Findings Of Fact The facts in this case are undisputed. On April l6, 1976, petitioner Arthur J. Coyle and his wife Katie Coyle, became the sole shareholders of Sara- Wolf, Inc., a Florida Corporation, whose assets consisted of an apartment building in Miami Beach, Florida. Thereafter, the Coyles decided to transfer the corporate assets to themselves as individuals. They were advised by their attorney that, in view of the 1975 decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Florida Department of Revenue v. DeMaria, 321 So 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) in a similar factual situation, no state documentary stamp tax would be due on the transaction. Therefore, relying upon that judicial decision, petitioner and his wife proceeded to execute a quit claim deed of the corporate real estate to themselves on May 13, 1976, and file the same in the public records of Dade County, Florida, on May 18, 1976, with payment of only nominal documentary stamp tax. The decision of the District Court of Appeal had been stayed by the Supreme Court on December 8, 1975. Subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in the DeMaria case on October 14, 1976, which quashed the lower court's decision, respondent issued a notice of proposed assessment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of $526.50 based on a taxable consideration of $175,500, less 30 cents tax paid, for a total tax due of $526.20 plus a like amount as a penalty, and $42.00 in interest, for a total asserted liability of $1,094.40. (Testimony of petitioner, Exhibits 1-3)
Recommendation That the proposed assessment of $1,094.40 against petitioner Arthur J. Coyle and Katie Coyle is valid and should be enforced. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Glassman, Esquire 903 Biscayne Building 19 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue There are two issues raised in this case: Whether the transaction evidenced by the written instrument is taxable-under provisions of Sections 201.08, F.S., 201.01 and 201.08(1), F.S.; and Whether the amendment to the note and mortgage involved in this case is a promissory note taxable pursuant to Section 201.08(1), F.S.
Findings Of Fact There are two issues raised in this case: Whether the written document which evidences the transaction is taxable under the provisions of Sections 201.01 and 201.08(1), F.S.; and Whether the amendment to the note and mortgage involved in this case is a promissory mote or written obligation to pay money and taxable pursuant to Section 201.08(1), F.S. The facts are that on February 28, 1974, the Petitioners, except for Joe R. Hughes, III, and W. Comer Cherry, executed a promissory mote to Lewis State Bank for $405,000 with interest at 10 percent per annum, payable monthly, beginning March 1, 1974, with the entire amount of the principle ($405,000) due on or before February 28, 1975. Said Petitioners executed a mortgage to Lewis State Bank as security for said loan. On April 8, 1975, the due date of the principle was extended to August 28, 1975. The Lewis State Bank then assigned the note and mortgage to Thomas County Federal on July 7, 1975. On July 2 and July 7, 1975, the Petitioners including Hughes and Cherry, but not Rainey, signed the instrument in Tallahassee, Florida, upon which the tax being challenged is assessed. Rainey took the instrument which appears on its face to be an Amendment to the aforementioned Note and Mortgage dated February 28, 1974, to Thomas County Federal Savings and Loan, Thomas County, Georgia. The Amended Note and Mortgage was signed by Rainey and accepted by Thomas County Federal as assignee of said original note and mortgage in Thomas County, Georgia, on July 7, 1975. The other obligors who were jointly and severally liable had signed in Florida. See R-16-21. The purpose of the amendment to the note and mortgage was to refinance the Jefferson Towers Apartments project located in Tallahassee, Florida. See R-14. Thereafter, the money was tendered under the Amendment to Note and. Mortgage, in Georgia, by Thomas County Federal to the agent of the borrowers [Petitioners] Rainey. R-14. The Petitioners, on July 8, 1975, in Leon County, recorded the amendment to note and mortgage, the only instrument reflecting the new outstanding obligation of $412,000 and the only instrument setting forth the Petitioner's promise to pay this new obligation in O. R. Book 724, page 24, et. seq. The Petitioners affixed documentary stamp taxes in the amount of $10.50 on the amendment to the note and mortgage. (See R-21) Whether the instrument entered into between the Petitioners and Thomas County Federal is considered a new obligation or an amendment of the assigned note and mortgage, the essential factors are that the execution and delivery of the instrument, and exchange of the funds therefor occurred in