Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation doing business and having its principal place of business in Broward County, Florida. It holds an operating certificate as an air taxi/commercial operator issued by the Federal Aviation Administration on April 4, 1977. The certificate states that Petitioner has met the requirements of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, and the rules prescribed thereunder for issuance of the certificate. The operating certificate was issued by the F.A.A. under 14 CFR 135. Petitioner is also registered as an air taxi operator with the Civil Aeronautics Board (C.A.B.) under 14 CFR 298. (Testimony of Jackson, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Stipulation) Respondent's auditor conducted an audit of Petitioner's records for the period June 1, 1975 through July 31, 1978, and, on August 15, 1978, issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment of tax, penalties and interest under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, in the total amount of $1,629.35 for alleged delinquent sales and use tax incurred during the audit period. The proposed assessment was based upon audit findings that Petitioner had purchased fuel, aircraft parts and repairs from a firm called Hansa Jet located at the Fort Lauderdale Hollywood Airport on which sales tax was allegedly due, but not paid thereon. Petitioner was not chartered as a corporation until March, 1977, and purchases prior to that time were made by Andy Jackson Yacht and Aircraft, Inc., which was a registered dealer under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Although the audit was based upon invoices in the possession of Petitioner, no effort was apparently made to check the records of the supplier, Hansa Jet, to ascertain whether it took tax exemption certificates from either firm. Several of the invoices reflected the sales tax number of Andy Jackson Yacht and Aircraft, Inc. Petitioner was not a registered dealer under Chapter 212, during the audit period. It was originally a division of Andy Jackson Yacht and Aircraft, Inc. and since 1977 has been a wholly owned subsidiary of that firm. (Testimony of Bravade, Jackson, Petitioner's Exhibit 7) By letter of September 12, 1978, Petitioner asked Respondent for an interpretation as to the applicability of the partial tax exemption of Section 212.08(9), Florida Statutes, to its operations. By letter of September 19, Respondent's audit bureau chief advised Petitioner that the exemption applied only to carriers holding certificates of convenience issued by the C.A.B. that establish routes, rates, and reports on operations on such routes. Petitioner thereafter requested a Chapter 120 hearing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Prior to obtaining federal authorization to operate as an air taxi carrier, Petitioner was obliged to meet such preliminary requirements as acquisition of aircraft, insurance coverage, and the preparation of a detailed operations manual for the F.A.A. specifying the structure of the firm, and detailed provisions relating to personnel and operations. Its pilots have the same training and meet the same basic qualifications as those employed by other airlines, and its aircraft are periodically inspected by the F.A.A. under federal standards. Petitioner's place of business is located at the Fort Lauderdale- Hollywood International Airport and it maintains gate and counter space at the terminal. Its aircraft carry both passengers and cargo at published rates. Although it formerly flew scheduled routes to the Bahama Islands, it found these to be unprofitable and discontinued them. Approximately 95 percent of its business is in interstate and foreign commerce, and all of the purchases for which the taxes are presently asserted were for flights in such commerce. Petitioner is listed in the local telephone directory under the heading "Airline Companies." The listing shows destinations in the Bahama Islands and further states "Charter rates on request to all Caribbean and U.S. cities." It accepts passengers without discrimination who are willing to pay the specified rate for passage. It is a member of the Warsaw Pact on limitation of liability for international carriers. Petitioner will quote specific charter rates to a group to a particular place but gives the same rate to any other group desiring transportation to the same destination. Its operations are controlled by the F.A.A. in accordance with Petitioner's plan of operations. It aircraft fly twenty-four hours a day throughout the week. It has no continuing contracts for cargo or passengers. Although it has printed passenger tickets, these are not customarily used. Fares are paid in cash or through national credit cards. Petitioner is free to decline to fly passengers and cargo to a particular destination and exercises its discretion in this respect. It files regular annual reports to the C.A.B. on all of its revenue operations. (Testimony of Jackson, Petitioner's Exhibits 3, 6) Although Petitioner, as an air taxi operator, does not hold a C.A.B. certificate of public convenience and necessity under Section 401 of the Act, it is nevertheless viewed as a "common carrier" by that agency. The C.A.B. does not issue "licenses" to any category of air carrier but construes registration with it to be the same as a license. (Testimony of Untiedt, Petitioner's Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That Respondent revise its proposed assessment against Petitioner to encompass only those transactions occurring after Petitioner's date of incorporation, and enforce the same in accordance with law. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Gaylord A. Wood, Jr. 603 Courthouse Square Building 200 South East 6th Street Fort Lauderdale,, Florida 33301 Maxie Broome, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John D. Moriarty Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether American Airlines committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in the employment discrimination charges filed by Petitioners and, if so, what relief should Petitioners be granted by the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the extensive factual stipulations set forth in the parties' February 23, 2006, Corrected Joint Prehearing Stipulation2: Petitioners are both Hispanic. Hispanics represent a substantial portion of the workforce in American's maintenance department at Miami International Airport (MIA). Among these Hispanic employees in the maintenance department are those who occupy supervisory positions. American’s Vice-President for Maintenance, Danny Martinez, is Hispanic. As aviation maintenance technicians for American, Petitioners' job duties, as set forth in the written job description for the position, were as follows: In addition to the work specified for the Junior Aviation Maintenance Technician, an Aviation Maintenance Technician's responsibility also includes the following: troubleshooting, individually or with Crew Chief, management or professional direction, disassembly, checking and cleaning, repairing, replacing, testing, adjusting, assembling, installing, servicing, fabricating, taxing or towing airplanes and/or run-up engines, de-icing aircraft, required to maintain the airworthiness of aircraft and all their components while in service or while undergoing overhaul and/or modification. Certifies for quality of own workmanship, including signing mechanical flight releases for all work done on field work. In those work positions where stock chasers are not utilized and/or available at the time may chase own parts. May have other Mechanic personnel assigned to assist him/her in completing an assignment. Works according to FAA and Company regulations and procedures and instructions from Crew Chief or supervisor. Completes forms connected with work assignments according to established procedures and communicates with other Company personnel as required in a manner designated by the Company. Performs the following duties as assigned: cleaning of aircraft windshields; connection/removing ground power and ground start units; pushing out/towing of aircraft and related guideman functions, fueling/defueling, de-icing of aircraft. At all times material to the instant cases, Petitioners were members of a collective bargaining unit represented by the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between American and the TWU (TWU Contract), which contained the following provisions, among others: ARTICLE 28- NO DISCRIMINATION, AND RECOGNITION OF RIGHTS AND COMPLIANCE The Company and the Union agree to make it a matter of record in this Agreement that in accordance with the established policy of the Company and the Union, the provisions of this Agreement will apply equally to all employees regardless of sex, color, race, creed, age, religious preferences, status as a veteran or military reservist, disability, or national origin. The Union recognizes that the Company will have sole jurisdiction of the management and operation of its business, the direction of its working force, the right to maintain discipline and efficiency in its hangars, stations, shops, or other places of employment, and the right of the Company to hire, discipline, and discharge employees for just cause, subject to the provisions of this Agreement. It is agreed that the rights of management not enumerated in this Article will not be deemed to exclude other preexisting rights of management not enumerated which do not conflict with other provisions of the Agreement. * * * Copies of the Peak Performance Through Commitment (PPC) Program will be available to all employees upon request. Any changes to the PPC Program will be provided and explained to the TWU prior to implementation. ARTICLE 29- REPRESENTATION * * * The Union does not question the right of the Company supervisors to manage and supervise the work force and make reasonable inquiries of employees, individually or collectively, in the normal course of work. In meetings for the purpose of investigation of any matter which may eventuate in the application of discipline or dismissal, or when written statements may be required, or of sufficient importance for the Company to have witnesses present, or to necessitate the presence of more than the Company supervisor, or during reasonable cause or post accident drug/alcohol testing as provided in Article 29(h), the Company will inform the employee of his right to have Union representation present. If the employee refuses representation, the supervisor's record will reflect this refusal. At the start of a meeting under the provisions of Article 29(f), the Company will, except in rare and unusual circumstances, indicate the reason that causes the meeting and then provide an opportunity for the employee and his Union representative to confer for a reasonable period of time. Following that period, the 29(f) meeting will be reconvened and continue until concluded by the supervisor. Before written notification of discipline or dismissal is given, an employee will be afforded the opportunity to discuss the matter with his supervisor. If he desires, he will have a Union representative in the discussion. . . . * * * ARTICLE 30- DISMISSAL An employee who has passed his probationary period will not be dismissed from the service of the Company without written notification of that action. The notification will include the reason or reasons for his dismissal. Appeal from dismissal will be made, in writing, by the employee within seven (7) calendar days after receiving the notification and will be addressed to the Chief Operating Officer, with a copy to the appropriate Human Resources Office. The Chief Operating Officer will fully investigate the matter and render a written decision as soon as possible, but not later than twelve (12) calendar days following his receipt of the appeal, unless mutually agreed otherwise. A copy of the written decision will be provided to the Union. * * * If the decision of the Chief Operating Officer is not satisfactory to the employee, the dismissal and decision will be appealed in accordance with Article 30(c), provided, however, the appeal must be submitted within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of the decision rendered by the Chief Operating Officer. An appeal from the decision of the Chief Operating Officer will be submitted to the appropriate Area Board of Adjustment in accordance with Article 32. . . . * * * ARTICLE 31- GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE An employee who believes that he has been unjustly dealt with, or that any provision of this Agreement has not been properly applied or interpreted, or against whom the Company has issued written disciplinary action, may submit his grievance in person or through his representatives within seven (7) calendar days. The grievance will be presented to his immediate supervisor, who will evaluate the grievance or complaint and render a written decision as soon as possible, but not later than seven (7) calendar days following his receipt of the grievance. . . . If the written decision of the immediate supervisor is not satisfactory to the employee whose grievance is being considered, it may be appealed within ten (10) calendar to the Chief Operating Officer, with a copy to the appropriate Human Resources Office. The Chief Operating Officer will fully investigate the matter and will render a written decision as soon as possible, but not later than twelve (12) calendar days, unless mutually agreed otherwise, following his receipt of the appeal. . . . If the decision of the Chief Operating Officer is not satisfactory to the employee, the grievance and the decision may be appealed to the System Board of Adjustment, as provided for in Article 32. * * * ARTICLE 32- BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT * * * Area Board of Adjustment, Discipline and Dismissal Cases * * * (2) Each Area Board will be composed on one member appointed by the Company, one member appointed by the Union, and a neutral referee acting as Chairman. . . . * * * Procedures Generally Applicable to the Boards * * * Employees and the Company may be represented at Board hearing by such person or persons as they may choose and designate. Evidence may be presented either orally or in writing, or both. The advocates will exchange all documents they may enter and the names of witnesses they may call in their direct case not later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the date set for hearing. Nothing in this paragraph will require either advocate to present the documents or the witnesses provided above during the course of the hearing. The advocates will not be restricted from entering documents or calling witnesses that become known subsequent to the ten (10) ten calendar day exchange, provided a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours notice is provided to the other party and a copies are submitted to the other party prior to the presentation of the direct case. The party receiving the late document or witness has the option to postpone the hearing in light of the new document or witness. Upon the request of either party to the dispute, or of two (2) Board members, the neutral referee will summon witnesses to testify at Board hearing. The Company will cooperate to ensure that all witnesses summoned by the board will appear in a timely fashion. Reasonable requests by the Union for employee witnesses will be honored. The requests for witnesses will normally not be greater than the number, which can be spared without interference with the service of the Company. Disputes arising from this provision will be immediately referred to the Director of the Air Transport Division and the Vice President-Employee Relations, or their respective designees, for resolution. A majority of all members of a Board will be sufficient to make a finding or a decision with respect to any dispute properly before it, and such finding or decision will be final and binding upon the parties to such dispute. . . . * * * ARTICLE 36- MEAL PERIODS Meal periods will be thirty minutes, except when a longer period is agreed upon between the parties. Meal periods will be scheduled to begin not earlier than three (3) hours after commencement of work that day and not later than five hours after commencement of work that day. The commencement of work is from the start of the employee's regular shift. If an employee is not scheduled for a meal period within the foregoing time span, the meal period will be provided immediately before or after it. In the event that a meal period has not been provided in accordance with the foregoing, the employee is then free, if he so desires, to take his meal period. At all times material to the instant cases, American had Rules of Conduct for its employees that (as permitted by Article 28(b) of the TWU Contract) were applicable to TWU- represented bargaining unit members, including Petitioners. These Rules of Conduct provided, in pertinent part, as follows: As an American Airlines employee, you can expect a safe and productive workplace that ensures your ability to succeed and grow with your job. The rules listed below represent the guidelines and principles that all employees work by at American. Attendance * * * During your tour of duty, remain in the area necessary for the efficient performance of your work. Remain at work until your tour of duty ends unless you are authorized to leave early. * * * 17. Work carefully. Observe posted or published regulations. * * * Personal Conduct * * * 34. Dishonesty of any kind in relations with the company, such as theft or pilferage of company property, the property of other employees or property of others entrusted to the company, or misrepresentation in obtaining employee benefits or privileges, will be grounds for dismissal and where the facts warrant, prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. Employees charged with a criminal offense, on or off duty, may immediately be withheld from service. Any action constituting a criminal offense, whether committed on duty or off duty, will be grounds for dismissal. (Revision of this rule, April 10, 1984) * * * Violations of any of the American Airlines Rules of