Findings Of Fact Petitioners were desirous of having a custom built home on a lot of their choice. During the course of this endeavor they met Jack Brolsma, President of Jack Brolsma & Associates (hereinafter called Brolsma) a builder, and also learned that a particular lot owned by Yanow in which they were interested was for sale at a price of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) plus interest on mortgage. On July 17, 1977 the Greenes entered into a contract with Brolsma to construct a house on Lot 12, Plat IV, The President Country Club in West Palm Beach, Florida for one hundred thirty five thousand dollars ($135,000). Brolsma at all times here involved, was a builder of custom homes and not a land developer as that term is generally recognized. Jack Brolsma owned fifty percent of the corporation bearing his name. The contract provided that Greene would obtain a construction money mortgage and pay to Brolsma one hundred thirty five thousand dollars ($135,000) for the house and lot with the understanding that the lot would be deeded to Greene at cost to Brolsma plus a cost for de-mucking which previous testings had indicated would be required to provide a stable foundation. By Warranty Deed dated August 1, 1977 (Exhibit 10) Brolsma acquired title to Lot 12 from the Yanows. Documentary stamp taxes attached to this deed indicates that the total price was thirty one thousand nine hundred dollars ($31,900). By Warranty Deed dated August 1, 1977 (Exhibit 4) Brolsma deeded Lot 12 to the Greenes. This deed was recorded August 9, 1977. The Greenes qualified for a one hundred eight thousand dollar ($108,000) mortgage with Sun First National Bank of Delray Beach, and on August 8, 1977 executed a mortgage (Exhibit 7) and the transaction closed. Buyers and sellers closing statements are contained in Exhibit 3. At the closing on August 8, 1977 documentary stamps in the amount of four hundred five dollars ($405) and surtax of one hundred forty eight dollars and fifty cents ($148.50) was charged to buyer and affixed to deed. At closing buyers paid some twenty seven thousand five hundred dollars ($27,500) and the previous mortgage on the land was satisfied. Thereafter the construction was commenced with the mortgagee making disbursement to Brolsma per schedule (Exhibit 13). Prior to the time Lot 12 was purchased by Brolsma, Petitioners were aware of the ownership of this lot and that it was for sale for approximately thirty thousand dollars ($30,000). Since Brolsma was more familiar with acquiring land than were Petitioners he agreed to obtain the lot upon which Petitioners had contracted to have their house built.
The Issue Whether Documentary Stamp Taxes pursuant to Section 201.08(1), Florida Statutes, are due on that part of a written obligation to pay money which purports to renew, extend, restate, modify and consolidate the borrower's pre- existing debt to the same lender, where another part of the written obligation to pay money makes a new or additional loan to the borrower.
Findings Of Fact On October 1, 1981, a "Consolidated and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement" ("Agreement") was executed by Flagship National Bank of Miami ("Bank" or the "lender"), Petitioner (or the borrower), and Alberto Vadia and Rosario Vadia (the guarantors). The Documentary Stamp Tax consequences of this Agreement (and the obligation to pay money which it evidences) are what is at issue here. By this Agreement, the Bank extended a loan, which Petitioner promised to repay, in the principal amount of $1,900,000.00, of which $818,624.69 remained outstanding under previous loans which the Bank had extended to Petitioner under 1971, 1975, and 1978 loan agreements. The balance of the loan -$1,081,375.31 - was a new or additional loan. The Agreement, in pertinent part, provides: Bank, Borrower and Guarantors desire to enter into this Consolidated and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement and the various documents and instruments incorporated herein by reference to increase the maximum principal amount of the loan to One Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,900,000) and extend the term thereof, secured and guaranteed in the same manner as the prior loans and to consolidate into one document the 1971 Agreement, the 1975 Agreement and the 1978 Agreement. This Consolidated and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement and the documents and instruments incorporated herein by reference constitute a complete restatement, modification, amendment and consolidation of the prior agreements to reflect the parties present intentions and agreements regarding such existing debt and the readvance of a previously amortized portion thereof back to Borrower, and not a novation or substitution of a new debt or obligation for an existing debt or obligation. * * * Such advances as Bank shall elect to make pursuant to the credit facility herein agreed to (and all unpaid sums remaining from the 1971, 1975 and 1978 Agreements which indebtedness shall be represented and renewed by such Note) shall be evidenced by a Consolidated Master Revolving Credit Note in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "C," pursuant to which Borrower promises to pay Bank the sums set forth therein together with interest thereon in accordance with the repayment schedule set forth therein, all as more fully set forth therein, the provisions of which Note are incorporated herein by reference. (e.s.) Documentary Stamp Tax in the amount of $1,622.10 has been paid on that portion of the Agreement representing a new loan or advance. (This represents tax at a rate of $.15 per hundred dollars on $1,081,375.31.) Documentary Stamp Tax has not been paid on that portion of the Agreement which restated, renewed, modified, and consolidated the existing debt or outstanding loan balance of $818,624.69 from the previous 1971, 1975 and 1978 loan agreements. The Department claims Petitioner is obligated to pay Documentary Stamp Taxes in the amount of $1,227.90 (at the rate of $.15 per $100 of amount loaned), plus penalty and interest, on the amount of the outstanding loan balance of $818,624.69 from the 1971, 1975 and 1978 agreements. Petitioner claims that the Documentary Stamp Tax does not apply to the outstanding loan balances carried forward from the three prior agreements or notes. (Petitioner, however, no longer maintains that it is entitled to a refund of Documentary Stamp and Intangible Tax previously paid, as alleged in its initial request for hearing.