Georgia. Based on the foregoing facts, the Department of Revenue finds as a matter of law that: To be taxed there must be a Florida transaction evidenced by a promissory note or written obligation to pay money. Sec. 201.08(1), F.S. The Amendment to Note and Mortgage involved in this case was made, signed and executed, in the State of Florida, save one signature of the multiple obligors, who were jointly and severally liable and the loan was used in Florida to refinance a Florida project which had been originally financed in Florida. The Amendment to Note and Mortgage, the only instrument reflecting the outstanding obligation of $412,000 and evidencing the Petitioners' promise to pay this new obligation, was recorded in Leon County, Florida, and has all essential factors of a Florida transaction percent thus subject to documentary stamp tax provided for in Sections 201.01 and 201.08(1), F.S. The Amendment to Note and Mortgage clearly evidences a transaction between the Petitioners and Thomas County Federal pursuant to which the Petitioners are obligated to pay suns of money to Thomas County Federal. Such a written obligation to pay money may be exempt if it meets the criteria of Sec. 201.09, F.S. The document in question does not meet the criteria of Sec. 201.09, F.S., because it did not extend or continue only the identical contractual obligations of the original promissory note but there was a substantial change in the principle amount. No documentary stamps have been affixed to the document which was recorded nor is there any notation on the document that said stamps were placed on any other document, except affixing of documentary stamps in the amount of $10.50; therefore, the document in question is subject to tax under Sec. 201.08(1), F.S., in the amount of $607.50 plus penalty at $607.50. Section 201.08(1) and Section 201.17(2), F.S. Regarding the issue of whether the document would have been taxable as an amendment to the original note and mortgage, the Department concurs with the findings of the Hearing Officer that the document does evidence a transaction in which the taxpayer would have been obligated to pay money to the lending institution. Because the principal amount was increased from $406,000 to $412,000 there was a substantial change in principal amount. Therefore, the exemption provision of Section 201.09, F.S., would not apply.
Conclusions The assessment of the Department of Revenue in the amount of $607.50 under Section 201.08(1), F.S., for delinquent documentary stamp taxes on the amendment to Note and Mortgage and the assessment for penalty under Section 201.17(2), F.S., in the amount of $607.50 are valid. CERTIFICATION I certify that the foregoing is the Final Order of the Department of Revenue adopted by the Governor and Cabinet on July 20, 1976. J. Ed Straughn, Executive Director State of Florida Department of Revenue Room 102, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dated this 21st day of July, 1976
Recommendation The Hearing Officer recommends based on the foregoing findings fact and conclusions of law, than neither the tax or penalty be assessed. Done and ordered this 10th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph C. Mellichamp, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Respondent Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Edgar M. Moore, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner Smith and Moore, P.A. P.O. Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE I. RAINEY, JR., et al., Mortgagors; THOMAS COUNTY FEDERAL, Thomasville, Georgia, Mortgagee, Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 75-1899 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. /
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.
Findings Of Fact The parties in the person of their counsel have stipulated to the evidential facts which shall serve as the basis for the determination of the matters in dispute. The stipulation of facts and its attendant exhibits are attached to this Recommended Order and made a part thereof. As can be seen in the examination of the stipulated facts and supporting exhibits, the amount of $940.80 tax due and $940.80 for penalty is the total amount pertaining to certain notes, including notes in the names of Newth and Smith, copies of which notes appear as Exhibits C and D to the stipulated facts. A review of the total audit, Exhibit A in the stipulated facts, reveals that the amount in issue on the notes of Newth and Smith totals $885.75 alleged tax due and $885.75 alleged penalty due. The balance of the $940.80 documentary stamp tax and $940.80 in penalty pertaining to notes of other named individuals have been conceded by the Petitioner as due and owing and are not in controversy through this hearing process. The original notes on the accounts of Newth and Smith were issued in 1969. The Newth note