Conduct (listed above) . . . could be grounds for immediate termination depending of the severity of the incident or offense and the employee's record. . . . At all times material to the instant cases, American had a Peak Performance Through Commitment Policy (PPC Policy) to deal with employee performance and disciplinary problems. The policy, which (as permitted by Article 28(b) of the TWU Contract) was applicable to TWU-represented bargaining unit members, including Petitioners, provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Peak Performance Through Commitment (PPC) is a program that fosters ongoing communication between managers and employees. It encourages managers . . . to regularly recognize outstanding performance and to work together with employees to address and correct performance issues fairly. For the few employees whose performance does not respond to regular coaching and counseling, the following steps advise them that continued performance problems have serious consequences, ultimately leading to termination: -First Advisory for employees with problem performance or conduct who do not respond to coaching or counseling. -Second Advisory for employees whose performance fails to respond to initial corrective steps. -Career Decision Advisory for employees whose problem performance or conduct warrants termination. They are given a paid Career Decision Day away from work to consider their future and continued employment with American Airlines. -Final Advisory for employees whose problem performance or conduct requires termination, or those who have failed to honor the Letter of Commitment signed after their Career Decision Day. Please note that steps can sometimes be skipped, in instances where the nature of the conduct is very serious. It is your responsibility as an employee to know the company's rules of conduct and performance standards for your job, and to consistently meet or exceed those standards. In the event that your performance does not measure up to the company's expectations, your manager will work with you to identify the problem and outline steps to correct it. * * * SERIOUS INCIDENTS OR OFFENSES Some violations of our guiding principles and rules of conduct will result in immediate termination. For example, insubordination, violating our alcohol and drug policy, abusing travel privileges, aircraft damage, violations of the work environment policy, and job actions could be grounds for immediate termination, depending on the severity of the incident and the employee's record. Hate-related conduct and dishonesty will always result in termination. In cases when immediate termination may be appropriate but additional information is needed, the employee may be withheld from service while an investigation is conducted. At all times material to the instant case, Petitioners' regular shifts were eight and a half hours, including an unpaid, thirty minute "meal period" (to which TWU-represented bargaining unit members were entitled under Article 36 of the TWU Contract). Although they were paid to perform eight hours of work during their eight and a half hour shifts, TWU-represented bargaining unit members, including Petitioners, were, in practice, allowed to take up to an hour for their meals, without penalty. TWU-represented bargaining unit members "clocked in" at the beginning of their shift and "clocked out" at the end of their shift. They were expected to remain "on the clock" during their "meal periods" (which, as noted above, were to be no longer than one hour). During his eight and a half hour shift which began on July 30, 2004, Petitioner Castellanos was assigned to perform a "routine 'A' [safety] check" on a Boeing 757 aircraft, an assignment it should have taken a "well qualified [aviation maintenance technician] working quickly but carefully" approximately four hours to complete. At the time he left MIA that evening to go to the Quench nightclub, Mr. Castellanos was two hours and 15 minutes into his shift. During his eight and a half hour shift which began on July 30, 2004, Petitioner Pena was assigned to perform "PS checks" on two Boeing 737 aircraft, an assignment it should have taken a "well qualified [aviation maintenance technician] working quickly but carefully" at least six hours to complete. At the time he left MIA that evening to go to the Quench nightclub, Mr. Pena was three hours and 45 minutes into his shift. Walter Philbrick, an investigator in American's corporate security department, covertly followed Petitioners when they left MIA that evening and kept them under surveillance until their return almost four hours later. Petitioners did not clock out until following the end of their shifts on July 31, 2004. In so doing, they effectively claimed full pay for the shifts, notwithstanding that, during the shifts, they had been off the worksite, engaged in non-work- related activity, for well in excess of the one hour they were allowed for "meal periods." Mr. Philbrick prepared and submitted a report detailing what he had observed as to Petitioners' movements and conduct during the time that they had been under his surveillance. Mike Smith is American's maintenance department station manager at MIA. He is "responsible for the entire [American] maintenance operation in Miami." Mr. Smith assigned his subordinate, Anthony DeGrazia, a day shift production manager at MIA, the task of looking into, and taking the appropriate action on behalf of management in response to, the matters described in Mr. Philbrick's report. Neither Mr. Smith nor Mr. DeGrazia is Hispanic. Mr. DeGrazia met separately with both Mr. Pena and Mr. Castellanos. The meetings were held in accordance with the provisions of Article 29(f) of the TWU Contract. Before conducting the meetings, Mr. DeGrazia had reviewed Mr. Philbrick's report. Mr. Castellanos stated, among other things, the following in his meeting with Mr. DeGrazia: on the evening in question, he was trying to complete his assignment as fast as possible because he wanted to have an alcoholic beverage; that evening, he was "away from work" for approximately four hours, which he knew was wrong; and he and Mr. Pena had engaged in similar activity on perhaps six or seven previous occasions. Mr. Pena stated, among other things, the following in his meeting with Mr. DeGrazia: on the evening in question, he was "off the field" for three to four hours, which he knew was not "okay"; this was something he had done "sometimes" in the past; and American was a "great company" to work for. Based on his review of Mr. Philbrick's report and the information he had obtained from Petitioners, Mr. DeGrazia concluded that Petitioners had committed "time clock fraud" in violation of Rule 34 of American's Rules of Conduct and that they therefore, in accordance with American's policy that "dishonesty will always result in termination" (as expressed in the PPC Policy), should be terminated. Before taking such action, Mr. DeGrazia consulted with Mr. Smith and "someone" from American's human resources department, who both "concurred" with Mr. DeGrazia that termination was the appropriate action to take against Petitioners. On August 12, 2004, Mr. DeGrazia issued Final Advisories terminating Petitioners' employment. The Final Advisory given to Mr. Castellanos read, in pertinent part, as follows: On Friday, July 30, 2004, your scheduled tour of duty was 2230-0700. During your scheduled shift you were assigned to complete an A-check on a 757 aircraft. At approximately 0045, Corporate Security observed you leaving the premises and going into a nightclub in Coconut Grove. While there, you were observed at the bar drinking from a plastic cup. You were observed leaving the nightclub at 0315 and driving towards the airport. By your own account, you returned to the airport approximately 0400. During a company investigation, you admitted to leaving the premises, during your scheduled tour of duty and going to a restaurant/bar. Further, you admitted to consuming alcoholic beverages. Additionally, when asked how it was possible for you to complete your assignment in such a short amount of time you stated that you were, "trying to complete the job as fast as I can because I was getting the urge of getting a drink." Based on the above information I have concluded that your actions fall far short of that which may be reasonably expected of our employees and are a direct violation of American Airlines' Rules of Conduct, Rules 3, 4, 17, and 34 . . . . In view of the above rule violations your employment with American Airlines is hereby terminated effective today, August 12, 2004. * * * The Final Advisory given to Mr. Pena read, in pertinent part, as follows: On Friday, July 30, 2004, your scheduled tour of duty was 2100-0530. During your scheduled shift you were assigned to complete two PS-checks on 737 aircraft. At approximately 0045, Corporate Security observed you leaving the premises and going into a nightclub in Coconut Grove. While there, you were observed at the bar drinking from a plastic cup. You were observed leaving the nightclub at 0315 and driving towards the airport. By your own account, you returned to the airport approximately 0400. During a company investigation, you admitted to leaving the premises, during your scheduled tour of duty and going to a restaurant/bar. Further, you admitted to consuming alcoholic beverages. Additionally, when you[] were asked if it is acceptable to go to lunch for 3-4 hours you stated, "no, according to Company Rules, it's not OK." Based on the above information I have concluded that your actions fall far short of that which may be reasonably expected of our employees and are a direct violation of American Airlines' Rules of Conduct, Rules 3, 4, and 34 . . . . In view of the above rule violations your employment with American Airlines is hereby terminated effective today, August 12, 2004. * * * That Petitioners were Hispanic played no role whatsoever in Mr. DeGrazia's decision to terminate them. Mr. DeGrazia terminated Petitioners because, and only because, he believed that they had engaged in dishonesty by committing "time clock fraud." Mr. DeGrazia has never encountered another situation, in his capacity as a production manager for American, where an aviation maintenance technician over whom he had disciplinary authority engaged in conduct comparable to the conduct for which he terminated Petitioners. No one has ever reported to him, nor has he ever observed, any aviation maintenance technician other than Petitioners taking "meal periods" that were longer than an hour while remaining "on the clock." Petitioners both grieved their terminations pursuant to Article 31 of the TWU Contract. Neither of them advanced any allegations of anti-Hispanic discrimination in his grievance. Petitioners' grievances were ultimately denied on September 9, 2004, by William Cade, American's managing director for maintenance. Petitioners appealed the denial of their grievances to the American and TWU Area Board of Adjustment for Miami, Florida (Board), in accordance with Article 32 of the TWU Contract, which provided for "final and binding" arbitration of disputes arising under the contract. A consolidated evidentiary hearing was held before the Board on April 28, 2005. At the hearing, Petitioners were represented by counsel. Through counsel, they called and cross- examined witnesses, submitted documentary evidence, and presented argument. Neither of them testified. The Board issued a decision on June 27, 2005, denying Petitioners' grievances. The TWU Board member dissented. The Discussion and Opinion portion of the decision read, in pertinent part, as follows: There is no dispute that the rule violations by grievants['] actions on July 30, 2004 constituted time card fraud and violation of rules relating to remaining at work. This was not some minor taking of time, such as overstaying lunch for a shortened period. It was a well-planned event. They had with them a change of clothes - in effect "party clothes" apropos to a late night-early morning South Florida nightclub. They had even done this several times before. Once at this nightclub they actually drank very little. Grievant Pena had two drinks and grievant Castellanos appeared to have just one. In fact, when he was later tested after his return to work almost five hours later, the result was negative for drugs and alcohol. Clearly, they failed to remain at work for their tours of duty in violation of Rules 3 and 4. These rules, however, do not by themselves call for immediate discharge nor do any of the Company documents relating to rules, such as its PPC, refer to them as serious violations that would incur discharge. The seriousness here concerns the grievants' badging out after their eight-hour tour and being paid for eight hours, almost five of which they did not work. There is no question that this is time card fraud and as such it involves dishonesty that is covered by Rule 34's "dishonesty of any kind." Numerous arbitrators for the parties have found such conduct to be violative of Rule 34 and have concluded that stealing time from the Company is dishonesty that requires immediate dismissal. * * * [T]he grievants engaged in this misconduct on multiple occasions that involved more than half of their shift being spent at a nightclub. And they knew it was wrong as they readily admitted when finally caught. Mitigation based on the grievants' EAP involvement is insufficient to overcome and reduce in any fashion their core responsibility to be honest employees and abide by all Company rules and regulations. The Company made this clear enough in its current Drug and Alcohol policy, and, as seen, other Boards have found it reasonable, as does this Board. To all of this the Union argues that there are other mitigating factors - seniority, disparate treatment, failure to consider employment records and a common practice permitting employees to extend lunch breaks. As to the latter, there is no evidence that any employee has been allowed to stay away from work for almost five hours with the knowledge or consent of management at any level. There is some evidence of employees overstaying the break by 30 minutes, of employees going for food for the crew and arriving back late and even some two-hour absences. None of this is comparable to the grievants' conduct. Nor is the evidence concerning supervisor Delgadillo enough to warrant the finding of a practice. She was not Pena's supervisor. She called grievant Castellanos' cell, but that alone does not mean that she knew he was off several hours at that point socializing and drinking in Coconut Grove on July 30 or at other times. She may have gone out with them while she was a mechanic, but the evidence does not show that she went for these long journeys to drink and socialize at a night club. Most importantly, the grievants never claimed a practice existed but instead readily admitted at the 29(f)s that their conduct was wrong and they violated Company rules. As to the disparate treatment incidents, although the dishonesty issue appears similar, different treatment only becomes disparate when the employees being compared also have factual situations and records that are similar. The comparators here did not leave work on more than one occasion, or on any occasion, for four hours or more to drink and socialize in a nightclub. Thus, Mora's 45-minute late punch-in resulted from his retrieving his drivers' license; he then immediately informed management of what he did. He did not have to be put under security surveillance for this type of conduct occurring in the past. Although his 30-minute extended lunch was part of the practice referred to above, it hardly qualifies as like conduct when compared to the grievants' activities. The claim by Vizcaino that he was sick when he used his Company travel privilege is the type of violation referred to the Travel Abuse Committee under a rule penalizing employees by suspending their travel privileges. The facts of that incident and the reasoning of this committee are not known to make any clear and relevant comparison. Even if accepted as a valid comparison, it is only one employee incident that by itself is insufficient to show that management disparately treated these grievants. Nor is their any proof that Rule 34 was involved in either of these situations. Manager DeGrazia disclosed that he did not consider the grievants' prior record or their seniority. He explained that the seriousness of their conduct was sufficient for his decision. The Board fully recognizes that the grievants cooperated during the investigation, had no prior discipline, and had seniority from 1989 and 1996. Each of these factors is significant in assessing the suitability of the penalties. But it is well established by the parties and even in arbitration cases involving outside parties, that in light of the gravity of time card fraud, these factors need not be evaluated. The Chairman notes nonetheless, that seniority and work records cannot be entirely ignored. But here, the grievants' propensity in the past to engage in this same outlandish conduct, and to do so undetected, significantly minimized, for mitigation purposes, much of their good record and seniority. Petitioners subsequently filed employment discrimination charges with the FCHR, alleging for the first time that their terminations were products of anti-Hispanic discrimination. There has been no persuasive showing made, in support in these allegations, that the decision to terminate them was motivated by anything other than legitimate business considerations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding the American not guilty of the unlawful employment practices alleged by Petitioners and dismissing their employment discrimination charges. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 15th day of May, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is liable for sales or use tax, plus interest and penalties, as asserted by the Respondent's Notice of Decision dated March 16, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida for-profit corporation whose sole stockholder is Corwin Zimmer. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner operated an air taxi charter service out of the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, airport. Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of enforcing the Florida Revenue Act of 1949, as amended, including the provisions of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner utilized three Learjets in its operations. At all times pertinent to this proceedings, each of these three jets was owned by a separate corporation and each corporation was owned by a single shareholder. Each jet was owned by a corporation to limit the liability of the individual shareholder. Each of the following owned one of these three jets: Alamo Jet, Inc., a Florida corporation wholly owned by Charles Schmidt; RLO, Inc., a Florida corporation wholly owned by Richard Owens; and Gulfstream Flight Services, Inc., a Florida corporation wholly owned by Dr. David Brown. These three corporations and their individual shareholders will be collectively referred to as the owners. These owners were unrelated to each other. Except for the agreements at issue in this proceeding, the owners were also unrelated to the Petitioner and Mr. Zimmer. None of the owners possessed the FAA licensure necessary to transport passengers for hire. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, each of the three owners had an agreement with Petitioner that was styled "Aircraft Management Agreement" (the agreement). Although written agreements could not be located for all three owners, Mr. Zimmer testified, credibly, that there existed a written agreement for each owner and that there was no material difference between the written agreement that was produced at the formal hearing and the other agreements. None of the owners fully utilized the jet it owned before entering into the agreement with Petitioner. As to each agreement, the owner was referred to as "owner" and his jet was described. Petitioner was referred to as "operator". The agreements do not contain the term "lease". The following are the responsibilities of the Petitioner as the operator pursuant to the agreement between Petitioner and Alamo Jet, Inc.: Place the Aircraft on its Air Carrier Certificate Number AT 705264 for the purpose of utilizing the aircraft in FAR 135 operations. Oversee all aircraft maintenance, aircraft records, aircraft time components, in accor- dance with the Learjet Model 55 maintenance program, Federal Aviation Regulations, and its operating certificate. Train flight crews, maintain crew records in accordance with Federal Aviation Regula- tions conduct initial, recurrent, six month proficiency flight checks. Provide the Owner with a flight crew at a rate of $450.00 per day, not to exceed $600.00 per month. Schedule all Aircraft, flight, crews and passenger activity through its dispatch department. Reimburse the Owner all moneys received from placing the Aircraft on the Garrett Engine Fleet Operations Program. Insure the Aircraft on its fleet operators policy and financially participate to recover the additional premium required for FAR 135 operations. Hanger the Aircraft at its Fort Lauder- dale facility at no charge to the owner. Provide fuel to the Owner at its Fort Lauderdale facility at $.25 above purchase cost. Insure that the aircraft [is] maintained in a like new condition with the exception of normal wear. Pay the Owner $800.00 per flight hour for the aircraft when it is utilized for FAR 135 operations. Provide the Owner with an aircraft state- ment and activity report by the 7th of the following month, and payment for the utiliza- tion of the aircraft by the 25th day of the month. Provide all charts, maps, and expendable storage at no charge to the Owner. Aggressively market the aircraft for maximum utilization. The Alamo Jet, Inc. agreement provided the following pertaining to aircraft flight utilization: Owner utilization: The Owner is responsible for all direct costs incurred from the flight. Maintenance Test Flights: The owner is responsible for all direct costs of operation. There will be no charge for the crew conducting the test flight. Flight Crew Training: The Operator shall be responsible for the direct cost of operation. This includes MSF payment, hourly maintenance cost, [and] fuel. FAR 135 Air Carrier Flights: The Operator is responsible for all cost incurred in addition to the payment of $800.00 per flight hour to the owner. The Alamo Jet, Inc. agreement provides that the Owner agrees to and is responsible for the following: Payment of the insurance premium less the additional amount required for commercial operations. Cost of maintaining the aircraft. To coordinate all flights with the Operators dispatch department. The Alamo Jet, Inc. agreement provides the following general conditions: Operator will aggressively market the charter utilization of the aircraft, and estimate its use at 600 hours the first year. No guarantee as to the amount of aircraft revenue hours are included in this agreement. Generally, Petitioner's flights are in the continental United States. During the audit period, each owner used its aircraft approximately ten days a month. Each owner could use its aircraft except when it was undergoing a major inspection or was down for maintenance. Other than those times, each owner had a key and unlimited access to its aircraft. Each owner had bumping privileges with respect to their aircraft. If an owner's aircraft was booked for a flight by Petitioner when the owner wanted to use it, the Petitioner would make the owner's aircraft available to the owner and re-book the passenger on another aircraft. Petitioner provided the pilot and crew when an owner wanted to use its aircraft at a per hour rate that was less than that charged for its taxi service. When an owner wanted to use his aircraft, he would contact one of Petitioner's employees to coordinate his use with the Petitioner. Mr. Zimmer testified that he did not intend the agreements with the owners to be leases. From the inception of the agreements, Mr. Zimmer viewed the arrangements as being contracts for the management of the aircraft so that his company and each owner could use its jet but also generate revenue when its jet was being used by Petitioner in its air taxi operations, referred to as FAR 135 operations. Mr. Zimmer testified that he intended that his relationship with the owners of the aircraft to be a marriage of operations and aircraft. Petitioner had the air carrier certificate, and the personnel and facilities to maintain the aircraft and provide air taxi service. 1/ During the audit, Mr. Dreker told Mr. Zimmer that the Respondent was treating the payments to the owners as lease payments. Before that time, no one had told Mr. Zimmer that the relationship constituted a lease. Each agreement required the owner to deliver its aircraft to Petitioner for use pursuant to the terms of the agreement. The owner gave up its exclusive possession, control, and dominion of its aircraft pursuant to the terms of the agreement. Petitioner controlled the use of the aircraft, subject to the terms of the agreement, which set forth the rights of the owner. Each agreement permitted the owner to fully utilize its jet. For the years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991, the Petitioner reported for federal income tax purposes in connection with its use of the three jets under the category "cost of goods sold - other costs - Jet Leases" the respective amounts of $650,531.00, $753,181.00, $923,374.00, $899,917.00, and $693,603.00. For the years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991, the Petitioner referred to the payments made to the owners as "Lease Payments". For the years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991, the Petitioner's books referred to the payments made to the owners as "Lease Payments". Mr. Zimmer was involved in the operation of the Petitioner from the time it was incorporated. He did not, however, become the sole stockholder until 1982. During 1982, Petitioner leased an airplane from American Jet in St. Louis, Missouri. The lease of that airplane is reflected on Petitioner's 1982 Federal income tax return, which was prepared by Rosen and Santini, P.A. Beginning in 1983, after Mr. Zimmer purchased the stock of the Petitioner, Robert J. Dreker, a CPA employed by Schmidt & Co., prepared all of Petitioner's federal tax returns. Petitioner's books were set up before Mr. Dreker became its CPA. Mr. Dreker did not believe that referring to the payments to owners as lease payments in Petitioner's Federal tax return or in its chart of accounts was significant because the payments were clearly deductible for tax purposes. Consequently, he retained the nomenclature reflected on the 1983 tax return and in the chart of accounts as he found them. Petitioner's chart of accounts was maintained on a daily basis by a bookkeeper. Three individuals filled the bookkeeper position at different times, none of whom had any special training or experience in tax matters. Mr. Dreker was of the opinion that referring to the payments to owners as lease payments did not conform to generally accepted accounting principles and mischaracterizes the relationship. Mr. Dreker was of the opinion that the payments to owners should be called management expenses or owner revenue payments. Mr. Dreker or his accounting firm had never been employed to prepare a certified financial statement for the Petitioner. Respondent audited Petitioner for the period May 1, 1987, through April 30, 1992. The auditor, Cynthia McHale, reviewed Petitioner's books and records, including the agreement with Alamo Jet, and interviewed Mr. Zimmer. Based on that audit the Respondent determined that the agreements between Petitioner and the owners constituted leases and that Petitioner was liable for sales or use taxes on those leases. Ms. McHale understood that Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Dreker did not intend the agreements to be leases. The amounts determined to be due were reflected by the Notice of Decision dated March 16, 1995, which is the agency action challenged by Petitioner. Respondent asserts that Petitioner owes taxes in the amount of $238,454.24, penalty in the amount of $59,613.55, interest through August 12, 1993, in the amount of $102,633.11, for a total of $400,700.90, plus interest accruing from August 12, 1993, at the rate of $77.46 per day. Petitioner disputes that the agreements constitute leases and asserts that no tax is due. Petitioner does not challenge the underlying calculation that produced the figures contained in the Notice of Decision dated March 16, 1995. Pursuant to its agreement with the owners, the Petitioner provided hangar storage space for the storage of the jets. Respondent has not assessed any tax for that storage. Petitioner did not assess taxes on the charges made by Petitioner to the passengers using its air taxi service since these charges are specifically exempt from taxation. In 1981, Petitioner corresponded with Respondent about its need to register with Respondent for sales tax purposes. The Respondent's reply, dated July 30, 1981, advised that Petitioner did not need to register for sales tax purposes because the Petitioner's business was a nontaxable service. At about the time the sales tax on services went into effect, Mr. Dreker talked with two employees of the Respondent in separate conversations and described the Petitioner's operations to them. Based on those conversations, Mr. Dreker formed the opinion that Petitioner was not subject to either sales tax or service tax. Petitioner did not pay to the Respondent or to the owners a service tax on the payments made to the owners between July 1, 1987, and December 31, 1987, the dates the service tax was in effect in Florida. The 1981 correspondence and Mr. Dreker's telephone conversations are the only evidence that supports Petitioner's estoppel argument. Mr. Dreker did not receive a written response to his telephone inquiry and he did not send a written inquiry to Respondent requesting a Letter of Technical Advice, a request for a Technical Assistance Advisement, or a Declaratory Statement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and sustains the assessments contained in the Notice of Decision dated March 16, 1995, that Petitioner owes taxes in the amount of $238,454.24, penalty in the amount of $59,613.55, interest through August 12, 1993, in the amount of $102,633.11, for a total of $400,700.90, plus interest accruing from August 12, 1993, at the rate of $77.46 per day. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 6th day of May 1996.
The Issue The petition that initiated this proceeding challenged the taxes, interest, and penalties assessed against Petitioner by Respondent following an audit and identified the following four issues: Issue One. Does the sale of obsolete games at the "annual game sale" qualify for exemption from sales tax as an occasional or isolated sale? Issue Two. Are the purchases of video games exempt from Florida sales and use tax as sales for resales? Issue Three. Are the purchases of plush exempt from Florida sales and use tax as sales for resale or, alternatively, does taxation of the vending revenues and taxation of purchases of plush represent an inequitable double taxation? Issue Four. Should penalties be assessed based upon the facts and circumstances [of this proceeding].
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an Illinois Corporation headquartered in Texas and licensed to do business in Florida. Petitioner owns and operates video and arcade game amusement centers, hereafter referred to as centers. Petitioner sells to center customers the opportunity to play the games in the centers. Petitioner purchases the games from sources outside itself; it does not manufacture the games it makes available in its centers. Petitioner paid sales tax upon the purchase of machines purchased in Florida and use tax upon the purchase of machines outside Florida and imported for use inside Florida. The Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) is the State of Florida agency charged with the enforcement of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, Tax on Sales, Use and Other Transactions, the Transit Surtax, and the Infrastructure Surtax -- the state and local taxes at issue in this case. The DOR audited Petitioner for the period December 1, 1986 through November 30, 1991, hereafter referred to as the audit period. During the audit period, Petitioner operated 12 centers in the State of Florida. For purposes of the instant litigation, references to the centers will mean only the centers located in Florida. The audit determined that Petitioner owed $51,593.37 in sales and use tax, $440.81 in transit surtax, and $1,459.80 in infrastructure surtax. Each of the sums assessed included penalty and interest accrued as of September 13, 1994. In accordance with section 120.575(3), Florida Statutes, Petitioner paid $32,280 as follows: a. sales and use tax $22,411 b. interest 8,575 c. charter transit surtax 234 d. interest 64 e. infrastructure surtax 750 f. interest 246 The centers make available three types of games. The games are activated either by a coin or a token that is purchased at the center. Video games include pinball machines and electronic games which do not dispense coupons, tickets or prizes. Redemption games include skeeball, hoop shot and water race which dispense coupons or tickets which the player earns according to his or her skill. Merchandise games include electronic cranes which the operator or player maneuvers to retrieve a prize directly from the machine. Merchandise games do not dispense coupons or tickets. The tickets earned in the course of playing redemption games can be exchanged for prizes displayed at the centers. The prizes obtained directly from the merchandise games and exchanged following receipt from redemption games are termed "plush." Plush may be obtained only by seizing it in a redemption game or by redeeming coupons earned during the play of redemption games; it may not be purchased directly for cash. A merchandise game does not dispense an item of plush upon the insertion of a coin or token and activation of the crane's arm -- acquisition of plush requires a certain level of skill on the player's part. A redemption game does not dispense an item of plush upon the insertion of a coin or token and the push of a button -- acquisition of tickets requires a certain level of sill on the player's part. Petitioner purchases plush in bulk and distributes it to the various centers. Each of the centers sells some of its games to individual buyers. Petitioner's headquarters coordinates the sale. For each of the years in the audit period, the centers sold games at various dates. Petitioner characterizes as its "annual sale" the period November 1 through January 10 when most of the sales took place. The specific dates for the sales that took place during the audit period follow; numbers in square brackets indicate the number of sales on a particular date if there is more than one. a. December 1986 through July 1987 -- no information available -- but more than one sale was made during this time. b. November 1987: 2, 5, 7, 10, 17, 18[2], 20, 22, 25, 28[3] c. December 1987: 2, 4, 7, 15, 18, 23 d. November 1988: 4, 5, 7[2], 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20[2], 21[2], 25, 26, 28, 29 e. December 1988: 6, 7, 8, 10[2], 12[2], 16, 21, 22, 23[2], 24 f. January 1989: 3, 6, 7[4], 9, 12 g. November 1989: 6, 15, 16[2], 20 h. December 1989: 1, 6, 10, 22, 29[3], 31 January 1990: 26 March 1990: 26 April 1990: 26 l. June 1990: 12 m. November 1990: 3, 9, 13[2], 14, 16, 19, 24, 26 n. December 1990: 1, 2, 7, 20 January 1991: 8 May 1991: at least 1 q. November 1991: 4, 9, 10, 14, 15, 21 Petitioner did not provide its machine vendors resale certificates upon Petitioner's purchase of the games. Petitioner did not provide its plush vendors resale certificates upon Petitioner's purchase of plush. Petitioner did not apply for a refund of sales tax paid upon its purchase of games in Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained herein. The assessments against Petitioner should be sustained to the extent the assessments are consistent with the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 28th day of June, 1996.