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order assessing Documentary Stamp Tax in the amount of $1,227.90, plus penalties and interest authorized by statute. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 14th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Francis Marion Pohlig, Esquire 2121 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 240 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Linda S. P. Lettera, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the facts-of the case as follows: On March 2, 1972, the petitioners, Fred W. Baggett and John S. Miller, Jr., along with one Michael W. Duggar, incorporated a Florida corporation known as Tallahassee Properties , Inc. and filed Articles of Incorporation with the Secretary of State, State of Florida. On June 29, 1972, the above described corporation took title to the property described as follows: All that part of Lot Number 176 in the Original Plan of the City of Tallahassee, in the County of Leon, State of Florida, described as follows: to-wit: Begin at the Northwest corner of said lot and run thence East along the South line of College Avenue (formerly Clinton Street) 39 feet to the wall of a brick building, thence run South along the side of said building 60 feet, thence run West 39 feet to the East line of Adams Street, thence run North along the East line of Adams Street 60 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 176, being the point of beginning; from LeRoy Collins and Mary Call Collins, said deed being recorded in Official Records Book 532, Page 327 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida. On that same date, Tallahassee Properties, Inc. executed a note and mortgage in the amount of $55,000 to Leon Federal Savings and Loan Association, said mortgage being recorded in Official Records Book 532, Page 328 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida. The said note was personally endorsed by John S. Miller, Jr., Fredric W. Baggett and Michael W. Duggar. On June 29, 1972, Tallahassee Properties, Inc. executed a note in the original principal amount of $72,405.84 to LeRoy Collins and Mary Call Collins secured by a second mortgage on the property and as recorded in Official Records Book 532, Page 376 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida, The said note was personally endorsed by John S. Miller, Jr., Fredric W. Baggett and Michael W. Duggar. On September 8, 1972, an agreement was entered into between Michael W. Duggar and Ronald C. LaFace of Tallahassee, Florida, wherein the said Michael W. - Duggar conveyed his interest in Tallahassee Properties, Inc. to Ronald C. LaFace and the said Ronald C. LaFace agreed therein to hold Michael W. Duggar harmless and relieve him of liability and indemnifying him for any liabilities which Michael W. Duggar may or could have as a result of his interest in Tallahassee Properties, Inc. This is the reason that the said Ronald C. LaFace is the proper party petitioner in this action. On April 18, 1973, Tallahassee Properties, Inc. executed an additional note to Leon Federal Savings and Loan Association in the amount of $17,500 which said note was also secured by that certain mortgage dated June 29, 1972 and recorded June 29, 1972 in Official Records Book 532, Page 328 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida. The said note was personally endorsed by John S. Miller, Jr., Fredric W. Baggett and Ronald C. LaFace. On April 23, 1973 by an instrument recorded in Official Records Book 584, Page 94 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida, Tallahassee Properties, Inc. conveyed an equal one-third interest in the subject property to John S. Miller, Jr., Fred W. Baggett and 5 Ronald C. LaFace. Affixed to the said deed were documentary surtax stamps in the amount of 55 cents and State of Florida documentary stamp tax in the amount of 30 cents. By letter dated September 24, 1975, the respondent, State of Florida, Department of Revenue, informed the petitioners that they had failed to pay an additional documentary stamp tax in the amount of $434.70 due on that certain warranty deed described above as having been recorded on April 23, 1973 in the Public Records of Leon County, Florida. This proceeding was initiated by petitioners after having received said letter from the respondent for a determination that the assessment was improper in that the subject conveyance was not a taxable event. Respondent has asserted that a tax of $434.70 is due and owing from the petitioners. In addition, they have assessed an additional 100 percent penalty for a total claim of $869.40 exclusive of interest or other penalties. The assessment was determined by the Department of Revenue on the basis of adding the original principal balance of the three above described notes secured by mortgages. The original principal amount of the notes was $144,905.84. By the application of the tax imposed by Section 201.02, Florida Statutes, if the petitioners have any liability for payment of the documentary stamp tax, then the determination of $434.70 as an assessment is a correct figure. Petitioners' exhibits 1 through 4, respondent's exhibit 1 and 2, and posthearing briefs of counsel are appended to the record.