was drawn on September 17, 1969, and the Smith note on April 14, 1969. At the time the notes were issued, national banks were immune from state and local taxes whose categories were not within the purview of Section 5219 of the Revised Statutes (12 USCA Sec. 548). Documentary stamp taxes were not one of the classes of taxes enumerated in Section 5219. Consequently, no documentary stamp taxes could be imposed against the notes drawn on accounts in the First National Hank of Pompano Beach because in 1969 it was a national bank, a status which it has continued to hold through the time of these proceedings. The prohibition against documentary stamp taxes being imposed by a state government on transactions between a national bank and its customers existed until December, 1969, at which point Public Law 91-156 was enacted, on December 12, 1969, and it amended Section 5219 of the Revised Statutes (12 USCA Sec. 548) and subsequent to that amendment, Title 12 USCA Sec. 3548 allowed state governments to tax national banks. In particular, the language of that latter provision provided: For the purpose of any tax law enacted under the authority of the United States or any State, a national bank shall be treated as a bank organized and existing under the laws of the State or other jurisdiction within which its principal office is located. This meant that transactions between the customers of a national bank and that bank with took place subsequent to the implementation of Title 12 USCA Sec. 3548 could be taxed pursuant to Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, by the process of a documentary stamp tax being levied. (The exhibits attached to the statement of facts show that Newth renewed his note with the Petitioner on April 20, 1971, and again on December 31, 1975. Smith renewed his note on June 12, 1973, and on December 31, 1975. Through the renewal process, documentary steep taxes were not paid on $683,000.00 involving the note of Newth and on $15,500.00 involving the note of Smith.) The Petitioner claims that it need not pay the documentary stamp tax and penalty on the Newth and Smith notes, because it is except from the payment of such tax. While the Petitioner agrees with the Respondent that Subsection 201.08(1), Florida Statutes, calls for the payment of documentary taxes on promissory notes and the renewal of those promissory notes, Petitioner believes that Section 201.09, Florida Statutes, exempts it from the necessity to pay documentary stamp taxes and related penalties in the matter of the renewal of the Newth and Smith notes which took place on December 31, 1975. The provision of Section 201.09, Florida Statutes, states: 201.09 Renewal of existing promissory note; exemption.--Then any promissory note is given in renewal of any existing promissory note, which said renewal note only extends or continues the identical contractual obligations of the original promissory note and evidences part or all of the original indebtedness evidenced thereby, not including any accumulated interest thereon and without enlargement in any way of said original contract and obligation, such renewal note shall not be subject to taxation under this chapter if such renewal note has attached to it the original promissory note with canceled stamps of fixed thereon showing full payment of the tax due thereon. Petitioner reads this provision to mean that the prohibition against the State of Florida levying taxes on the transactions that took place on the Newth and Smith notes in 1969, under the protection afforded by Section 5219 of the Revised Statutes (12 USCA Sec. 548); was tantamount to a declaration that full payment of the tax due thereon had been rendered and when the State attempted to impose the documentary stamp tax on the renewals which took place on December 31, 1975, Section 201.09, Florida Statutes, exempted the Petitioner from the payment of that tax. Under this theory, it was only necessary to attach the original promissory note issued in the Newth and Smith matters in 1969 to the renewal notes of December 31, 1975, and even though canceled stamps were not affixed to the 1969 notes, this could be analogous to attaching promissory notes with canceled stamps to renewal note documents. The analogy is supported in the mind of the Petitioner because both in the instance of the latter promissory notes with documentary stamp taxes attached and in the cases of Newth and Smith where original promissory notes were attached without canceled stamps attached; the key point was that under the hypothetical situation of documentary stamp taxes affixed to the original notes or the actual situation in the Newth and Smith cases, both had the real effect or effect in law of providing full payment of taxes due thereon. The perception of the Petitioner does not comport with the basis for the exemption created