The Issue Is Petitioner Haas Publishing Company liable for the taxes and interest assessed under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, specifically the sales and use tax and related surtaxes, pursuant to Section 212.031, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.070, for the audit period June 1, 1995 through May 31, 2000, and if so, to what extent?
Findings Of Fact Haas is a Delaware corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida. It is a subsidiary of Primedia, Inc. Haas publishes free consumer guides to apartments and homes and is paid by the apartment owners, realtors, and homeowners who advertise in the publications. One of Haas' divisions, Distributech, distributes the guides to retail stores. Haas negotiates with retailers for an appropriate site for its display of publications at each retail location. Nationwide, Haas distributes its publications from approximately 42,000 locations. Nationwide, Haas paid for the exclusive right to distribute, under contracts, in approximately 20,000 locations. Otherwise, it distributes in "free" locations. As required by Section 72.011(1)(b), Florida Statutes, Haas has complied with all applicable registration requirements with respect to the taxes at issue herein. DOR is the agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of Florida's tax laws, including sales and use tax and various local surtaxes. DOR conducted an audit of Haas for the period of June 1, 1995 through May 31, 2000. The audit resulted in an assessment of sales and use tax and associated surtaxes, interest, and penalties (Assessment). After protest and petition for reconsideration, DOR issued its Notice of Reconsideration (NOR) to Haas on May 16, 2003, wherein DOR sustained the Assessment in full, but offered to waive all penalties, without prejudicing Haas' right to challenge the remainder of the Assessment in full. Haas accepted the Department's offer to waive all penalties in their entirety, making a payment on the Assessment at the time the Petition herein was filed. In other words, Haas paid certain uncontested amounts in order to pursue the instant challenge to the remainder of the Assessment of all taxes and all interest, and in order to take advantage of an unrelated "extended amnesty" provided by DOR. This formal proceeding followed. The auditor who actually performed the work of the audit did not testify at the disputed-fact hearing. DOR's only witness, Ms. Gifford, did not participate in the original audit. However, Ms. Gifford reviewed the audit documents in detail and professionally consulted with the auditor and other reviewers to review the auditor's methods against the paperwork of the audit. She also reviewed the audit with input from Haas and its representative in the course of the Technical Assistance and Dispute Resolution (TADR) process, and throughout the informal challenges preceding this formal proceeding. She also reviewed all of the de novo material presented at the deposition of Haas' principal, Mr. Sullender, for purposes of her testimony. She is an expert capable of assisting the trier of fact, in that she is a Florida-licensed certified public accountant (CPA), and the undersigned is satisfied with the accuracy of her explanation of DOR's policies and procedures and of her predecessor's methodology and calculations. Also, her interpretations of rules and statutes are entitled to great weight where they purport to be the interpretation of the agency, but they do not constitute "factual" testimony and are not binding in this de novo proceeding. Ms. Gifford's analysis of case law is not entitled to that same deference. At the disputed-fact hearing, Haas challenged both the timeliness of the audit and the methodology of the audit. It is axiomatic that the amount assessed depends upon the methodology employed by the auditor, but DOR contended herein that because Haas protested only that an assessment had been made and because Haas had accepted all available offers of mitigation, Haas could not protest, at hearing, the amount calculated for the Assessment, whether the audit's calculations were correct, or whether the audit had been conducted in a timely manner. The following allegations of the Petition herein are relevant to these issues: No payment made by Haas to a retailer in Florida constituted payment for a lease of real property; No payment made by Haas to a retailer in Florida constituted payment for a license to use real property; The payments made by Haas to retailers were for distribution rights and/or intrinsically valuable personal property rights; The payments made by Haas to retailers were not subject to Florida sales and use taxes and other surtaxes; Alternatively, the payments made by Haas to retailers should have been apportioned by DOR, pursuant to Section 212.031, Florida Statutes; Some or all of the taxes that the Department claims that Haas owes have been paid by the retailers with whom Haas had agreements; The Department was without statutory authority to impose the Assessment for taxes and interest as set forth in Exhibit A; and The Assessment that is the subject of this proceeding is unlawful and violates the provisions of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes; Petitioner is entitled to relief under Sections 72.011 and Section 120.80, Florida Statutes. Section 212.031, Florida Statutes, dictates that the payments made by Haas to Florida retailers were not subject to Florida tax and therefore requires that the Assessment by DOR be stricken or modified. The auditor sent Form DR-840, the Notice of Intent to Audit (NOI), to Haas on May 30, 2000. This item informed the Taxpayer that the period of the audit would be June 1, 1995 through May 30, 2000, and that the audit would commence before July 29, 2000 (within 60 days) unless an attached waiver was signed and returned. The audit file does not reflect a signed waiver within 60 days. Ms. Gifford, on behalf of DOR, testified that the purpose of this NOI was to warn the Taxpayer that the audit would begin within 60 days unless the Taxpayer waived the timeline and that with a waiver, the audit would begin within 120 days. Ms. Gifford further testified that DOR considers itself limited to going back only five years from the date the auditor begins to review a taxpayer's records and that the Agency interprets Section 213.335, Florida Statutes, to require completion of the audit within one year of the initial letter. Ms. Gifford asserted that with a waiver, DOR would interpret the several applicable statutes and rules to provide the auditor with 120 days to begin an audit to encompass the whole of June 1, 1995 to May 30, 2000. However, if an audit is not begun within 120 days, DOR understands that the statutory audit period is not tolled and DOR usually removes the delay period from the front end (i.e., DOR starts the audit period the delayed number of days after June 1, 1995) and adds it to the back end (ends the audit period the delayed number of days after May 30, 2000) so that a five-year period of audit occurs, but the audit period starts some date later than June 1, 1995, and ends some date later than May 30, 2000. DOR considers the start of the audit to be when the auditor begins looking at records of the taxpayer. Haas provided pertinent, but incomplete, records on August 29, 2000, which was more than 60 days and less than 90 days after the May 30, 2000, NOI. Haas requested several extensions to review work papers received from the auditor. All were honored by DOR. A lot of correspondence ensued between the auditor and Haas and between DOR and Haas' designated representative(s)/accountants, but DOR's auditor did not record any time spent on the audit file until he met with Haas or its representative on October 23, 2000, more than 120 days after May 30, 2000. On the basis of the auditor's work record/timesheet, Haas contends that October 23, 2000, which was more than 120 days after the May 30, 2000 NOI, is when the audit actually began. Exchanges of records, work papers, and information continued, and on or about May 29, 2001, a vice-president of Haas signed and FAXED to DOR's auditor a consent to extend the statute of limitations for sales and use tax assessments through March 29, 2002. However, he did not affix the corporate seal in the designated part of the consent form. The consent form had been prepared by the auditor and mailed to Haas on or about March 25, 2001. It only listed "sales and use tax" as a reference. It did not identify any other tax, which ultimately made up the Assessment, including Charter Transit System Tax, Local Government Infrastructure Tax, Indigent Care Tax, or School Capital Outlay Tax, which, although related to sales and use tax, have separate designations. These surtax audits are based on the same facts, circumstances, and records as the sales and use tax audit herein but DOR lists and computes them separately from the sales and use tax on some of its forms. (See Finding of Fact 19.) The validity and timeliness, vel non, of the foregoing consent to extension was not raised by Petitioner until the disputed-fact hearing. A Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (also called an NOI) was dated September 21, 2001. The Notice of Proposed Assessment (NOPA) was issued December 5, 2001. DOR considers this document to be the completion of the audit. After the audit was completed, it was submitted to DOR's TADR, a dispute resolution process. A Notice of Decision (NOD) was entered July 30, 2002. Haas petitioned for reconsideration, alleging additional facts. By a May 16, 2003, Notice of Reconsideration (NOR), the audit was upheld. The NOR and NOIA lump all Chapter 212, Florida Statutes' taxes together. The NOPA lists each surtax separately. The compromise of amounts and this formal proceeding followed, as described above in Findings of Fact 5-6. Many contracts and other records were not provided by Haas to DOR until TADR, until the informal proceedings, or until after the Petition for this formal proceeding had been filed. Among other things, DOR had upheld the auditor's initial decision with regard to calculating Haas' 1997 tax. The auditor had not tested or sampled Haas' records for the full of the audit period in order to arrive at a tax figure for 1997. Because Haas had not provided certain records (RDAs) for 1997, Haas' figures for December 1996 were "extrapolated" by the auditor to the first six months of 1997, while the figures for January 1998 were "extrapolated" back to the last six months of 1997. Ms. Gifford felt this method constituted a legitimate estimate of the taxes due where a taxpayer had failed to provide adequate records. For the audit period, Haas published and distributed, free of charge to the public, apartment and home guides. The distribution was accomplished through contracts, on a regional and national level, with major retail store chains such as K-Mart, Blockbuster, Eckerd's, and Winn-Dixie Stores. The tax-assessment problems herein are compounded by Haas' choice not to use uniform contractual arrangements with all retailers; by its failure to designate within its contracts and/or accounting records what, if any, intangible uses it believed it was paying for; and its failure to allocate within its contracts and/or accounting records the amounts it believed it was paying for each alleged intangible use. Some of the contracts state that there is no corporate relation between Haas and the retailer. Haas has one major and several smaller competitors who distribute their own publications at retail store chains. Haas' contracts with the retail store chains guarantee to Haas the exclusive right to distribute apartment and home guides from the retail stores' locations and usually include the right to use the retail chains' respective logos and trademarks in Haas' promotional/sales materials and publications. One exception is Seven-Eleven, which limits to a greater degree use of its trademark and logo than do some of the other retailers. Not every contract contains a reference to a retailer's trademark or logo. Haas used its exclusive rights to distribute with certain retail store chains as an inducement to sell advertising to the apartment owners, realtors, and others who advertise in its publications. It was valuable to Haas to be able to tell potential print advertisers that its apartment/home guide was the only one allowed to be distributed from the particular retail chains. It was valuable to Haas to be able to show potential print advertisers the logo of retailers in Haas' promotional materials and publications. In most places, the exclusive right to distribute from the specified retail locations distinguished Haas from its competitors and allowed it to charge more for its advertising than they did. Mr. Sullender, Haas' principal, is credible that in each instance where Haas' contracts do not mention the use of trademarks and logos, each retail chain otherwise gave permission or provided Haas with its logo and trademark materials to use, as a result of the contracts. However, Haas provided nothing to DOR prior to instituting this formal case, by which DOR could have determined that such permission had been provided outside the contracts. Haas' right to place the retailers' logo or trademark on Haas' publication racks was a valuable right and every Haas rack displayed logos. Yet, the contracts do not obligate Haas to use the retailers' logos or trademarks, and Haas can still distribute from the racks without a logo. The contracts made no specific allocation of payments by Haas to the retailers for use of the retailers' logos and trademarks. The issue of whether payment for use of a logo or trademark should have been separately allocated from Haas' payment to the retailer in its contracts was not taken into consideration by DOR because this issue, in those terms, was not raised during the audit or subsequent informal protest/review procedures. However, the issue of allocation based on fair rental value of the space utilized in connection with prior audits of some of the respective retailers was raised. This is largely an issue of semantics. (See Findings of Fact 55-56.) All except one of the contracts at issue guarantee Haas the exclusive right to distribute its publications from the particular retail chains' locations. Exclusivity of the rights accruing to Haas is singularly important to Haas' business. However, Haas has been known to charge its competitors for space on its racks. Haas also is free to enter into partnerships with its competitors. In order to secure the exclusive right to distribute its publications from the retail locations and the right to use the retailers' trademarks and logos, Haas pays fees to the retail store chains under the contracts. Typically, Haas has to "outbid" at least one other competitor to obtain the foregoing exclusive rights. The payments under the contracts were typically made "per store," per month, and did not vary depending on the location of the store within the State. Part of Haas' negotiating strategy and ultimate success in securing exclusive use of most of its locations is the judicious use of "signing bonuses." Signing bonuses are specifically allocated in some, but not all, of Haas' contracts. In some contracts, they are directly linked to the right of exclusivity. They can be substantial amounts. However, according to Ms. Gifford, signing bonuses have never been part of DOR's Assessment in this case. (TR-62-63) Because the exclusive right to distribute its print materials was so valuable to Haas, it paid up to $375 per month per store under one contract. When Haas did not secure the exclusive right to distribute from a retail chain, it would not pay for the right to distribute, but distributed its publications from "free" locations. Nationwide, this compares at 20,000 paid to 22,000 unpaid locations. (See Finding of Fact 1.) The amount Haas paid a retail chain did not vary by particular store location within the chain nor by the size of the rack that Haas placed in a particular store. Haas' racks take up from two to four-feet worth of floor space. Haas supplied the racks, but, in general, the retail chains had control over the size, type, and color of the racks placed in its stores and limited Haas' access to the racks. Haas was solely responsible for set-up, replenishing, and maintenance of its racks on the retailer's property. Haas purchases liability insurance. Haas is always assigned covered space by the retailer. Haas considers space near an entrance/exit of the retailer's covered premises to be premium space. Retailers consider