Recommendation That petitioners be, found not liable for the proposed assessment of documentary stamp tax and penalty under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes. Done and Entered this 10th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs the Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Daniel J. Wiser, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact On February 16, 1979, I-B-A, Inc., a Florida corporation, executed a Declaration of Trust pursuant to Section 689.071, Florida Statutes (1977), designating I-B-A, Inc., as Beneficiary and Lewis H. Harmon as Trustee. The trust agreement defined and declared the interest of the Beneficiary to be personal property only. Pursuant to the terms of the trust agreement I-B-A, Inc., conveyed legal title to the real property described in the Declaration of Trust to the Trustee by Warranty Deed. I-B-A, Inc., assigned its beneficial interest to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. Following the assignment, the Trustee, upon direction of the Beneficiary, conveyed legal title to the property to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. by Special Warranty Deed. These documents were all executed on February 16, 1979, and only minimal documentary stamps were placed on the Warranty Deed and the Special Warranty Deed. The consideration paid for the assignment of the beneficial interest from I-B-A, Inc., to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. was $49,101,000. On June 27, 1978, attorneys for taxpayer requested a private ruling from DOR respecting the documentary stamp taxes due on conveyances transferring real property through a Florida land trust established pursuant to Section 689.071, Florida Statutes. By letter dated July 10, 1978, DOR responded to this inquiry by opining that if the necessary documentation exists to comply with the statute the two recorded conveyances would require only minimal documentary tax stamps. One or more articles and/or editorials appeared in Miami newspapers following the February 16, 1979, transaction above discussed pointing out that some $200,000 in documentary stamp taxes had not been collected by the State on the transfer of a large downtown office building from one owner to another. On November 8, 1979, taxpayer received a Notice of Proposed Assessment under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, in which DOR claimed $268,939.10 in taxes, penalties and interest due on the Special Warranty Deed by which the Trustee conveyed the trust property to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. Following an informal conference between Taxpayer's attorneys and DOR, DOR on June 18, 1980, issued a Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, in which DOR claimed $283,939.76 in taxes, penalties and interest, with interest accruing at the rate of $66.18 per day. In this assessment DOR claimed taxes were due on the Special Warranty Deed from Trustee to Taxpayer or, in the alternative, on the assignment of the beneficial interest under the trust from I-B-A, Inc., to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. Both the Warranty Deed from I-B-A, Inc., to the Trustee and the Special Warranty Deed from the Trustee to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. were recorded. The Trust Agreement was not recorded. DOR's basis for the assessment issued in this transaction was that no recorded instrument contained a provision declaring the interests of the beneficiaries under the Trust Agreement to be personal property-only. Following receipt of the Revised Assessment, the Trustee and One Biscayne Tower, N.V. filed suit in the Circuit court in and for Dade County seeking to reform the Warranty Deed from I-B-A, Inc., to the Trustee to include a provision specifically stating that the interest of the beneficiaries under the Trust Agreement was personal property only. I-B-A, Inc., was joined as a defendant. On 18 July 1980, the parties to this suit submitted a stipulation to the court that final judgment may be entered ex parte without delay, reforming the Warranty Deed ab initio in accordance with the Complaint. By Final Judgment entered 12 August 1980, Circuit Judge Dan Satin reformed this Warranty Deed ab initio to include the language in a recorded instrument specified in Section 689.071(4), Florida Statutes. The purpose of the parties in setting up a Florida land trust through which to transfer the property was to avoid the payment of documentary stamp taxes and surtaxes on the $49,101,000 purchase price which a bankruptcy court had approved for the sale of this asset. Accordingly, the reformation of the Warranty Deed was to comply with the intent of the parties at the time the Warranty Deed was executed and delivered.