by Section 201.09, Florida Statutes. That exemption only applies when tax has actually been paid on the original promissory note, which did not occur here, and that failure to pay tax on the original promissory notes precludes any claim for exemption when the notes were renewed. There exists one further possibility open to the Petitioner in its efforts to resist the payment of the documentary stamp tax rate penalty on the notes of Newth and Smith. That possibility resides in the idea that the prohibition against taxing the notes when they were drafted in 1969, such prohibition appearing in the guise of Section 5219 of the Revised Statutes (12 USCA Sec. 548); it would continue to exist for the life of the note making all renewals exempt from taxation. That interpretation does not pass muster when viewed in the light of Title 12 USCA Sec. 3548, which removed future transactions from their exempt status and made them subject to tax by the Respondent. This change in position allowed Subsection 201.08(1), Florida Statutes, to be imposed on the renewals to the promissory notes, which occurred on December 31, 1975. In summary, Petitioner having failed to demonstrate its entitlement to the exemption set out in Section 201.09, Florida Statutes, it is liable in the lull amount claimed for the payment of documentary stamp taxes and penalties in a like amount in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, on all transactions addressed in the audit, which is Exhibit A to the statement of facts.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, First National Bank of Pompano Beach, be required to pay documentary stamp taxes in the amount of $940.80 and penalties in the amount of $940.80 related to the transactions on these promissory notes set out in the stipulation of facts offered by the parties. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 15th day of June, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Culpepper, Esquire 716 Barnett Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barbara Staros Harmon, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
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 By this petition, American Foam Rubber Distributors, Inc. (AFRD) and Edward Rothbard seek to have the Department of Revenue's assessment for documentary stamp tax and penalties on a transfer of real property by quit claim deed from Edward Rothbard to AFRD set aside. Petitioners contend that the transfer was without consideration and therefore nontaxable under sec. 201.02, F.S. , while Respondent contends that consideration flowed to the grantor by virtue of the grantee making the mortgage payments; and therefore, documentary tax stamps were due on the deed of conveyance computed on the amount of the mortgage at the time of transfer. One witness testified in behalf of Petitioners and four exhibits were admitted into evidence. From the pleadings, interrogatories and evidence presented at the hearing, the facts are largely undisputed and are as follows:
Findings Of Fact Edward Rothbard owns 100 percent of the outstanding stock of AFRD and he has been the sole shareholder and chief executive officer of the company since the company s inception in 1962. On March 9, 1973 the Seaboard Coastline Railroad (SCL) entered into an agreement with AFRD to sell a tract of land in Miami to the latter at an agreed price of $116,978.00 with certain conditions. The principal condition was that the grantee erect a warehouse on the property within one year from the date of the transfer. By deed dated August 23, 1973 the property was conveyed by SCL to Edward Rothbard rather than as per the contract. This deed was apparently delivered in late October, 1973 and the proper documentary stamp tax was paid on this transaction. Mr. Rothbard's testimony that the sole reason for taking the property in his name was to expedite the transaction was not rebutted. In exhibits 1 and 2 copies of letters from SCL dated September 21 and 26, 1973, SCL referred to Rothbard as nominee of AFRD to be grantee of the property. Exhibit 4, the title page of an interim title insurance binder, indicates that the title insurance policy on the property purchased from SCL was intended to be in the name of AFRD. In August, 1974 the building erected on the site for the use and benefit of AFRD was completed and Edward Rothbard mortgaged the property to secure a note in the amount of $550,000.00. His wife also executed the note and mortgage. AFRD occupied the building in September, 1975 and made all mortgage payments to the mortgagee including the first payment. By quitclaim deed executed February 26, 1975 Edward Rothbard conveyed the property here involved to AFRD subject to the mortgage. Minimum documentary tax stamps were placed on this deed. On February 26, 1975 the outstanding balance due on the mortgage was $543,969.59.