this same space to be "dead space," beyond its cash registers, which is essentially useless for display or sale of their retail goods. However, some retailers park carts or post notices in these areas. Haas does not sell or distribute any goods of, or for, the retailer. It merely stocks its own publications in its own racks in the retailer's space. Haas has no other contact with the retailers' business. Under the contracts, retailers have no obligation to market Haas' publications. They do not buy or sell them or pay to advertise in them. Retailers pay nothing to Haas. If Haas uses a retailer's logo and/or trademark in Haas' own advertising or in its publications per their negotiated arrangement, it is for the purpose of promoting Haas' publications. Use of the retailers' logos and trademarks has a benefit to the retailer, but a purely incidental one, since the retail customer who picks up a Haas publication from the Haas rack has already made the decision to enter the retail store in the first place. None of the retail chains ever attempted to charge sales or use taxes to Haas based on the payments made under the contracts. There is no evidence that Haas or any retailer, on Haas' behalf, tendered sales or use taxes to the State on the contracts at issue herein. Although some contracts acknowledge that a retailer is a franchisee of a third party, none of the contracts refer to the relationship between Haas and the retailer as a "franchise" or acknowledge Haas as a franchisee. Ms. Gifford did not equate Haas' use of a retailer's logo or trademark to market Haas' publications, not the retailer's goods, with all the accoutrements of a franchise, as she understood those accoutrements. DOR issued to a different taxpayer (not Haas) Technical Assistance Advisement No. 03A-002 (the TAA), concerning real property lease agreements. Although this advisory letter from a DOR attorney is not binding, except between DOR and the party to whom it is addressed, and although it is limited to the specific facts discussed within it, the legal conclusions therein are instructive, if not conclusive, of DOR's official interpretation of the statutes and rules it administers and of its agency policy with regard to when allocations are appropriate between intangible rights and real property rights. TAA 03A-002 cites, with approval, paragraphs 56 through 59 of the Final Order in Airport Limousine Service of Orlando, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, DOAH Case No. 94-1790, et seq., (March 23, 1995)1/ and State ex rel. N/S Associates v. Board of Review of the Village of Greendale, 473 N.W. 2d 554 (Wisc. App. 1991), and states, "The test for isolating intangible business value is as simple as asking whether the disputed value is appended to the property, and thus transferable with the property, or is it independent of the property so that it either stays with the seller or dissipates upon sale." This TAA also states that DOR will view the reasonableness of allocations of payments made pursuant to a lease agreement on a case-by-case basis in reference to whether the allocation is made in good faith or lacks any basis. It further cites with approval Bystrom v. Union Land Investment, Inc., 477 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985) ("Good faith for property tax valuation purposes will mean 'real, actual, and of a genuine nature as opposed to a sham or deception.'") The TAA anticipates that DOR would require that the taxpayer make reasonable allocations, within the taxpayer's own records, of lease payments to rent and other items not subject to tax, and that the taxpayer would also be required to otherwise maintain records adequate to establish how the taxpayer determined that each allocation was reasonable, and further, that if DOR auditors were satisfied with the taxpayer's records, an appraisal would not be required by DOR. The TAA does not foreclose the requirement of an appraisal to test the taxpayer's records. Synopsized, the TAA opines that separate payments by a tenant to a landlord for trademark, service mark, or logo rights of the landlord are subject to the tax on real property rentals unless the allocation of payments made by the taxpayer is reasonable, and further, that the allocation is not reasonable where no substantial, competent, and persuasive evidence is provided to establish the value of the trademark, service mark, or logo rights of the landlord received by the tenant and a legitimate business purpose for the tenant to acquire those rights is not demonstrated. Herein, Haas had not allocated rent and intangibles within its own contracts/records. It was Ms. Gifford's view that if the Taxpayer herein had not allocated the value of the trademarks, etc. and the real property value of its contracts, it was not up to DOR to do so in the course of an audit. Nonetheless, during the protest period, DOR had considered allocating the payments made by Haas under its contracts, into taxable and non-taxable payments, by reviewing the market rate rental for the space occupied and obtaining a valuation of the identifiable intangible property. Ultimately, DOR did not use this method on the basis that Haas had not submitted sufficient records. At hearing, Haas attempted to present evidence of the fair market value of the real estate involved and of the so- called intangible rights through an intangible property appraiser and a Florida-certified real estate appraiser. Lee Waronker is a Florida-certified real estate appraiser who was accepted as an expert in real estate appraisal. Mr. Waronker prepared a report which made a comparison of Haas' contracts with allegedly comparable rental properties, but he only used three "comparables," none of which included racks owned by similar advertising businesses. He did not consider what Petitioner's real competitors paid for similar space. Thus, when he arrives at an average fair rental value of Haas' space in all the retailers' locations as $25-50 per square foot, his base figures are suspect. Therefore, when he concluded that since Haas was paying an average of $355 per square foot and all the remainder of the contract payments should be allocated to intangible rights, such as trademarks and exclusivity, he was not credible or persuasive. His figures also apply only to the date of his appraisal in 2003, and admittedly would not be representative of the value of the rental property during the audit period. Therefore, his analysis that only 11.3 percent, plus or minus, of the contract prices constituted rent or a license to use is discounted and not accepted. Petitioner also presented the testimony and report of James N. Volkman, an intangible property appraiser who was accepted as an expert in that field. Mr. Volkman obtained all of his data from either the Securities and Exchange Commission filings of eighty-three percent of the retailers involved, from Haas, or from information compiled by DOR. These are legitimate appraisal sources. He performed his appraisal within the professional standards of the Financial Accounting Standards Board. He concluded that Haas' contracts could best be described as "distribution agreements," "because they are the means by which Haas distributes its publications" and because anyone familiar with the operations of a publisher would understand a line item on a balance sheet of a "distribution agreement" and not everyone would understand the term "license to use real property." It is noted that "distribution agreements" are not listed in the statute, but this, by itself, is not a fatal flaw. He maintained that the Haas contracts could not reasonably be characterized as a license to use real property, because the amount paid was well in excess of the fair rental value of the space. However, as part of his analysis, Mr. Volkman did not rely on Mr. Waronker's independent real estate appraisal, but conducted his own analysis as to the amount a retailer would likely charge a party seeking to utilize the floor space taken up by the approximate size of a single Haas rack. In doing so, Mr. Volkman was admittedly outside his realm of expertise. Mr. Volkman allocated the amounts Haas was paying as twelve percent to the "right to use real property"; twenty-four percent to "non-compete rights" (his term for exclusivity); fourteen percent to "trademark rights"; thirty-five percent to "distribution cost savings" (a term which seems to describe Haas not having to identify and mail its publications to interested persons or use a retailer's magazine rack);2/ and fifteen percent to "market penetration premium."3/ The last two calculations are not credible and undermine the entire allocations summary he presented. The distribution cost savings figure contains too many assumptions not fully documented. Mr. Volkman also arrived at his calculation of the "market penetration premium" merely by selecting the residual percentage sufficient to make up the difference, so that his other figures added up to 100 percent of the total fee paid by Haas to retailers. His reason for doing this is not plausible. He assumed that just because the growth rate of Haas' business far exceeded the growth rate in multi- family units, it must be that Haas substantially increased its market share during the audit period due to exclusivity. Ultimately, he could not explain the fifteen percent calculation for "market penetration" by the documents he relied on for calculating the other three categories. More damaging to the weight and credibility of his report is that Mr. Volkman did not consider Haas' signing bonuses as having anything to do with the exclusivity rights accruing to Haas. He considered the signing bonuses not to be an intangible right but only "compensation to retailers for negotiating these agreements." However, signing bonus rights seem to be the only intangible rights allocated in any of the contracts and were inherently recognized as such by DOR when it chose not to address them in the Assessment. There are also a number of other questionable portions of his report and opinion which cause it to be discounted and not accepted here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order finding the Assessment factually and legally correct and sustaining the Assessment plus interest to date. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ______ ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 2004.
The Issue Whether Petitioners should be permitted to purchase an aircraft for leasing purposes without paying sales tax.
Findings Of Fact Centurion, as a legal entity, was first incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida on or about May 23, 1996. Eagle, the parent corporation of Centurion, is a separate legal entity, also incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida. Both entities have their headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida. An assessment of sales/use taxes, and associated interest, was issued by Respondent against Centurion and reflected in a Notice of Reconsideration (NOR), dated April 18, 1997. No tax assessment has been issued against Eagle. The assessment was based upon the purchase by Centurion, of a 1968 Cessna Aircraft, Model #210H, Serial #21059002, in Florida, from Frank A. Tillman, for $30,000. Centurion, the sole purchaser, took title to the aircraft when it was purchased from Frank Tillman. No sales tax was collected on the transaction. However, tax was remitted by Eagle on the subsequent re-leasing of the aircraft in Florida. At the time of the sale, Centurion, the purchaser, was not registered as a dealer. However, Eagle, the parent corporation, was registered as a dealer. Evidence is in conflict concerning the exact date of purchase of the aircraft,1 but the parties are in agreement and the evidence supports the finding that the aircraft was purchased before Centurion obtained a dealership registration on October 24, 1996. Centurion did not seek to register as a dealer until Respondent later launched inquiries about the purchase. On August 21, 1996, Respondent issued a tax assessment/billing against Centurion based upon an estimated aircraft purchase price of $60,000. However, based upon additional information provided by Eagle, Respondent learned that the purchase price was only $30,000 and the assessment was reduced. Respondent’s NOR reflects the computation of the assessment based upon the purchase price of $30,000. Petitioners did not act as a “joint venture” or “unit” in that they did not register jointly as a “dealer” at the time of purchase; they did not acquire joint title to the aircraft; and they did not jointly issue a certificate of resale at the time of purchase. The following elements of joint venture were not evidenced by Petitioners at the time of sale: (1) a community of interest in the performance of the common purpose; (2) joint control or right of control; (3) a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter; (4) a right to share in the profits and (5) a duty to share in any losses which may be sustained. Testimony by James B. Curasi on behalf of Petitioners that a joint venture was established contradicts statements made by him previously to Respondent. In a letter dated September 19, 1996, Petitioners’ representative and witness, James B. Curasi, informed the Department of Revenue that the aircraft was leased by Centurion to Eagle Aircraft. He stated that the relationship between Eagle and Centurion was that of lessor and lessee, rather than that of joint venture partners. Specifically, Curasi stated the following in the letter: Please be advised that this aircraft was purchased by Centurion Aviation Company, a related company, and leased to Eagle Aircraft. (emphasis supplied.) Testimony by Curasi to the contrary is not credited. Additionally, a blanket certificate of resale, presented to Respondent after this formal administrative proceeding commenced, is signed only in the name of Eagle Aircraft as “purchaser,” and states that “all material, merchandise, or goods purchased by the undersigned from Frank Tillman” shall be for exempt resale purposes.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, reached, it is, recommended that a final order be entered sustaining Respondent’s assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1998.
Findings Of Fact The stipulated facts are as follows: The petitioner is GJPR Two Corporation, formerly Employers Insurance Management Corporation, a Florida Corporation, and its address is c/o W. L. Adams, Esquire, Pyszka, Kessler, Adams and Solomon, 2699 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida 33133. Said petitioner has a substantial interest in these proceedings and has proper standing herein. The agencies affected are the Department of Revenue, Tallahassee, Florida, and the Office of the Comptroller of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida; no other agencies are affected. These proceedings have been properly initiated and are now properly before the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Administration of the State of Florida. The parties are not in dispute as to any issues of fact, and agree to the following findings of fact: On or about June 1, 1977, petitioner sold all of its assets of every kind and type in a single transaction to Arthur J. Gallagher and Company. The assets sold included two aircraft. When the registration documents of such aircraft were presented to the State of Florida for transfer, payment of sales tax was required in the sum of $4,056.00. Said sum was paid under protest on or about June 10, 1977. Until the sale of its assets, the business of petitioner had always been the sale of insurance and the administration of self-insurance programs for insureds and self-insureds throughout Florida and other states. The aircraft had been used in the business of petitioner, but petitioner had never engaged in the sale or leasing of aircraft as all or any part of its business. Since the sale of its assets, petitioner has not been engaged in business and petitioner has adopted and filed with the Internal Revenue Service of the United States a Resolution requiring that petitioner conduct no further business and that petitioner be liquidated. The sale of the two aircraft upon which the tax in question was paid under protest is an occasional or isolated sale. Petitioner filed a Claim for Refund upon the ground that the sale was an isolated sale. The Claim for Refund was denied by letter of August 11, 1977 from the Office of the Comptroller of the State of Florida, a copy of which is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A."
