The Issue The issue here presented concerns an alleged violation of Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(1)(c)1, Florida Administrative Code, related to the permissible ten percent (10 percent) evaporated temperature for which gasoline shall not exceed 140F, and penalties to be imposed for such violations, in keeping with Section 525.06, Florida Statutes (1980), and Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(1)(c)1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, is an agency of State government which has the obligation to inspect petroleum products in keeping with the provisions of Chapter 525, Florida Statutes (1980). The Respondent is a corporation which sells petroleum products in the State of Florida at an outlet located at 3411 U.S. 19 North, Pasco County, Tarpon Springs, Florida. On November 23, 1981, a sample of the petroleum product, super unleaded gasoline (which was offered for sale) was taken from the Respondent's facility as indicated above. A subsequent analysis of that product by Petitioner's mobile laboratory revealed that the ten percent (10 percent) evaporated temperature was 153F. This reading exceeded the ten percent (10 percent) evaporated temperature of 140F as set forth in Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(1)(c)1, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's inspector, Jamie Gillespie, advised Respondent's agent that the premium unleaded gasoline was illegal due to its "stale" condition and the Respondent was given an option of either confiscation of the product or posting of a bond. The product is presently under a Stop Sale Notice and is under seal. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1.) A subsequent analysis by Petitioner's laboratory in Tallahassee revealed that the evaporation level of the product was found to be approximately 163F. Ben Bowen, Petitioner's Assistant Bureau Chief in charge of petroleum inspection, indicates that the discrepancy in the evaporation levels as analyzed by the two laboratories was most probably due to the seal which was on the product and the approximate seven (7) day delay in the transfer of the product from Tarpon Springs to the laboratory in Tallahassee. Respondent's supervisor, Mark Ordway, 1/ was shown how the product could possibly become stale due to a "venting" problem from the roof of the storage tank where the product was stored. Sam Puleo, a lab technologist employed in Petitioner's mobile laboratory, analyzed the sample of the product taken from Respondent's facility. According to Mr. Puleo, "stale" products such as that taken from Respondent's tanks would make it difficult to start an automobile engine.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner William Lineberger, doing business as Jet Oil Company, has, since 1950, continuously used the brand name "Jet" for identifying gasoline sold by him in the State of Florida. At one time, petitioner owned or operated some thirteen stations in various locations in Florida. Since 1980, he has operated only three stations, all located in Pinellas County-- two in St. Petersburg and one in Pinellas Park. Pursuant to Chapter 525, Florida Statutes, the respondent Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services first issued petitioner a liquid fuel brand name registration for the name "JET" in 1973. Pursuant to Chapter 495, Florida Statutes, the Florida Secretary of State issued petitioner mark registration number 922,820 on August 11, 1980, for the mark "JET" as a trademark and a service mark to be used in connection with gasoline and oil product convenience store items. Kayo Oil Company (Kayo) is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Conoco, Inc. Kayo operates a chain of retail gasoline and convenience stores in 22 states. It has approximately 465 locations concentrated mainly in the southeast portion of the country, with 38 locations in Florida, including one in Pinellas Park. Kayo currently has plans for further expansion in Florida. It's fixed asset base in Florida is approximately $10 million. The typical Kayo retail gasoline outlet in Florida has four multiple product dispensers, sells 500 to 600 different convenience items inside an 800 to 1600 square foot building, markets fast food products and employs a color scheme of black on yellow on its signage and building facade. Conoco, Inc. first began using the "JET" trade name in Europe in the 1960's when it acquired a large chain of European retail gasoline outlets selling under that brand name. It currently operates about 2,000 units under the brand name "JET" in Europe. In the United States, Kayo has used various trade names in the operation of its outlets, including "Kayo" and "JET". In the early 1980's, Kayo made the decision to standardize the name it traded under throughout the United States, and selected the name "JET". In most instances, it accomplished the conversion of its stations from "Kayo" to "JET", with the black on yellow color scheme, during the period from the early 1980's through 1984. The intervenor initially sought to obtain from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services the liquid fuel brand name "JET". That request was denied for the reason that "JET" had been previously registered to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Department issued to the intervenor the liquid fuel brand name registration, "JET +" on April 27, 1981. Kayo is required to display the "JET +" liquid fuel brand name on its dispensers or pumps. 