Findings Of Fact On December 27, 1976, Petitioner entered into an Assumption Agreement and Release of Seller, a copy of which is appended to this recommended order as Exhibit "A". The agreement contains, in writing, the obligation of Flagler Hospital, Inc., to pay Petitioner the sum of $238,464,52. The document is not a renewal of an existing obligation. On April 25, 1977, Respondent gave Petitioner notice that a penalty and interest under Section 201.08, Florida Statutes, had been assessed against it in the amount of $729.42 because the agreement constituted a note or written obligation to pay money. The agreement was executed in the State of Florida. No documentary stamp taxes have been paid regarding the agreement. The mathematical computation of the tax, penalty and interest is correct. The agreement represents the assumption of an existing debt between Petitioner and Inter-Medic Health Centers, Inc., by Flagler Hospital, Inc. The original debt is evidenced by a note and mortgage dated February 11, 1976. Documentary stamp taxes in the amount of $360.00 were paid as to the original note. No additional indebtedness was created by the agreement, but the agreement releases the original obligor, Inter-Medic Health Centers, Inc., from liability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is in the land development business. Petitioner sold residential lots to various purchasers and contracted through a sister corporation to construct homes on the lots. At the time the lots were conveyed no improvements had been made. Petitioner placed documentary tax stamps and documentary surtax stamps upon the deeds reflecting the consideration for the deeds as the price of the lots. Respondent contends that stamps should have been placed on the deeds reflecting the consideration as the price of the lots plus improvements. Accordingly Respondent is proposing to assess additional stamp taxes, surtaxes, penalties and interest upon the Petitioner in the total amount of $13,002.10. The pleadings, answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for admissions establish that unless Rule 12A-4.13(22), Florida Administrative Code is invalid, Petitioner is liable for the taxes Respondent proposes to assess. The transactions which form the basis of the proposed assessment are package deals within the meaning of the Rule.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the hearing the parties jointly moved to consolidate the two (2) above styled cases and stated the stipulation would cover both 76-2197, D.O.A.H., and 77-604, D.O.A.H. The former involved six (6) deeds and the latter three (3) deeds. The following facts were stipulated to by the parties: The Respondent, Department of Revenue, imposed a documentary stamp tax upon six (6) deeds which transferred the title to properties from individual persons to Petitioner Corry. The transfer came about as a result of the following: In each of the six (6) transfers under question, Petitioner Corry sold property to certain individuals. The Petitioner gave to the individuals a deed and took back a purchase money mortgage. The purchasers made essentially no payments on the mortgage to Petitioner Corry and ultimately the purchasers deeded the property back to the Petitioner. The deeds were recorded in the courthouse records. In one of the deeds there is a specific statement that the deed is executed in lieu of foreclosure and that the purchaser is released from all liability. There is no such specific statement in the other deeds. By a Proposed Notice of Assessment dated August 3, 1976, the Respondent, Department of Revenue, sought to impose a documentary stamp tax upon the six (6) deeds. The consideration upon which the tax is based in cases like the instant case is usually the amount of mortgage debt forgiven but in the instant case no such information was provided and the tax was based on the assessed values of the property. Petitioner Corry is contesting the legal liability of Petitioner for the assessment and is not contesting the legal liability of Petitioner for the assessment and is not contesting the mathematical computation of the amount allegedly due. It is Petitioner's contention that the six (6) deeds are not subject to documentary stamp taxation inasmuch as the Petitioner paid nothing for the deeds and were signed by the mortgagors at the request of the Petitioner to clear title of the equitable owner. It is the Respondent Department of Revenue's contention that the six (6) deeds are subject to documentary stamp taxation since they are deeds in lieu of foreclosure or are deeds given when debts are rendered unenforceable. At the time the six (6) deeds were recorded on December 22, 1975, in Taylor County, the Deputy Clerk asked Petitioner how much he paid for the six (6) deeds in question and when he responded that he paid nothing for the deeds the Deputy Clerk advised him that he owed no documentary stamp tax or surtax thereon. Relying on the Deputy Clerk's advice, the deeds were recorded and no taxes were paid, only the recording fees. The Hearing Officer further finds: The deeds in question were secured for the purpose of clearing title to the equitable owner. The Petitioner paid nothing to the mortgagor for the deeds. The stipulation controls both cases No. 76-2197 and 77-604.