Recommendation That the denial of tax refund to the petitioner by the State Comptroller be affirmed. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 24th day of January, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. Horwich, Esquire Suite 302 University Federal Building 2222 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Cecil Davis, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact The Garemore airport is located in Marion County and is known as the Greystone Airport. The Garemores were issued a private airport license for the period September 24, 1980, through September 30, 1981, and have made timely application for annual renewal of this license. Neighboring property owners and residents who objected to grant of the initial license also object to renewal. Generally, their objections concern excessive noise and unsafe aircraft operations. Several Petitioners raise and breed thoroughbred horses on property adjacent to the airport. They fear for their personal safety and the well-being of these horses and other livestock. These Petitioners also contend that aircraft noise and low flying upset their animals and interfere with mating. However, Respondent introduced opposing evidence, and Petitioners' contention was not established as factual. Through unrebutted testimony, Petitioners established that crop dusters routinely originate operations from Greystone Airport, and that crop dusting chemicals are stored on the site. About six months ago, a crop duster taking off from Greystone Airport dumped his chemical load on a Petitioner's property and subsequently crashed on this property. Petitioners also argue that the airport glide slope does not meet accepted criteria and that runway surfacing is inadequate. Respondent DOT has recently inspected the facility and through the testimony of its airport inspector, demonstrated that the glide slope has been measured and meets the 20 to 1 requirement set forth in Section 14-60.07, Florida Administrative Code. The runway is not surfaced and Petitioners contend it is not hard enough for aircraft operations during the rainy season. As evidence of this, they cite an incident where a visiting airplane ground looped on landing and appeared to lose a wheel. This incident did not establish a runway deficiency, however, nor did Petitioners offer evidence that the runway surface fails to meet any statutory or rule standard. Petitioners related numerous examples of low flying, night flying and acrobatic maneuvering at and near the Greystone Airport. They contend that these activities along with the concentration of World War II and antique aircraft, and the crop dusting operations, have made this a commercial facility.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the private airport license issued to James and Geraldine Garemore be renewed subject to a restriction against crop dusting operations. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 30th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Clark Hardwick 900 Northeast 100th Street Ocala, Florida 32677 Charles and Terry Kerr 8149 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32670 Mr. John P. Edson 8610 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32671 Sherry and Vince Shofner Post Office Box 467 Anthony, Florida 32617 Frank and Carol Constantini 8545 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32670 Mr. James B. Banta, Sr. 9349 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32670 Ms. Deborah Allen 8263 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32671 Mr. Worthy E. Farr, Jr. 8215 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32671 Mr. Michael J. Stavola Post Office Box 187 Anthony, Florida 32617 Frances Spain Post Office Box 128 Anthony, Florida 32617 Ms. Beatrice Shepherd Post Office Box 215 Anthony, Florida 32617 J. W. Houston 900 Northeast 100th Street Ocala, Florida 32670 John F. Welch, Esquire Post Office Box 833 Ocala, Florida 32678 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Suite 562 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Tireless, Inc., was incorporated in the State of Delaware in October, 1981. On October 15, 1984, Tireless, Inc. purchased a 61 foot 1985 Hatteras motor yacht from Toledo Beach Marina in LaSalle, Michigan, for a purchase price of $771,339.00. Delivery was to be taken at New Bern, North Carolina. The above stated price was the factory invoice price of $746,330.00 plus a $25,000.00 profit to the dealer. The invoice for the sale, dated October 4, 1984, reflecting that the yacht was sold to Toledo Beach Marina, nonetheless reflects that the customer, who was to pay 100 per cent of the purchase price prior to delivery by customer pick up was Mr. Geiger. After purchase, the yacht was documented in Wilmington, Delaware and home-ported there. The name and home port appearing on the transom of the vessel reflected, "Tireless, Wilmington, Delaware." The vessel constituted the sole asset of its owning corporation. The vessel was purchased as an investment. It was anticipated that it would be used by company personnel for pleasure as well as business meetings and it could and would be chartered out on occasion. Though the vessel reportedly was to be used on the Great Lakes, because of the reported possibility of severe weather in that area at the time of pick up and of ice forming in one or more of the 38 locks of the canal across New York State to Lake Erie, a decision was made to take the boat to Florida for winter storage. Recognizing that dockage facilities are quite often difficult to come by, arrangements were made for the boat to be docked at the Bahia Mar Yacht Basin in Fort Lauderdale, arguably the premier, most active and most prestigious anchorage in South Florida. These arrangements were made well in advance of the arrival of the vessel. This was to be a winter dockage only. From the time of its arrival at the yacht basin in November, 1984 until it left to go north in April, 1985, it did not leave the basin although it was moved from one slip to another in the same marina. While at the Bahia Mar Yacht Basin, certain modifications were made to the vessel such as the installation of additional electronics and a custom interior was installed. From November 1, 1984 through April 5, 1985, Mr. Geiger visited the boat on six occasions staying overnight on it for one or more nights each time. The boat was not used for parties nor did any other person live aboard the boat during its stay at Bahia Mar. Though the Tireless was brought from North Carolina to Fort Lauderdale, there were other ports to the north where the boat could have been wintered including New Bern, itself, and various ports in South Carolina and Georgia, not even considering those Florida ports to the north. Mr. Geiger contends that corporate officials picked the Fort Lauderdale berth because of the availability of berthing facilities and the capability of electronics installation found in the immediate area. This argument is not persuasive, however. There was nothing shown to be particularly unique about the electronics installed or the interior customizing done which could not have been done in other marinas between New Bern and Fort Lauderdale such as Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida. What is obvious, though no direct evidence of this was presented, is that in the wintertime, the climate of Fort Lauderdale is far superior and friendly than those other ports as are the social aspects. The boat was sailed from the factory to Fort Lauderdale by a crew made up of Mr. Geiger as captain and several other non- profession sailors who were friends or acquaintances of his. Upon arrival in Fort Lauderdale, Mr. Geiger put the boat into the marina immediately and stayed but one day prior to leaving to return up north. In addition to the six or so visits paid to the boat by Mr. Geiger referenced above, other unidentified individuals from up north did come down and onto the yacht at its berth for short periods. During the trip down from North Carolina, the boat utilized the Intracoastal Waterway and stopped at one or two Florida marinas over night on the way. On or about September 26, 1984, Mr. Geiger entered into a license agreement for dockage space with the Bahia Mar Hotel and Yachting Center for slip # E-251 for the Tireless at a rate of 90 per day to start on November 15, 1984. Thereafter, on November 2, he entered another agreement with the marina for a different slip, # H-359. The rate and estimated length of stay reflected on this second agreement is listed as "cond." No explanation of this notation was given. The bills for the dockage reflect numerous phone calls and other charges on an almost daily basis, the explanation for which is that they were calls made by workmen or others in reference to the work being done on the boat. When these bills came due they were paid and payment was authorized either by Mr. Geiger as President of Tireless, Inc., or by a yacht broker resident at the marina who was supervising the work being done on the vessel. In April, 1985, the boat was sailed from South Florida up to South Carolina where it stayed for a few weeks then on to North Carolina for a week and on to New York where it stayed for several weeks prior to going to the Great Lakes and its dockage in Ohio for the summer. While up north, it was, as intended, used for pleasure, business, and charter on several occasions. One of the individuals who showed a strong interest in chartering the vessel while it was in Ohio indicated also that he might be interested in chartering it in South Florida for the winter. As a result, Mr. Geiger had the boat brought back in the fall of 1985. However, the proposed charter fell through. While in Florida, however, the boat was sold to another individual who paid approximately $805,000.00 for it. The boat was sold in January, 1986. It was not until some four months later that the Department of Revenue filed its notice of delinquent tax. An informal hearing was held as a result of the assessment and on October 2, 1986, the Department, in a letter to Petitioner's counsel, stated as a notice of reconsideration and the final position of the Department that it affirmed the assessment and expected it to be paid in full. In essence, the Department concluded that the vessel was imported into the State of Florida and stored here initially for a period in excess of five months. While here, it was modified and improved and was available for use by the owner even though it may not have been taken out and that all of this was done prior to its being used elsewhere, in another state, for more than six months. The Department considered this to be co-mingling with the mass of property in the State of Florida rendering the yacht subject to use tax, and its position appears to be legally correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Tireless, Inc., pay a use tax plus penalty and interest on the storage for use in Florida of the motor vessel, Tireless, and that such tax be based on a value assessment of $771,330.00. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of June, 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. Arnold H. Pollock, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties hereto: By the Petitioner 1-8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as to the fact that prior arrangements were made due to concern over availability of winter dockage space. There was no evidence regarding any representations made by the Bahia Mar Club. Accepted. 11-12. Rejected. There was no evidence of actual weather conditions. In fact, the decision was made to go south reportedly due to possible weather conditions but no effort was made to make the trip to the Great Lakes at that time. 13. See 11-12. Accepted. Rejected while the vessel was not used for sailing, Mr. Geiger did live aboard on several visits down from Ohio. 16-17. No evidence was introduced by either party on the issue of intent. Evidence as to actual use or non-use is controlling in any event. 18-21. Rejected as irrelevant. 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. By the Respondent 1-5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Accepted. 14-16. Accepted. 17-18. Accepted. 19-20. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William D. Townsend, Esquire Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Debra A. Altizer, Esquire Post Office Box 14124 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33302 Kevin J. O'Donnell, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section Capitol Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Randy Miller, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether proposed amendments to Rule 12A-1.070 are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Petitioners and Intervenors challenge Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(1) and (4)(a) and (b). Respondent published the amendments in the Florida Administrative Law Weekly on March 18, 1994 and June 10, 1994. As described in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, the proposed rule amendments address, among other things, the taxation of payments to airport authorities from concessionaires like rental car companies and airport restaurants. The law imposes a sales tax on payments for the use or occupancy of real property, whether the agreement consists of a lease or a license to use real property. The main dispute in these cases is whether the proposed rule amendments illegally extend the sales tax to payments for intangibles like a concession, franchise, or privilege to do business.
Findings Of Fact The Proposed Rules By notice published in 20 Florida Administrative Law Weekly 1549 on March 18, 1994, Respondent proposed amendments to existing Rule 12A-1.070. (All references to Sections are to Florida Statutes. All references to Rules are to the Florida Administrative Code. All references to Proposed Rules are to the rule amendments that are the subject of this proceeding.) The notice explains that the purpose of the rule amendments is to clarify the application of specific statutory sales tax exemptions for the lease or license to use real property at airports, malls and nursing homes. The rule amendments clarify that the total payment pursuant to a lease or license of real property is subject to tax, unless specifically exempt, irrespective of how the payment, or a portion thereof, is identified. However, if such leased property includes specifically exempt property, then such exemption may be applied on a pro rata basis. 20 Florida Administrative Law Weekly 1549 (March 18, 1994). In the notice, Respondent cites as specific authority for the proposed amendments Sections 212.17(6), 212.18(2), and 213.06(1). Respondent states that the proposed amendments implement Sections 212.02(10)(h) and (i) and (13), 212.03(6), and 212.031. By notice published June 10, 1994, in 20 Florida Administrative Law Weekly 4096, Respondent proposed amendments to the amendments previously proposed. As amended by both notices, Rule 12A-1.070 provides, with deletions stricken through and additions underlined: * 12A-1.070 Leases and Licenses of Real Property; Storage of Boats and Aircraft (1)(a) Every person who rents or leases any real property or who grants a license to use, occupy, or enter upon any real property is exer- cising a taxable privilege unless such real property is: * * * <<a>>. Property used at an airport exclusively for the purpose of aircraft landing or aircraft taxiing or property used by an airline for the purpose of loading or unloading passengers or property onto or from aircraft or for fueling aircraft. See Subsection (3). <<b. Property which is used by an airline exclusively for loading or unloading passengers onto or from an aircraft is exempt. This property includes: common walkways inside a terminal building used by passengers for boarding or departing from an aircraft, ticket counters, baggage claim areas, ramp and apron areas, and departure lounges (the rooms which are used by passengers as a sitting or gathering area immed- iately before surrendering their tickets to board the aircraft). Departure lounges commonly known as VIP lounges or airport clubs which are affiliated with an airline or a club which requires a membership or charge or for which membership or usage is determined by ticket status are not included as property exempt from tax. The lease or license to use passenger loading bridges (jetways) and baggage conveyor systems comes under this exemption, provided that the jetways and baggage conveyor systems are deemed real property. In order for the jetways and baggage conveyors to be deemed real property, the owner of these items must also be the owner of the land to which they are attached, and must have had the intention that such property become a permanent accession to the realty from the moment of installation. The items shall not be considered real property if the owner, when the owner is not the airport, retains title to the items after the purchase/installation indebtedness has been paid in full. Any operator of an airport, such as an airport authority, which is the lessee of the land on which the airport has its situs is, for the purposes of this sub- subparagraph, deemed the owner of such land. Real property used by an airline for purposes of loading or unloading passengers or property onto or from an aircraft which is exempt from tax includes: office areas used to process tickets, baggage processing areas, operations areas used for the purpose of the operational control of an airline's aircraft, and air cargo areas. If any portion of the above property is used for any other purpose, it is taxed on a pro- rata basis, which shall be determined by the square footage of the portions of the areas in the airport that are used by an airline exclusively for the purpose of loading or unloading passengers or property onto or from aircraft (which areas shall be the numerator) compared to the total square footage of such areas used by the airlines (which areas shall be the denominator). Example: An airline leases a total of 3,000 square feet from an airport authority. The airline uses the space as follows: 1,000 square feet are used to process tickets and check in the passengers' luggage; 1,000 square feet are used for the passengers' departure lounge; and 1,000 square feet are used for the management office and the employees' lounge. The 1,000 square feet used to process tickets and check in the luggage is exempt; the 1,000 square feet used as a passengers' departure lounge is also exempt; and the 1,000 square feet used as the management office and employees' lounge is taxable. Therefore, a total of 2,000 square feet is exempt because that portion of the total space leased by the airline is used exclusively for the purposes of loading or unloading passengers or property onto or from an aircraft. However, the total amount used as office space and the employees' lounge (i.e., 1,000 square feet) is taxable, because that portion of the space leased by the airline is not used exclusively for the purposes of loading or unloading passengers or property onto or from an aircraft. Real property used for fueling aircraft is taxable when the fueling activities are conducted by a lessee or licensee which is not an airline. However, the charge made to an airline for the use of aprons, ramps, or other areas used for fueling aircrafts is exempt. From July 1, 1990, through June 30, 1991, property used at an airport to operate advertising displays in any county as defined in s. 125.011(1), F.S., was exempt from tax.>> * * * (b)1. A person providing retail concessionaire services involving the sale of food or drink or other tangible personal property within the premises of an airport shall be subject to tax on the rental of such real property. 