1/ With the exception of two of its Florida locations, Kayo uses the word "JET" on its street and building signage. At its Pinellas Park and Clearwater stations, it has retained the name "Kayo". Being an independent brand marketer, Kayo attempts to dedicate the majority of its signage to display the price of gasoline, as opposed to the gasoline brand name. It is Kayo's marketing philosophy that the consumer is more influenced by low prices and location than by the fuel brand name. In 1984, the physical appearance of petitioner's three stations did not resemble the physical appearance of the typical Kayo station in Florida. Subsequent to 1984, petitioner did some remodeling work at its Pinellas Park station which included yellow and black signage and the name "JET" in black block letters on a yellow background, resembling Kayo's style of lettering on both its pump decals and its signage in areas outside Pinellas County. The yellow pages of the St. Petersburg telephone directory lists both Kayo's Pinellas Park station and petitioner's Pinellas Park station under the heading of Jet Oil Company. In February or March of 1987, a local cigarette supplier attempted to deliver and present an invoice for cigarettes ordered by Kayo to one of petitioner's facilities. This occurred again with the same supplier in March of 1987. In January of 1987, a Motor Fuel Marketing Complaint against the "Jet" business at 7091 Park Boulevard was filed with the Division of Consumer Services, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Although this is the address of the Kayo station in Pinellas Park, the Consumer Services Consultant, Division of Consumer Services, forwarded the complaint to "Jet Oil Company" at 7879 - 49th Street North, the petitioner's station, for a response. Petitioner presented evidence that other instances of confusion between its stations and Kayo stations had occurred with respect to bills, bank inquiries, and a newspaper article. Also, on one occasion, petitioner was ordered by the Pinellas Park police to close its stations because a bomb threat had been made against Jet Oil. Petitioner did not produce any evidence that the source of any of the incidents related was attributable to the liquid fuel brand names utilized by it or the intervenor.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's request for a hearing challenging the issuance of the "JET +" registration to the intervenor be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 1987.
The Issue Whether the Department properly issued a warning letter for selling gasoline that failed to meet state standards regarding end point temperature contrary to Section 525.037, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency authorized to regulate the petroleum products (fuel) offered for sale in Florida for illuminating, heating, cooking, or power purposes. It does so by randomly sampling fuels offered for sale by vendors throughout the state to determine if the fuel meets standards set by the state pursuant to law. Petitioner operates a marina in central Florida where it offers gasoline for sale to its customers. Respondent's inspectors conducted a random sampling of Petitioner's gasoline. Subsequent testing revealed that the end point temperature of the gasoline was not in conformity with the standards for premium gasoline, the only grade sold by Petitioner. On this basis Respondent issued Petitioner a warning letter. It is undisputed that the gasoline sample failed to meet standards. The end point temperature of gasoline is not apparent from its color, smell, or appearance and can only be determined by testing in a laboratory equipped for that purpose. Petitioner has approximately 1,000 gallons of storage for gasoline and reorders when they have approximately 500 gallons on hand. The wholesaler will not hold Petitioner harmless for product that it sells. In order to assure the quality of the gasoline it sells, Petitioner would have to test each delivery. The cost to test a sample is approximately $100. This would add approximately 20 cents to the cost of each gallon sold on a 500-gallon order, and Petitioner asserts that it now loses 10 to 15 cents per gallon on the fuel it sells as a convenience to boaters at its marina. Respondent does free quality testing of gasoline for vendors as a service based upon the availability of its facilities and time. It takes at least 24 hours to test the fuel. These are unofficial, miscellaneous samples, and the results are reported to the person who provided the sample without follow up. The end point temperature of gasoline is typically altered by the addition of another type of petroleum product to the fuel being sold. This can occur at any point during the chain of delivery from the manufacturer to the ultimate vendor. While the standards of the depots have improved, contamination can and does occur there. Similarly, petroleum transporters have improved their standards, but contamination does occur by inadvertently mixing products when filling tank trucks. Lastly, contamination also occurs at the vendors where there are cases of unscrupulous vendors mixing waste oil with product to get rid of the waste oil. There is no evidence of the cause of the contamination in this case. The Department talked with the wholesaler of the gasoline that provided the gasoline to Petitioner, but that wholesaler was reticent to provide documentation for the fuel and to discuss the matter with representatives of the Department. The operation of engines with fuels that have the wrong end point can result in serious damage to a vehicular or marine engine. If Respondent finds Petitioner selling substandard fuel again, Petitioner will be liable to a fine up to $5,000. After three years, warning letters are expunged if there are no other violations, and Petitioner would receive a warning letter for another violation after three years.