Findings Of Fact The facts in this case are derived from the exhibits submitted into evidence at the hearing and the testimony of petitioner H.R. Thornton, Jr. The pertinent documents show that a portion of a lot located in the toxin of St. Cloud, Florida, owned by Garold D. Doak, Sr. and Susan E. Doak, his wife, was mortgaged by the Doaks to Peachtree Mortgage Corporation on December 28, 1972, in the amount of $16,850.00. On January 4, 1973, Peachtree Mortgage Corporation assigned the Mortgage to the Hamilton Federal Savings and Loan association of Brooklyn, New York. On February 6, 1976, a lis pendens was filed against the property by the assignee of the mortgage in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Osceola County, Florida, incident to an action to foreclose the mortgage. On March 15, 1976, the Doaks executed quitclaim deeds on the property to Stephene J. Houseman. On April 6, 1976, a final judgement of foreclosure was entered in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in favor of Hamilton Federal Savings and Loan Association of Brooklyn, New York. (Exhibit 1-6) On April 27, 1976, Houseman executed a quitclaim deed on the property to petitioners. On April 30, 1976, the Thorntons conveyed their interest in the property by warranty deed to Jaiies Francis Wiczorek and Shirley Lillian Wiczorek, his wife. The deed recited that it was subject to the outstanding mortgage to Hamilton Federal Savings and Loan Association with a principal balance of sec. 16,224.52 which the grantees agreed to assume and pay. The deed further recited a consideration of $4,000.00 and documentary stamp tax in an appropriate amount was paid based on a consideration which included the cash payment and the mortgage amount. On July 30, 1976, the mortgage in question was satisfied. (Exhibits 8-10) Only minimal documentary stamp tax of thirty cents was paid on the quitclaim deed from Houseman to petitioners. Respondent issued a notice of proposed assessment of additional documentary stamp tax in the amount of $48.60, surtax in the amount of $17.60, penalties in like amounts, and interest thereon, for a total of $158.51, on March 21, 1977. The proposed assessment was based on consideration stated to be the existing mortgage on the property in the amount of $16,224.52. On April 29, 1977, petitioners filed their petition for an administrative hearing, challenging the proposed assessment on the grounds that there was no evidence to show the taxable consideration as found by respondent. By an amended and revised notice of proposed assessment, dated April 29, 1977, the amount for documentary surtax, penalty and interest thereon was deleted leaving only the sums relating to documentary stamp tax, penalty, and interest in the amount of $102.30. (Exhibit 8) Petitioner H.R. Thornton, Jr. took the quitclaim deed in question to cancel a $100.00 debt owed him by Houseman. He had no intent to make the mortgage payments or payments or pay any other consideration for the transfer. (Testimony of Thornton)
Recommendation That petitioners be held liable for payment of documentary stamp tax, penalty and interest under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, as modified herein with respect to the penalty. Done and Entered this 29th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 H. R. Thornton, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 345 St. Cloud, Florida 32769
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 On or about January 9, 1974, Petitioners and their partners, Edward Mehler, and Sylvia Mehler, sold certain property located in Broward County, Florida, to Leo Koehler, Pat Manganelli, and Walter Urchison. A copy of the deed was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. The Petitioners and the Mehlers took a $50,000 mortgage from the buyers as a part of the purchase price. The mortgage deed was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 2. The face amount of the mortgage is $50,000. The buyers defaulted on the mortgage to the Petitioners and the Mehlers without having made any payments on the mortgage. The Petitioners and the Mehlers were unsuccessful in negotiating any payment from the buyers. The buyers were apparently irresponsible, and were unsuccessful in business. The buyers had given their deed to the property to a Mr. Frank Post. Mr. Post apparently took the deed in payment for a debt. The Petitioners and the Mehlers were unsuccessful in negotiating any payment on the mortgage from Post. The Petitioners and the Mehlers were unsuccessful in locating any market for the mortgage. The mortgage had no market value. Rather than foreclosing one the mortgage, the Petitioners and the Mehlers took a warranty deed from the original buyers and a quitclaim deed from Post. These deeds were received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibits 3 and 4. The deeds were taken in lieu of foreclosure, and the effect of the deeds was to discharge the $50,000 mortgage obligation. Petitioners and the Mehlers placed minimum Florida documentary stamp tax and surtax stamps on each deed, taking the position that the consideration for the deeds was nothing. The Respondent took the position that the consideration for the deeds was the discharge of the mortgage obligation, and assessed $410 in stamp tax, surtax, and penalty obligations upon the Petitioners. The petitioners subsequently commenced this action. The property which is the subject of this matter has very little market value. The property has been on the market for some time, and no buyer has been found. The property has been valued at $12,500, but its market value is less than that.