2. However, effective July 1, 1987, a person providing retail concessionaire services involving the sale of food and drink or other tangible personal property within the premises of an airport shall not be subject to the tax on any license to use such property. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "sale" shall not include the leasing of tangible personal property. <<3. For purposes of this rule, the term "retail concessionaire," which may be either a lessee or licensee, shall mean any person .. . who makes sales of food, drinks, or other tangible personal property directly to the general public within the premises of an airport. With regard to airports, any persons which contract to service or supply tangible personal property for airline operations are considered to be providing aircraft support services and are not concessionaires for purposes of this rule.>> * * * The provisions of this rule relating to the license to use, occupy, or enter upon any real property are effective July 1, 1986, unless other- wise noted. "Real property" means the surface land, improvements thereto, and fixtures, and is synonymous with "realty" and "real estate." "License," with reference to the use of real property, means the granting of a privilege to use or occupy a building or parcel of real property for any purpose. <<1. Example:>> [[(g)]] An agreement whereby the owner of real property grants another person permission to install and <<operate>> [[maintain]] a full service coin-operated vending machine, coin- operated amusement machine, coin-operated laundry machine, or any like items, on the premises is a [[taxable]] license to use real property. The consideration paid by the machine owner to the real property owner <<for the license to use the real property>> is taxable. . . . <<2. Example:>> [[(h)]] An agreement between the owner of real property and an advertising agency for the use of real property to display advertising matter is a [[taxable]] license to use real property. <<The consideration paid by the advertising agency to the real property owner for the license to use the real property is taxable.>> * * * (4)(a)<<1.>> The tenant or person actually occupying, using, or entitled to use any real property from which rental or license fee is subject to taxation under s. 212.031, F.S., and shall pay the tax to his immediate landlord or other person granting the right to such tenant or person to occupy or use such real property. <<2. Where the lessor's or licensor's ability to impose fee(s) is based on its ownership or control of the real property, and the payment made to the lessor or licensor is for the lessee's or licensee's use of the real property, such fees are subject to tax. In such circumstances, the total payment for the use of real property, including airport property, is taxable, irrespective that the payment or a portion of the payment may be identified as consideration for the privilege to do business at that location, privilege fee, guaranteed minimum, concession fee, percentage fee, or by the use of similar terms which seek to distinguish such portion(s) from the payment for the lease of or license to use such real property for any purpose, unless such lease or license is otherwise specifically exempt. Example: A clothing retailer occupying a location inside a mall has an agreement with the owner of the mall under which it pays a minimum rent plus a percentage of its gross sales for the right to operate its store at that location. The agreement characterizes the minimum rent as consideration for the lease of designated real property and the percentage of gross sales as consideration for the privilege to do business in the mall; failure to make any of these payments can cause the agreement to be terminated. The total amount required under the agreement is subject to tax, regardless of how the consideration, or a portion thereof, is characterized. Example: A push cart or kiosk vendor has an agreement with the owner of the mall under which it pays a minimum rent plus a percentage of its gross sales for the right to sell its merchandise at various locations within the common areas of the mall. Failure to make the payments can terminate the right to sell merchandise in the mall. The total amount under the agreement is subject to tax because the statute defines a taxable license as the granting of the privilege to use real property for any purpose, including the privilege to use the real property to do business. Example: A car rental company has an agree- ment with an airport authority to operate its rental car business with a designated office and counter space within the airport terminal building. The agreement provides for a payment designated as rent for the use of real property as well as a payment based on a percentage of gross sales designated as a privilege fee for engaging in business at the airport. Failure to make either payment can terminate the agreement. The total amount required under the agreement is subject to tax. All past declarations, including Temporary Technical Assistance Advisements issued pursuant to Emergency Rule 87AER-91, Technical Assistance Advisements, Letters of Technical Assistance, and similar correspondence, issued by the Department, which advised that fees or portions of fees identified as privilege fees to engage in business were exempt, and which are inconsistent with this rule are rescinded. Therefore, such privilege fees are taxable payments for a lease or license to use real property for business purposes. (b) Except for tolls charged to the travelling public, both commercial and non- commercial, imposed exclusively for the right to travel on turnpikes, expressways, bridges, and other public roadways, the full consideration paid for the license to use airport real property for the purpose of picking-up or dropping-off passengers and baggage from airport sidewalks, landings, and other facilities by any person providing ground transportation services to such airport, shall be taxable as a license to use airport real property, irrespective of whether the operator of such service enters the airport terminal building while engaged in providing such service. Example: The fee paid by a hotel to an airport, for the privilege of coming on the airport property for the purpose of picking-up and dropping- off its guests at the airport terminal, is a license to use airport real property, and is taxable. Example: The fee paid by a taxicab and limousine company to an airport, for the privilege of coming on the airport property for the purpose of picking-up and dropping- off its passengers at the airport terminal, is a license to use airport real property, and is taxable. Example: The fee paid by a remote location rental car company, for the privilege of using the airport premises to pick-up and drop-off its customers at the airport terminal, is a license to use real property, and is taxable.>> Note: In the above text, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. Statutes and Legislative History As amended by 66, Chapter 86-152, Laws of Florida, Section 212.031 states: (1)(a) It is declared to be the legislative intent that every person is exercising a taxable privilege who engages in the business of renting, leasing, [[or]] letting<<, or granting a license for the use>> of any real property unless such property is: * * * Note: In the above text, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. Section 212.02(10)(h) defines "real property" as "the surface land, improvements thereto, and fixtures, and is synonymous with 'realty' and 'real estate.'" The 1986 amendments extend the sales tax to licenses for the use or occupancy of real property. Section 212.02(10)(i) defines "license." "License," as used in this chapter with reference to the use of real property, means the granting of a privilege to use or occupy a building or a parcel of real property for any purpose. Section 212.031 imposes a sale tax for the use and occupancy of real property, but not upon payments for intangibles, such as a franchise, concession, or other privilege to do business. The sales tax imposed by Section 212.031 is limited to the payments, or portions of payments, for the use or occupancy of real property. Each of the ten subsections under Section 212.031 exempts from the sales tax various types of property. Three exemptions relevant to these cases are at Section 212.031(1)(a)6, 7, and 10, which exempt real property that is: 6. A public street or road which is used for transportation purposes. 7. Property used at an airport exclusively for the purpose of aircraft landing or aircraft taxiing or property used by an airline for the purpose of loading or unloading passengers or property onto or from aircraft or for fueling aircraft or, for the period July 1, 1990, through June 30, 1991, property used at an airport to operate advertising displays in any county as defined in s. 125.011(1). Leased, subleased, or rented to a person providing food and drink concessionaire services within the premises of [[an airport,]] a movie theater, a business operated under a permit issued pursuant to chapter 550 or chapter 551, or any publicly owned arena, sport stadium, convention hall, [[or]] exhibition hall<<, auditorium, or recreational facility. A person providing retail concessionaire services involving the sale of food and drink or other tangible personal property within the premises of an airport shall be subject to tax on the rental of real property used for that purpose, but shall not be subject to the tax on any license to use the property. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "sale" shall not include the leasing of tangible personal property.>> Note: In the above text, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. The indicated changes in subparagraph 10 were enacted by 10, Chapter 87-101, Laws of Florida. The remaining statutes cited by Respondent as law implemented by the Proposed Rules are not relevant to this proceeding. Court Decisions In Quick and Havey v. Department of Revenue, Case No. 72-363, Second Judicial Circuit, decided December 5, 1974, Donald O. Hartwell, Circuit Judge, entered a summary judgement in favor of Respondent. Quick and Havey operated a food concession at the municipal auditorium in West Palm Beach. In return for the concession, they agreed to pay the city base rental and a percentage of gross sales. The agreement entitled Quick and Harvey to the exclusive occupancy of part of the auditorium; they also provided concession services at other locations throughout the auditorium. Quick and Harvey paid the sales tax on the base rental, but argued that the percentage payment constituted "a fee paid for the exercise of a privilege." Judge Hartwell held that the tax applied to the base rent and percentage rent because the latter payments "are so inextricably entwined and enmeshed in the agreement to pay rent that they cannot be separated or distilled . . .." Judge Hartwell reasoned that rent is the "compensation paid for the use and occupation of real property." Recognizing that a tenant might make payments to its landlord that are not rent, Judge Hartwell found that at least under the terms of the instruments before it for construction and analysis that there has not been such a sufficient separation of the source of these funds as to warrant their classification solely as a fee for the exercise of a privilege. The right to use property cannot be separated from the property itself. We, of course, do not pass upon the question of whether the so-called concession rights can be [illegible] separated from the lease of the property itself. Suffice it to say that under the facts as herein presented, the Court is of the opinion that all payments made to the City of West Palm Beach under the agreement before the Court constitute payment of rent and are therefore subject to the tax specified in Section 212.031, Florida Statutes. In Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Askew, Case No. 74- 338, Second Judicial Circuit, decided January 20, 1977, Judge Hartwell decided whether certain payments made by Avis were taxable under Section 212.031. Avis had "entered into various contracts for a concession or license to do business at various airports and for the rental of real property," as well as contracts with private individuals for the rental of real property to conduct business at nonairport locations. Judge Hartwell divided the contracts of Avis into three categories. The first type of contract was for the payment of rental for the use real property. The second type of contract was for the payment of a concession fee for the right to do business on the premises and for the payment of a sum explicitly identified as rent for the use of real property. The third type of contract was for the payment of a concession fee for the right to do business on the premises and for the use of real property without a sum explicitly identified as rent. Judge Hartwell concluded that all payments for the rights conveyed by the first type of contract were taxable under Section 212.031. He ruled that the payments for the right to rent real property under the second type of contract were taxable, but the payments for the remaining rights were not. Declining to aggregate payments as he had in Quick and Havey two years earlier, Judge Hartwell ruled that the payments for the rights conveyed by the third type of contract required a "reasonable allocation." The allocation was between the payments for the use of real property, which were taxed, and the remaining payments, which were not. Judge Hartwell ordered that the allocation should be based on rental rates charged for the right of occupancy of the real property charged other tenants for comparable space. In a per curiam decision not yet final, the Fifth District Court of Appeal recently considered the taxation of concession fees in Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 20 Fla. Law Weekly D552 (March 3, 1995). The findings of fact and conclusions of law in this final order do not rely upon Lloyd Enterprises, which is discussed merely as supplemental material. In Lloyd Enterprises, the taxpayer entered into a concession agreement with Volusia County for the rental of motorcycles at the beach. A fixed- location concessionaire, the taxpayer had the right to park its vehicles within 100 feet in either direction of its assigned spot during its assigned operating hours. Other concessionaires were allowed to roam the beach, but beach rangers would enforce the taxpayer's exclusive right to sell goods within its 200-foot territory if the free- roaming concessionaires parked or tried to sell goods in this territory. Rejecting Respondent's interpretation of its own rules, the court considered the language of the agreement, as well as a county ordinance incorporated by the agreement. The court held that neither document created a lease or license for the use of real property. Rather, they reflected the County's concern with the image that activities on the beach projected to visitors. The documents evidenced the County's intent to enhance the public's enjoyment of the beach through the provision of goods and services, as well as to raise revenue, mostly to defray cleanup costs at the beach. Thus, under the documents, the payments were nontaxable concession fees. Agency Interpretations Interpretations of Law Prior to Proposed Rule Amendments By letter dated May 14, 1968, Mr. J. Ed Straughn, Executive Director of Respondent, advised Mr. Wilbur Jones that tax is due on the space rented to car rental companies in any airport building. If the agreement makes no allocation between rental and nonrent payments, Respondent would require a "reasonable allocation" between rent and other payments with the tax due only on the amount paid for the right of occupancy. Mr. Straughn suggested that the rent component be estimated by the use of comparable rental rates for space elsewhere in the building. By letter dated August 14, 1985, Mr. Hugh Stephens, a Technical Assistant for Respondent, advised Mr. Victor Bacigalupi that a contract between an advertising company and Dade County, concerning advertising at Miami International Airport, did not involve the rental of real property. Mr. Stephens evidently relied on the nonexclusive right of posting advertising displays and the right of Dade County to require the advertiser to relocate or remove displays. By memorandum dated October 28, 1986, Mr. William D. Townsend, General Counsel, proposed policy for the taxation of licenses. Consistent with the Straughn letter 18 years earlier, the memorandum, which is directed to Mr. Randy Miller, Executive Director, states: A license in real property can be defined as a personal, revocable, and unassignable privilege, conferred either by writing or orally, to do one or more acts on land without possessing any interest in the land. Every license to do an act on land involves the occupation of the land by the licensee so far as it is necessary to do the act. Example: A concessionaire pays for permission (a license) to sell hot dogs in the building of a wrestling arena. The concessionaire has no possessory interest in the building. He normally has no specifically or legally described area which is his. He is allowed simply to vend his hot dogs in the building. Perhaps he delivers and vends in the stands. Without special permission, he cannot assign his license and it is normally revocable by the licensor unless specifically agreed otherwise. . . . For purposes of F.S. 212.031, however, the Department of Revenue (DOR) takes the position that either a lease or license is present in any business arrangement in which one or more owners, lessors, sublessors, or other persons holding a possessory interest in real property, permits a third party to use such real property for authorized acts unless all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the agreement between the parties conclusively indicate that the agreement is neither a lease nor a license. The form in which the transaction is cast is not controlling. Accordingly, some portion of the consideration paid for an agreement that in form is a joint venture, profits interest, management agreement, franchise, manufacturer's discount, bailment or other arrange- ment will be presumed by the DOR to be allocable to a lease or license if the arrangement involves the use of real property to perform authorized acts by the lessee or licensee. If the terms of the agree- ment are silent with respect to the portion of the consideration allocable to the inherent lease or license or if the consideration allocated under the terms of the agreement is less than its fair market value, the DOR will allocate to the lease or license a portion of the consideration that is equal to the fair market value of the lease or license. Contrary to the Straughn letter and Townsend memorandum eight months earlier, Technical Assistance Advisement 87A-011 dated July 2, 1987, which was prepared by Mr. Melton H. McKown, advised the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority that the privilege fees paid by car rental companies to the aviation authority were taxable. The agreement between the parties stated that the fees were "for the concession privileges granted hereunder, and in addition to the charges paid for the Premises .. ., [the car rental company] shall pay a privilege fee " Two months later, Temporary Technical Assistance Advisement TTAA 87(AER)-225 reversed TAA 87A-011. In TTAA 87(AER)-225, which is dated September 10, 1987, Ceneral Counsel William Townsend informed Mr. Samuel J. Dubbin that the payments made to airport authorities from concessionaires are "not for the right to use real property, but are for the right to engage in business at the airport." The letter relies upon Avis Rent-A- Car Systems, Inc. v. Askew. Respondent