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department should enter its final order confirming the issuance of its warning letter. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 12th day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: David W. Young, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street Mayo Building, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Joseph T. Lewis Mount Dora Marina Company, Inc. 148 Charles Avenue Mount Dora, Florida 32757 Eric R. Hamilton, Chief Bureau of Petroleum Inspection Division of Standards Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 3125 Conner Boulevard, Building 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found. On January 15, 1980, Nick Pappas, a petroleum inspector with respondent's Division of Standards, took samples of regular and no lead gasoline from petitioner's station No. 582 located at 3130 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. An analysis of the samples was performed in the Tallahassee lab showing lead contents in the amount of 0.56 grams per gallon in the no lead gasoline sample. The standard for unleaded gasoline offered for sale in Florida is 0.05 gram of lead per gallon. A second sampling and analysis was performed approximately eleven days later because more gasoline had been dumped into the tank since the first sampling. Test results indicated essentially the same level of lead content in the unleaded gasoline. The respondent thereupon issued a "stop sale notice" on January 26, 1980, due to the high content of lead in the product. Tom Nestor, the station manager, was informed that he had several alternatives, including confiscation of the product, with the petitioner posting a bond in the amount of $1,000.00 for the release of the product to be sold as regular gasoline. Having elected this alternative, a "release notice or agreement" was entered into on January 28, 1980. Respondent received a bond in the amount of $1,000.00 from Petitioner, and this amount was deposited into the Gasoline Trust Fund. Tom Nestor admitted the truth of the above facts and admitted that he did not check the product after it was dumped into the tank. He stated that the driver of the delivery truck delivered the product to the wrong gasoline tank. According to Mr. Nestor, the tanks at his station were not properly marked at the time the delivery was made. The "premium" tank was being used to dispense "unleaded" gas, and the deliverer dumped "regular" gasoline into the "unleaded" tank.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioner's request for a return of the cash bond be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The question presented here concerns the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' Stop Sale Notice placed against Respondent, Pinner Oil Company under the alleged authority of Section 525.06, Florida Statutes (1980), by the process of requiring a refundable bond in the amount of $471.34, pending the outcome of this dispute in which it is contended that the Respondent supplied gasoline for sale which failed to comply with Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code, dealing with the allowed lead content in gasoline.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is an agency of government which has, among other responsibilities, the requirement to establish and enforce standards related to maximum allowable lead content in unleaded gasoline offered for sale to the general public. This regulation is designed to avoid the destruction of catalytic devices found in the exhaust systems of certain cars, in which the destruction of a catalyst would bring about problems, with the exhaust system causing its replacement and more importantly, lead to adverse effects on the environment due to an increase in undesired emission from the exhaust system. The Respondent, Pinner Oil Company of Cross City, Florida, is a jobber which supplies gasoline to retail outlets who in turn sales the gasoline to members of the motoring public. The facts reveal that on October 6, 1980, an official with the Petitioner made a routine inspection of the unleaded gasoline reservoir at the B. F. Goodrich-Texaco at 210 Rogers Boulevard, Chiefland, Florida, a customer of Pinner Oil Company. This gasoline was subsequently analyzed and on October 7, 1989, a Stop Sale Notice was served based upon a determination that the unleaded gasoline found in the reservoir at that station contained more than 0.05 grams of lead per U.S. gallon. The gasoline in question was provided to the B. F. Goodrich outlet by an employee of Pinner Oil Company as a part of his duties with the Respondent. In lieu of the total confiscation of the gasoline found in the reservoir tank at the station In question, the Respondent was allowed to post a refundable bond in the amount of $471.34 which represented the price for the number of gallons sold at a retail price since the time of the prior delivery to that station. (By Stipulation entered into between the parties, it was agreed that a finding of fact would be made to the effect that the Respondent, during the course of the last two years, had not been cited for a violation of the Florida Statutes pertaining to contaminated fuels.)
