 1976 that these taxes had not been paid and to remove the lien thereby created against the property in January, 1977 he redeemed the tax certificates sold for these taxes. Patti's first information that proper documentary stamp taxes had not been placed upon his deed was contained in NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT dated November 19, 1976 (Exhibit 1) which showed an assessment for documentary stamps in the amount of $86.70, penalty $86.70 and interest in the amount of $4.48 for a total of $177.88. Since Petitioner acknowledged the accuracy of the assessment of $86,70 this amount is found to be the proper assessment.