Findings Of Fact Paragraph 3 of the Petitioner's petition for administrative hearing provides: "That the Petitioners accepted a conveyance of certain real property in Brevard County, Florida in lieu of foreclosure of a mortgage held by them. The Department of Revenue contends that the documentary surtax should be paid on the deeds based on the amount of the outstanding mortgage at the time of the conveyances. It has served notice of the proposed assessments against each of the Petitioners in the following amounts, to wit: Jesse Jackson Parrish, Jr., tax - $187.00, penalty - $187.00, interest - $5.61, total due to date - $379.61; Ralph Bernard Parrish, tax - $187.00, penalty - $187.00, interest - $5.61, total due to date - $379.61; J.J. Parrish & Company, Inc., tax - $374.55, penalty - $374.55, interest - $11.24, total due to date - $760.34, and Pauline Bryan, tax - $187.00, penalty - $187.00, interest - $5.61, total due to date - $760.34, and Pauline Bryan, tax - $187.00, penalty - 187.00, interest - 5.61, total due to date - $379.61. That the statutes, Florida Statutes, 201.02, does not require payment of the documentary sur tax in such a case. The condition of this statute, by the court, in Leadership Housing, Inc., a Delaware corporation vs. Department of Revenue of the State of Florida, Fla. App. 336 So 2d 1239, holds that the statute should be strictly construed in favor of the tax payer and against the Government." In its answer the Respondent admitted the allegations contained in the first three sentences of the above quoted paragraph. In response to the last sentence of Paragraph 3 of the petition, the Respondent answered as follows: "Respondent denies the following allegations contained in the fourth sentence of paragraph three, if Petitioners are refering to section 201.021 Florida Statutes, and asserts that the conveyance which is the subject of this cause is subject to the imposition of documentary surtax stamps pursuant to section 201.021, Florida Statutes. Respondent, with respect to the allegations contained in the last sentence of Paragraph 3, admits to the existence of the decision in the Leadership Housing Inc., a Delaware corporation v. Department of Revenue of the State of Florida case, but asserts that such decision is not applicable in the instant cause." Since the allegations of the first three sentences of Paragraph 3 of the petition have been admitted by the Respondent, the allegations will be accepted as facts, and are intended to be construed as findings of fact herein. In Paragraph 2 of their petition, the Petitioners alleged: "There are no issues of material fact." In its answer the Respondent did not admit this allegation, but rather asserted that it was without knowledge with respect to it. The position taken by the Respondent at the final hearing clearly indicates that the Respondent is in agreement that there are no issues of fact to be determined in this case. On or about December 23, 1975, Alexander H. Clattenberg, Jr. and John Lowndes, Trustees, executed warranty deeds granting to Jesse Jackson Parrish, Jr., Ralph Bernard Parrish, and Pauline Parrish Bryan three separate parcels of land located in Brevard County, Florida. These warranty deeds were received in evidence respectively as Respondent's Exhibits 4, 2, and 3. On or about July 8, 1976, Alexander H. Clattenberg, Jr. and John F. Lowndes, Trustees, executed a warranty deed granting to J. J. Parrish & Company, Inc., certain real property located in Brevard County, Florida. A copy of this deed was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. On or about December 29, 1976, the Respondent issued notices of proposed assessment against Jesse Jackson Parish, Jr., Ralph Bernard Parrish, and J. J. Parrish & Company, Inc. based upon Respondent's Exhibits 4, 2, and 1. Copies of these notices of proposed assessment were received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 5. A copy of a proposed assessment against Pauline Parrish Bryan was neither offered into evidence nor received. It is alleged in the Petitioners' petition, and admitted in the Respondent's answer, however, that a notice of proposed assessment was served upon Pauline Bryan. Except insofar as the pleadings contain undisputed allegations respecting the consideration for the warranty deeds that were received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 4, there was no evidence presented at the final hearing from which any findings can be made respecting the consideration for the deeds.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent assess documentary surtaxes, interest, and penalties against the Petitioners in the amounts set out in Paragraph 3 of the Petitioners' petition for administrative hearing. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Harry L. Coe Executive Director Department of Revenue Room 102, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Joe D. Matheny, Esquire Henderson, Matheny & Jones P. O. Box 6536 Titusville, Florida 32780
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. /
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.