Findings Of Fact At a routine inspection conducted on December 27, 1978 at Suncoast's Fine Station 45 at 825 49th Street, St. Petersburg, Florida, a sample of gasoline taken from the unleaded pump was returned to the mobile laboratory for testing. This test showed the lead content to exceed .110 grams per gallon. A stop sale order was placed on the pump from which the sample was taken and the sample was forwarded to Tallahassee for further testing to ascertain the exact lead content. The laboratory test conducted at Tallahassee showed the sample to have a lead content of .312 grams per gallon. In lieu of having the gasoline, on which the stop sale order was entered, confiscated, Respondent posted a bond in the amount of $1007.68 and the gasoline was released to be sold as regular gasoline. At the time the stop sale was placed on the tank it was determined that some 1441 gallons of excess lead gasoline had been sold from this tank since the tank was last filled. In lieu of confiscating the remainder of the gasoline in this tank, Petitioner was given the option of posting a bond in the amount of $1007.68, which represented the retail price of the gasoline sold from that tank. It is the forfeiture of this bond which Petitioner is contesting, and no evidence was submitted by Petitioner why the bond should not be forfeited.
Findings Of Fact Ware Oil and Supply Company, Inc. (hereafter "Petitioner" or "Ware Oil"), is a wholesale and retail dealer of petroleum products. Ware Oil is a licensed dealer of special and motor fuels. Special fuels are primarily diesel and are used to operate off-highway equipment such as boats, farm tractors and industrial machinery. Beginning March 1980, the Department conducted a special fuels tax audit of the records of the Petitioner for the period January 1, 1977, through January 31, 1980. The special fuels tax audit resulted in a levy of a tax deficiency pursuant to Part II, Chapter 206, Florida Statutes. The taxes assessed together with penalty and interest are $6.868.06, with interest accruing at $1.70 per day from April 14, 1980. The assessment was based in sales of special fuels made by the Petitioner to four customers; Hoxie Brothers Circus, Jackson United Shows, Tommy Lynn and Pace's 66 Marina. The assessment relative to the sales of special fuel to Hoxie Brothers Circus and Jackson United Shows was due to the absence of a purchaser's affidavit of exemption from these customers and the Department's belief that they were dual users of special fuel due to the nature of their businesses. The assessment relative to Tommy Lynn was based on the Department's conclusion that Mr. Lynn was a dual user of special fuel and was an unlicensed dealer at the time the sales were made. The assessment relative to Pace's 66 Marina was based on Pace's resale of special fuels for which a dealer's license is required at the time of purchase. The taxes assessed by the Department are derived from the number of gallons of special fuel which was sold by the Petitioner to Hoxie Brothers Circus, Jackson United Shows, Tommy Lynn and Pace's 66 Marina, on which the $.08 per gallon tax was not collected. During 1977 Petitioner sold 550 gallons of special fuel to Hoxie Brothers Circus for purposes of generating electricity in order to operate circus rides and lights. The Petitioner did not have an exemption certificate from Hoxie relative to this sale although the sale invoice indicated that the fuel was for "off-road use". Sales tax of $.04 per gallon was collected by the Petitioner from Hoxie. No testimony or documentary evidence was produced to demonstrate that Hoxie in fact used the special fuel for an exempt purpose, that the special fuel was not placed into a receptacle connected to the fuel supply system of a motor vehicle and that the special fuel was not purchased for resale or far a dual use. In 1978, the Petitioner sold 300 gallons of special fuel to Jackson United a circus which generates its own electricity for circus rides and lights. The Petitioner has no exemption certificates for this sale; however, like Hoxie, the sales invoice has the term "off-road use" noted on its face. No testimony or documentary evidence was introduced to demonstrate that Jackson in fact used the special fuel for an exempt purpose, that the special fuel was not placed into a receptacle to the fuel supply system of a motor vehicle and that the special fuel was not purchased for resale or for a dual use. In 1977 the Petitioner sold 11,200 gallons of special fuel to Tommy Lynn. At that time Mr. Lynn was an independent logger who used all the special fuel purchased from the Petitioner for his logging equipment in the field and for off-road use. At the time of his purchases from the Petitioner, Mr. Lynn was a dual user of special fuels in that he used special fuel for both on and off road equipment. Mr. Lynn bought his off-road special fuels exclusively from the Petitioner and his on-road special fuel from another dealer. When