Recommendation Hold the assessments as valid assessment. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Caroline C. Mueller, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William W. Corry, Esquire Post Office Box 527 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND 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 6th day of July, 1977.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Findings contained in paragraphs 1-28, were stipulated to by the parties. Gary D. Miller and Katherine A. Miller made a note to Southeast Bank (Southeast) dated March 27, 1990, in the stated amount of $80,000 (the Note). Gary D. Miller and Katherine A. Miller (the Millers) executed a Future Advance Note, Modification and Cross-Collateralization Agreement (the Mortgage) in favor of Southeast dated March 27, 1990, and recorded in Volume 4178, page 2981, of the official records of Orange County, Florida. Southeast was doing business and in good standing on March 27, 1990. The Note was consolidated with a promissory note made by the Millers dated June 7, 1988 in the stated amount of $350,000 and replaced by a Consolidated Replacement Note dated April 9, 1991, in the stated amount of $371,250 (the Consolidated Note). The Consolidated Note was defined and secured in a Mortgage Modification Agreement between Southeast and the Millers dated April 9, 1991 and recorded at volume 4278, page 0065 of the official records of Orange County, Florida. Southeast was doing business and in good standing on April 9, 1991. First Union National Bank of Florida (First Union) is the owner and holder of the Note, the Consolidated Note and the Mortgage identified in paragraphs 1,2, and 4 above. The Department timely assessed documentary stamp taxes on the Note. The assessment covers the Consolidated Note. There is no evidence that documentary stamps are attached or affixed to the Note, the Consolidated Note or the Mortgage. No documentary stamp tax were paid on the Note, the Consolidated Note or the Mortgage. The Office of the Comptroller of the currency declared Southeast insolvent and appointed the FDIC as receiver for Southeast on September 19, 1991. The FDIC, as receiver, became the owner and holder of all of the promissory notes and mortgages formerly held by Southeast. The FDIC (as Receiver of Southeast, and corporately) and First Union entered into an Assistance Agreement dated September 19, 1991, under which the FDIC, as Receiver, sold and assigned to First Union the Consolidated Note and the Mortgage. The FDIC, as Receiver, executed an Assignment of Mortgage, subsequently filed in volume 588, page 589, of the official records of Orange County, Florida. First Union is not the same entity as Southeast (by name or otherwise). First Union purchased no portion of the stock ownership of Southeast, rather First Union purchased only those assets and liabilities of Southeast detailed in the Assistance Agreement. Under terms of the Assistance Agreement, First Union expressly assumed only certain specified liabilities. First Union did not expressly assume any liabilities of Southeast relating to payment of taxes under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes. Under the terms of the Assistance Agreement, the FDIC and First Union contractually agreed that the FDIC would indemnify First Union for "costs, losses, liabilities, expenses, judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement reasonably incurred in connection with claims against" First Union based upon a liability of Southeast that was not expressly assumed by First Union. A claim entitling First Union to indemnification from the FDIC under the terms of the Assistance Agreement is a claim for a liability for "taxes" of Southeast. The definition of "taxes" in the Assistance Agreement includes stamp taxes imposed by states, including interest and penalty. By a Notice dated January 5, 1995, Respondent issued an Official Request for Information to "Southeast Bank, National Association, First Union Bank/Barbara H. Smith." On March 1, 1995, Respondent issued to "Southeast Bank, NA, First Union Bank, N.A." a Notice of Intent to Make Documentary Stamp Tax and Discretionary Surtax Audit (the Notice of Audit). The Notice of Audit was received by First Union on March 22, 1995. First Union timely responded to the Notice of Audit by letter dated May 31, 1995, stating that "any transaction prior to September 19, 1991, which might precipitate liability becomes the responsibility of the FDIC." Respondent treated the May 31, 1995 letter of First Union as a protest of the audit. On June 20, 1995, Respondent issued to "Southeast Bank, N.A.-First Union Bank, N.A." a Notice of Proposed Assessment of $150.00 representing tax and interest on the original $80,000 note of March 27, 1990, or an assessment of tax and interest on the Consolidated Note. Southeast Bank remains under the receivership of the FDIC. Additional Facts FDIC's sale of the Note and Consolidated Note to First Union under terms of the September 19, 1991 Assistance Agreement imbued First Union with ownership rights inclusive of the right to receive payments of principal and interest on the Note and Consolidated Note, as well as the right to foreclose on the makers of the Note and Consolidated Note for nonpayment. Neither the Note or Consolidated Note qualify for exemption from documentary stamp taxes levied pursuant to provisions of Chapter 201, Florida Statutes. Documentary stamp taxes constitute an excise tax on documents, as opposed to a tax on the underlying transaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered upholding Respondent's full assessment of tax and penalty against Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 25th day of June, 1996. DON W. 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 June, 1996. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Petitioner's proposed findings (other than the 28 paragraphs of stipulated findings of fact) consisted of seven paragraphs denominated by letters A-G. No citation to the record was included in these proposed findings. Accordingly, the proposed findings, while reviewed and addressed to the extent possible by the foregoing findings of fact, are rejected. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-28. Stipulated facts adopted. 29.-32. Adopted, although not verbatim. COPIES FURNISHED: William W. Gallogly, Esquire First Union Corporation Legal Division 225 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Scott M. Covell, Esquire Dept. of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