audited by the Department, Petitioner did not have an exemption certificate for Mr. Lynn on file in its records. The Department in the past accepted exemption certificates obtained after sales were made. Mr. Lynn executed two after the fact exemption certificates. The first certificate was erroneously executed and a second drafted and signed in which Mr. Lynn stated that his purchases were for off-road use. The second certificate corroborates Mr. Lynn's direct testimony that the special fuel purchased from the Petitioner was used solely for off-road use. Neither of these certificates demonstrates that Mr. Lynn was a licensed dealer in special fuels. During 1977, 1978 and 1979 the Petitioner sold 52,484 gallons of special fuel to Pace's 66 Marina. Pace's used this special fuel for resale to users of commercial and pleasure boats and therefore, no sales tax was collected. The location of the special fuel pumps at Pace's make it virtually impossible to use the fuel for purposes other than boating. At the time of the fuel's purchase, Pace's presented an exemption certificate to the Petitioner. At that time, Pace's was not a licensed dealer of special fuels and its dealer's license number did not appear on the exemption certificate furnished to the Petitioner. Petitioner was unaware that Tommy Lynn and Pace's 66 Marina were required to be licensed as dealers and the exemption certificates provided by them should have that contained their dealer's license numbers and therefore, had no knowledge that the exemption certificates of Mr. Lynn and Pace's were incomplete. The sales were made by Petitioner in reliance on the certificates supplied by these two customer. The Department imposed the assessment against Hoxie and Jackson due to the lack of appropriate exemption certificates. The assessment was levied against Tommy Lynn and Pace's due to improperly completed exemption certificates which failed to reflect the dealer's license number. The Department did not consider whether the involved special fuels were in fact used for exempt purposes. The unrebutted testimony and documentary evidence regarding the sales to Tommy Lynn and Pace's 66 Marina supports Petitioner's position that the fuels sold to these two customers were in fact used for exempt purposes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order upholding the tax assessment against the Petitioner, Ware Oil and Supply Company. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of August 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicholas Yonclas, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson Post Office Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeff Kielbasa, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LLO4 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not the agency may, pursuant to Section 525.06 F.S., assess $390.04 for sale of substandard product due to a violation of the petroleum inspection laws and also set off that amount against Petitioner's bond.
Findings Of Fact Coleman Oil Co., Inc. d/b/a Shell Oil Co. at I-75 and SR 26 Gainesville, Florida, is in the business of selling kerosene, among other petroleum products. On November 15, 1990, Randy Herring, an inspector employed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and who works under the direction of John Whitton, Chief of its Bureau of Petroleum, visited the seller to conduct an inspection of the petroleum products being offered for sale to the public. Mr. Herring drew a sample of "1-K" kerosene being offered for sale, sealed it, and forwarded it to the agency laboratory in Tallahassee where Nancy Fisher, an agency chemist, tested it to determine whether it met agency standards. The testing revealed that the sampled kerosene contained .22% by weight of sulfur. This is in excess of the percentage by weight permitted by Rule 5F- 2.001(2) F.A.C. for this product. A "Stop Sale Notice" was issued, and on the date of that notice (November 20, 1990) the inspector's comparison of the seller's delivery sheets and the kerosene physically remaining in his tanks resulted in the determination that 196 gallons of kerosene had been sold to the public. Based on a posted price of $1.99 per gallon, the retail value of the product sold was determined, and the agency accordingly assessed a $390.04 penalty. The agency also permitted the seller to post a bond for the $390.04 on November 21, 1990. The assessment is reasonable and conforms to the amount of assessments imposed in similar cases.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order approving the $390.04 assessment and offsetting the bond against it. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: CLINTON H. COULTER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 510 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800 MR. RANDAL W. COLEMAN COLEMAN OIL COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 248 GAINESVILLE, FL 32602 HONORABLE BOB CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE THE CAPITOL, PL-10 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0810 RICHARD TRITSCHLER, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 515 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact On April 10, 1980, Randy Herring, a Petroleum Inspector for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (hereafter "Department") took a gasoline sample from an unleaded pump identified as Ben 7011 at the Bay Station, SR 329 and I-75, Micanopy, Florida. This sample was taken to the mobile lab in Lake City, Florida, for analysis where it was tested by Mr. Pat Flanagan, Graduate Chemist, and found to be contaminated with diesel or kerosene fuel. The Department issued a stop sale notice on April 21, 1980, in that the unleaded sample tested contained diesel or kerosene fuel which exceeded the distillation range temperatures at 50 percent and 90 percent evaporated temperature as established by the American Society of Testing and Materials (hereafter "ASTM") and adopted by the Department as Rule 5F-2.01, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the product was tested at 322 percent F at 50 percent (maximum allowable 240 percent F) and 536 percent at 90 percent (maximum allowable 365 percent F). The end point exceeded the 437 percent limit by testing at 580 percent F+. Mr. Flanagan forwarded the sample to Mr. John Whitton, Bureau Chief of Petroleum Inspection in order to confirm his initial testing. Mr. Whitton also found the unleaded gasoline to be illegal under ASTM standards. The end point temperature exceeded 580 percent F in both tests which indicated the product was grossly contaminated. The Petitioner was permitted to post a $1,000 bond in lieu of confiscation in order to secure the release of the remaining 3,548 gallons of illegal unleaded gasoline for use in private equipment. Dixie Oil has no knowledge as to how the unleaded gasoline was contaminated. As a preventative measure, the company purchased a test kit in 1974 to enable its employees to randomly sample gasoline. Its own sampling indicates that the gasoline previously sold at the station has met standards. This is the first such incident at this station and Dixie Oil has taken steps to attempt to ensure that it will not be repeated. The Petitioner has not challenged the authority of the Department to require the posting of a $1,000 bond in lieu of confiscation.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order denying Respondent's request for the return of its $1,000 bond which was required to be posted in lieu of confiscation of 3,548 gallons of contaminated unleaded gasoline. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Reheudean Denby, Vice President Dixie Oil Company of Fla, Inc. Post Office Box 1007 Tifton, Georgia
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On September 15, 1960, Earman Oil Company, Inc., was granted License Number 1748 (the "Special Fuels Dealer's License") authorizing it to operate as a User-Dealer of special fuels in the State of Florida. On the face of that License was the following notation: This license is NOT TRANSFERRABLE but will continue in full force and effect until cancelled or revoked as provided by law. The Special Fuels Dealer's License also contained a notation that provided as follows: This license must be returned to RAY F. GREEN, Comptroller, when a licensee terminates his operation as a User-Dealer. On April 1, 1967, Earman Oil Company, Inc., was issued State License Number 375 (the "Motor Fuels Distributor's License") by the Florida Revenue Commission, authorizing Earman to engage in the business of distributing motor fuels in the State of Florida. On the face of that License was the following notation: This license is not transferrable or assignable, and must be displayed conspicuously at all times at the Distributor's office or principle place of business. A Special Fuels Dealer's License and a Motor Fuels Distributor's License entitle a holder to purchase diesel fuel and gasoline for distribution without paying local option taxes pursuant to Chapter 336, Florida Statutes, motor fuel retail sales tax pursuant to Chapter 212, Part II, Florida Statutes and motor fuels tax pursuant to Chapter 206, Part I, Florida Statutes. A holder of such licenses is obligated to collect the taxes upon resale to customers and to remit those taxes to the state. If the resale is to another distributor who holds a valid license, the sale can be made tax free provided the seller follows the procedures set forth in the statutes and applicable DOR rules. In order to obtain either of the licenses during all times pertinent to this case, a company was required to have been in operation for at least one year and had to meet certain other requirements, including the posting of a bond. Sometime in 1983, Barkett, a licensed dealer of special and motor fuels in the state of Florida, purchased Florida Coast Oil Company, Inc. ("Florida Coast"), another licensed dealer of special and motor fuels in the State of Florida. The evidence did not establish the specific terms and details of that acquisition. The licenses held by Florida Coast which enabled it to purchase motor fuels on a tax exempt basis were not cancelled or revoked following Barkett's acquisition of the company. Barkett apparently acquired all of the stock of Florida Coast and Florida Coast continued in operation under that same name. Many, if not all, of the officers and directors of Barkett at this time also became officers and directors in Florida Coast. The evidence was conflicting and confusing as to the status of Earman Oil during 1980-1984. After review of all the evidence, it is concluded that Florida Coast acquired Earman Oil Company in 1980. The evidence did not establish the specific terms and details of that transaction. Apparently, this acquisition was also a stock purchase arrangement and Earman Oil Company initially remained in existence following its acquistion by Florida Coast. However, on August 31, 1981, Earman Oil Company was officially merged into Florida Coast. Harry Barkett, the president of Barkett and Florida Coast (after its acquisition by Barkett in 1983,) testified that the Department was advised of Florida Coast's acquisition of Earman Oil Company and Florida Coast was told by DOR that it could continue to use the licenses issued to Earman Oil Company in order to purchase motor fuels on a tax exempt basis. However, it does not appear that Mr. Barkett had any interest in Florida Coast at the time of the acquisition of Earman and no explanation was provided as to how he learned of DOR's alleged approval of the continued use of Earman's licenses. This contention is discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 24 below. On September 10, 1984, Florida Coast sold certain assets to Alfred Vittorino. Vittorino had previously worked as a manager for Barkett. The sales agreement provided that the assets being sold included ll rights to operate as Earman Oil Company including but not limited to all rights to the stock, licenses, permits or trademarks that are titled to Earman Oil Company that are required to operate the business. The parties have stipulated that on September 12, 1984, a Certificate of Incorporation for a new Earman Oil Company, Inc., was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State for Florida and that Alfred Vittorino was the president and sole stock holder for that company. The licenses issued to the original Earman Oil Company could not legally be transferred or assigned to the new company. Moreover, the new company could not qualify for new licenses on its own since it had not been in operation for at least one year. There is no dispute that at the time Vittorino acquired the assets from Florida Coast and began operating under the name Earman Oil Company, the Special Fuel Dealer's License and the Motor Fuel Distributor's License previously issued in the name of Earman Oil Company were delivered to Vittorino by Florida Coast. Harry Barkett, who was the president of both Barkett and Florida Coast at the time of the sale to Vittorino, testified that Vittorino told him that he would take whatever steps were necessary to get the licenses reissued and/or obtain new licenses so that Earman could continue to purchase fuel on a tax exempt basis. Earman Oil Company never applied for new licenses after its acquisition by Vittorino. Instead, the company merely obtained and used the old licenses. Since the Special Fuel Dealer's License and the Motor Fuel Distributor's Licenses issued to the original Earman Oil Company has never been cancelled, "Earman Oil Company" was still registered with DOR as a distributor of motor fuel and a dealer of special fuels and it remained registered during the entire period in question, September 1984 to April 1985. Although Harry Barkett testified that he believes DOR was notified of Florida Coast's sale of Earman's assets to Vittorino, DOR has no record of the sale and/or the transfer of the licenses of Earman Oil Company to Vittorino. No persuasive evidence was presented to establish that DOR was fully advised as to the terms of the sale and the status of the companies at the time of the sale. The contention that DOR approved the transfer of the licenses to the new company established by Vittorino is rejected. After Vittorino purchased the above described assets from Florida Coast, Earman Oil Company began engaging in the business of selling motor fuel and special fuels to its customers. During the period from September 1984 through April 1985, Earman Oil Company purchased gasoline and diesel fuel from Barkett and other companies and sold that fuel to, among others, Miami Petroleum Oil Company, Inc., an unlicensed distributor of gasoline and diesel fuel. During that period, the invoices for the sales by Barkett to Earman Oil Company indicated that the sales were tax exempt and there is no indication that taxes were being collected from Earman. Barkett did not obtain an affidavit or "resale" certificate from Earman Oil Co. prior to selling tax exempt. However, Barkett filed tax returns with DOR indicating that the sales were tax exempt. Barkett contends that its typical procedure for selling tax exempt to a customer is to obtain the customer's license number and verbally confirm the validity of that number with the Department. Petitioner contends that it followed this procedure prior to selling tax exempt to Earman Oil Company and that the Department confirmed that the license numbers provided by Earman Oil Company were valid. While Petitioner contends that it contacted the Respondent in order to verify that Earman Oil Company was in possession of a valid license, there is no written evidence of any such communication. The applicable statutes and regulations require a distributor to obtain an affidavit or a "resale certificate" in order to sell fuel tax exempt. There is no provision in the rules or the statutes for verbal confirmation of licensure status. From September 1984 through April 1985, Earman Oil collected motor fuel taxes under Chapters 206 and 212, Florida Statutes, from its customers, but never remitted those taxes to the state. There is no evidence that any of the taxes collected by Earman Oil were transferred to Barkett. Earman Oil Company filed tax returns with DOR indicating that it had not collected any taxes. Criminal charges were subsequently brought against Vittorino for failure to remit collected motor fuel taxes for the period September 1984 through April 1985. Vittorino was found guilty by a jury of failure to remit collected motor fuel taxes and was initially sentenced to nine years in prison, which was subsequently reduced to six years on appeal. As of the date of the hearing in this administrative proceeding, the state has not collected any of the outstanding taxes from Vittorino or Earman Oil. Petitioner contends that during the trial of Vittorino, the State of Florida maintained that Earman Oil Company held valid licenses as a distributor of motor fuel and as a dealer of special fuels during the period September 1984 through May 1985. The transcript of that criminal proceeding confirms that this was one theory advanced by the prosecution during that case. However, there was considerable confusion during that trial as to the licensure status of Earman. Ultimately, Vittorino was convicted of failure to remit collected motor fuel taxes. It was not an essential element of this offense for Earman to be a valid license holder. DOR conducted an audit of Barkett (Audit Number 86-17412886) for the period September 1984 through April 1985. The Department's audit indicated that Barkett sold 9,548,414 gallons of motor fuel on a tax free basis to Earman Oil Company during the period from September 1, 1984 through April 30, 1985. During the audit, the auditor requested Barkett to provide resale certificates or affidavits from Earman Oil Company to substantiate the basis for the tax exempt sales. Barkett was unable to produce any such resale certificates or affidavits. As a result, DOR concluded that Barkett was responsible for collecting and remitting to the state taxes on all the sales made during this period by Barkett to Earman. Barkett contested the results of the audit and the Department's Notice of Decision issued on August 4, 1988. Barkett timely petitioned for reconsideration of that decision on September 2, 1988. The Department issued its Notice of Reconsideration on January 19, 1989. In its Notice of Reconsideration, the Department determined that the balance due for the Local Option Tax pursuant to Chapter 336, Florida Statutes, was $540,173.68, which consisted of $381,936.56 tax, $95,484.14 penalty and $62,752.98 interest (with interest accruing at the rate of $125.50 per day from June 6, 1986, until date of payment.) The Department also determined that the balance due for motor fuel retail sales tax pursuant to Chapter 212, Part II, Florida Statutes, was $769,747.50, which consisted of $544,259.60 tax, $136,064.90 penalty and $89,423.00 interest (with interest accruing at the rate of $178.93 per day from June 6, 1988 until date of payment.) Finally, the Department determined that the balance due for motor fuels tax pursuant to Chapter 206, Part I, Florida Statutes, was $540,173.68, which consisted of $381,936.56 tax, $95,484.14 penalty, and $62,752.98 interest (with interest accruing at the rate of $125.57 per day from June 6, 1986 until date of payment.) 1/ As part of its reconsideration, the Department deleted the fraud penalties that had previously been assessed against Barkett. Barkett timely filed a challenge to the Department's conclusions in the Notice of Reconsideration. 2/ During the late 70's and early 1980's, Barkett Oil acquired a number of different oil companies (including Florida Coast, which had previously acquired Earman). Several of the companies that were acquired by Barkett held licenses from the Department that enabled them to purchase motor fuels on a tax exempt basis for resale. Barkett contends that it notified the Department of each of those acquisitions and was never instructed that it had to reapply for a license to purchase tax exempt. Barkett suggests that these prior experiences justified its conclusion that Earman Oil Company could continue to purchase tax exempt following the sale and transfer of licenses to Vittorino. However, the circumstances and terms of the prior acquisitions by Barkett were not established in this case. It is not clear whether those transactions were stock purchase agreements or simply the acquisition of assets. Furthermore, the evidence regarding the notification supposedly given to the Department was vague and unconvincing. Although Petitioner contends that it notified the Department that Earman Oil Company had been sold to Vittorino, there is no written evidence of any such communication. It is not clear who at the Department was notified of the sale nor is it clear what information was provided regarding the sale. In sum, Petitioner's contention that Respondent should be estopped from claiming that Earman Oil Company did not hold a valid Distributor's License and/or Special Fuel License is rejected. There was insufficient persuasive evidence to establish that an authorized representative of the Department who was provided with full disclosure of the facts surrounding the transfer to Vittorino advised Petitioner that it could sell tax exempt to Earman Oil Company.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered upholding the assessments set forth in the Notice of Reconsideration. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1992.