confirmed TTAA 87(AER)-225 in TTAA 88(AER)- 198, which is dated March 24, 1988, and in a letter dated April 6, 1989, from Mr. Robert M. Parsons, Technical Assistant, to Mr. Thomas P. Abbott. The April 6 letter confirms that payments from on- airport rental car companies are taxed only to the extent that the payments represent rent for space on airport property and not to the extent that the payments represent consideration for the privilege to do business. The April 6 letter adds that the payments from off-airport car rental companies for the right to pick up customers at the airport are not taxable because such payments are merely consideration for the privilege to engage in business. The April 6 letter discusses fees paid by other airport concessionaires. Acknowledging the recent enactment of the statutory exemption for license payments made to airports by food and drink concessionaires, the letter notes that, after July 1, 1987 (the effective date of the statutory changes), such payments, even if calculated as percentages of sales, are not taxable because such payments are construed as payments for a mere privilege or license to engage in business. The April 6 letter evidently marks the first time that, in a single document, Respondent inconsistently treats car rental company concession fees and all other concession fees. The April 6 letter adopts the Straughn/Townsend approach when it states that percentage rent is not taxable because it is payment for the privilege to do business. (The letter actually states "privilege or license" to do business, and this alternative use of "license," not involving the use or occupancy of real property, may have caused part of the confusion.) But the assurance of nontaxability of concession fees in the April 6 letter is limited to the period after July 1, 1987. Consistent with the McKown approach, the letter relies on the relatively recent statutory exemption for license payments from airport retail concessionaires. Consistent with the McKown approach, the letter later adds that percentage rent was taxable after the legislature amended Section 212.031 to tax payments for a license to use real property. The April 6 letter concludes erroneously that it is treating all airport concessionaires like on-airport car rental companies. In a Notice of Decision dated July 28, 1992, Respondent addressed the taxation of payments to airport authorities from car rental companies. Under a concession agreement, the airport charged a car rental company a fixed rent for occupied airport space, such as for parking, check-in, and service. Under the same agreement, the airport also charges the car rental company the greater of a guaranteed minimum or percentage of gross revenues. Taking the Straughn/Townsend approach, the Notice of Decision reversed a tentative assessment and held that the additional payments were not taxable. The July 28, 1992 Notice of Decision also addresses the taxation of percentage payments to airport authorities from other concessionaires. Explicitly endorsing the inconsistency of the April 6 letter, Respondent determined that percentage payments from concessionaires other than rental car companies were taxable either as leases or, since July 1, 1986, as licenses. The only explanation offered for the inconsistent treatment of concessionaires is that TTAA 87(AER)-225 applies only to rental car companies. Two years later, as reflected in a March 3, 1994 internal memorandum from Ms. Nydia Men,ndez to two Miami auditors, Respondent continued to perpetuate its inconsistent policy of taxing all payments for the privilege of engaging in business at airports, except for such payments from rental car companies. Returning to advertising, the July 28, 1992, Notice of Decision also states that the payments from the advertiser addressed in the letter dated August 14, 1985, have been taxable, as payments for a license, since July 1, 1986. This conclusion represents the correct treatment of licenses, as another means of granting a right to use or occupy real property. This treatment contrasts with the apparent misinterpretation in the April 6 letter that taxable licenses include grants of privileges to do business. In an early attempt to revisit the tax treatment of payments for concessions, franchises, and other privileges to do business, especially at airports, Respondent evidently chose the Quick and Havey and McKown approach that such business payments are taxable, at least when they are combined with taxable payments for the use or occupancy of real property. By memorandum dated January 14, 1993, from Assistant General Counsel Jeff Kielbasa to Ms. Lorraine Yoemans, Legislative Affairs Director, Mr. Kielbasa explained the purpose of unidentified proposed rule amendments addressing the same issues addressed by the subject proposed rule amendments. He wrote: The proposed rule amendment attempts to level the field by recognizing that any charge for the right, privilege, or license to do business at an airport is fundamentally a charge for the privilege to use or occupy land. If an airport business refuses to pay the fee, the airport's remedy is to have the business removed as a trespasser. It should be pointed out that we are not concerned with true business licenses or privilege fees attendant to use of trademarks, franchises and the like. These are licenses or privilege fees unrelated to the use of real property. The proposed rule does not differentiate between businesses such as on-airport car rental companies (with counterspaces) and off-airport car rental companies. The fee (however characterized) charged by the airport for the privilege to use or occupy the airport for business purposes is subject to the section 212.031 sales tax. See section 212.02(10)(i) defining license with reference to the use of real property as the "privilege to use or occupy a building or parcel of real property for any purpose." We believe that separation of a payment by characterizing one portion as a lease or license of realty (whether site specific or not) and another for the privilege of conducting business on the premises is artificial. It would be just as easy for the property owner on the corner of College and Monroe to charge a business tenant the average commercial square footage rental in Leon County for the lease and require the tenant to pay the premium attributable to the location at College and Monroe as a separate charge in the form of a license to do business. However carved up and characterized, under the statute each charge would be taxable since both leases and licenses to use real property are taxable. Interpretations of Proposed Rule Amendments On April 14, 1994, Respondent conducted a workshop on the proposed rule amendments prior to the modification published June 10, 1994. Respondent's representatives were understandably reluctant to opine on questions of law without detailed facts. However, explaining the tax consequences of payments from a concessionaire to an airport, Assistant General Counsel Kielbasa stated: I think the notion that there is a separate privilege fee that an airport charges unrelated to the fact that the privilege is being granted to function at the airport, I don't think that's what's happening. I think it's a very simple case, and I think it's very clear. But there may be separate provisions in contracts or lease agreements which have nothing to do with operating at that location, and to that extent, I don't think it would be subject to tax at all under the statute, and that's what we're trying to get at. Respondent's Exhibit 1A, pages 33-34. A major element of the dispute between Respondent and Petitioners and Intervenors (collectively, Petitioners) concerned Respondent's choice to take the Quick and Havey and McKown approach over the Avis and Straughn/Townsend approach in taxing mixed payments for the use of real property and for business intangibles. Following the rule workshop, Respondent made some Avis and Straughn/Townsend changes to the proposed rules, but the changes did not preclude a Quick and Havey and McKown approach, as evidenced by the following statement in the Prehearing Stipulation: "The Department contends that where the amount paid for a privilege fee is so intertwined or meshed with a payment for a license or lease to use real property that it cannot be separated, the full amount is taxable." Airports and Concessions Governmental entities operate and typically own large commercial airports, such as those in Orlando, Miami, and Tampa. By law, these airport authorities are empowered to enter into contracts with third parties to supply persons using airports with goods and services, such as food and beverage, retail sales, and car rentals. In some cases, airport authorities may obtain services by management agreements, which are not subject to sales tax. In most cases, though, airport authorities obtain goods and services for airport visitors by leases and grants of concessions, franchises, or other privileges to do business. The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal defines "concession" as "a franchise for the right to conduct a business, granted by a government body or authority." The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal defines "franchise" as "a privilege or right that is conferred by grant to an individual or group of individuals; usually an exclusive right to furnish public services or to sell a particular product in a certain community." By what are normally labelled "concession" or "franchise" agreements, airport authorities permit a concessionaire to operate a business with some nexus to the airport or at least its passengers, in return for which the concessionaire pays money to the airport authority. The nexus to the airport may take various forms. Some concessionaires sell food or drink or retail merchandise at exclusively assigned locations within the airport terminal. Hotel concessionaires operate hotels at fixed locations in the terminal. Some concessionaires, like taxi companies and nonairport hotels, pick up and drop off passengers at the airport terminal in areas designated for such purpose, but not reserved exclusively for any one concessionaire. An on-airport car rental concessionaire rents cars at the airport, using fixed counter space, parking areas, car service areas, and car pick-up and drop-off areas. A variation of the car rental concession is the off- airport car rental concessionaire, which has no fixed space at the airport except for customer pick-up and drop-off areas and usually counter space. In Florida, all off-airport rental car companies use their own vans to pick-up and drop-off customers. At some airports outside Florida, such as Sacramento, Dallas, and Minneapolis, the airport authorities operate their own vans to pick up and drop off customers of off-airport rental car companies. In such cases, the off-airport rental car companies do not directly use or occupy any of the real property of the airport. In general, the payments from the concessionaires to the airport authorities consist of two categories. First, there is a fixed payment, which the concession agreement typically characterizes as consideration for the use and occupancy of real property. The airport authority normally bases this rental payment on the fair market value of the space leased, as estimated by a licensed real estate appraiser, or under a cost-based formula. Second, there is a payment representing a percentage of the gross revenue of the concessionaire derived from airport business. The concession agreement typically characterizes this payment as consideration for the privilege to do business with airport passengers. Rents typically exceed $50 per square foot per year. Most, but not all concessionaires, make total payments of considerably more that $50 per square foot per year, often totalling hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars. In entering into concession agreements, airport authorities pursue a variety of goals. They must produce high revenues because airport authorities do not operate on public subsidies, aside from the monopoly grant of the airport operation itself. But high returns from concessionaires are not the only goal. Airport authorities must serve airport visitors in order to maintain successful relations with the airlines. And airport visitors demand a mix of goods and services at acceptable prices and quality. In selecting concessionaires and pricing concession fees, airport authorities therefore balance maximizing revenues with serving visitors' needs. Airport authorities price concession fees based on the type of goods and services offered by the concessionaire. A bank at one major Florida airport pays six times the concession fees of a travel agency, which occupies space of equal size next to the bank. At the same airport, one theme-park retailer pays concession fees of more than three times what another theme-park retailer pays for the identical space. In the typical concession arrangement, the airport authority receives payments consisting of rent and "something else." The rent is attributable to the use and occupancy of real property. The "something else" is business income, which is attributable to an intangible business asset, such as a franchise, concession, or privilege to do business. Like any other lessor, airport authorities undertake, in their concession agreements, to provide their lessees with offices or retail space for their use and occupancy. Unlike other lessors, however, airport authorities also undertake, in their concession agreements, to provide nearly all of the concessionaire's customers through operating agreements with airlines. Through concession agreements, airport authorities allow concessionaires to share in the authority's most valuable asset, which is not the real property comprising the airport, but the exclusive, governmental franchise to operate the airport. In these regards, airport authorities are in very similar roles to the county in Lloyd Enterprises with the subjects of the government monopoly being in one case a beach and another an airport. Both governmental "owner/operators" provide customers for their respective concessionaires and predicate their agreements upon the ability of the contracting party to supply the needs of the customers in a manner that does not compromise the public asset--i.e., an airport or a beach. These elements are not typical of a lessor or licensor. To varying, lesser degrees, airport authorities also distinguish themselves from mere lessors through the marketing, management, working capital, and workforce that characterize the airport operation. Respondent's key witness identified four factors useful in determining whether a payment is for the use or occupancy of real property: the relationship of the parties to the real property, the use to be made of the real property, the rights granted the parties under the agreement, and the basis for the payment or charge for the real property. These four factors assist in the determination whether a payment is for the use or occupancy of real property. But the usefulness of the four factors is limited because they do not directly address the other possible component of a mixed payment, which is a payment for a franchise, concession, or other privilege to do business. It is easy to determine that concessionaire payments typically comprise rent or some other payment for the use and occupancy of real property plus a payment for an intangible, such as the privilege to do business with airport users. Obviously, Respondent is not required to accept the parties' labelling or allocations of these payments. But it is difficult to determine how much of a mixed payment is for the use or occupancy of real property, which is taxable (ignoring, as always, the special treatment of certain airport license payments, as well as other exemptions), and how much is for a privilege to do business, which is nontaxable. The issue is whether a "reasonable allocation" is possible between the two components in a mixed payment. As ordered in Avis and suggested by the Straughn letter and Townsend memorandum, the allocation process should begin with finding a fair rental value. It is difficult to estimate the fair market rent for space in a large commercial airport. The universe of comparables is small due to the uniqueness of major airports. But the appraisal of airport real property is not impossible. Nonairport comparables normally exist that, with suitable adjustments, yield reasonable approximations of fair market rentals. A real estate appraisal helps determine how much of a concessionaire's payment should be characterized as rent. However, the allocation problem can be approached at the same time from the opposite end. In appraising business assets, an accountant or business appraiser estimates the value of the concession, franchise, or other privilege to do business with airport visitors. The business-income approach to the allocation problem is aided by analysis of the payments made by completely off- airport car rental concessionaires in Sacramento, Minneapolis, and Dallas. These payments provide a rough approximation of the value of this intangible, even though they probably require major adjustments to reflect, among other things, differing passenger counts and demographics, as well as the costs incurred by the airport authorities in providing transportation to the off- airport sites. Based on the foregoing, the record demonstrates that: a) the payments of a concessionaire to an airport authority ordinarily consist in part of rent or license payments and in part of payments for an intangible, such as a franchise, concession, or other privilege to do business and b) these payments may be allocated, with reasonable precision, between the real property and business components. The Proposed Rules Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(a)2 and (b) Rule 12A-1.070(4)(a)1. is not materially changed by the proposed rule amendments. Consistent with the statute, this paragraph of the rule merely imposes the sales tax in taxable transactions on the person actually occupying, using, or entitled to use the real property and requires that such person pay its immediate landlord or grantor. The next subparagraph is new. Proposed Rule 12A- 1.070(4)(a)2 contains two introductory sentences followed by three examples and a notice. The first sentence of Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(a)2 fairly interprets the statute. The first sentence states that the sales tax is due on payments made to lessors or licensors when the payment is for the use of the real property and is based on the ownership or control of the real property by the lessor or licensor. By limiting the tax to those payments based on the payee's interest in the real property, the proposed rule ensures that the tax is imposed only on the portion of the payment attributable to the use or occupancy of real estate. The first sentence is unobjectionable. The second sentence of Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(a)2 is no more controversial. This sentence provides that the "total payment for the use of real property" is taxable, even though the payment or part of the payment "may be identified" as payment for a privilege to do business. The use of "may be identified" in the "even though" clause refers to the label given such payments by the parties. The second sentence of Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(a)2 merely provides that the taxable consequence of the transaction is not governed by the label given the payments by the parties. In other words, just because the parties use "concession fee," "privilege fee," "percentage fee," or "similar terms" does not necessarily make them payments for the privilege to do business. The second sentence assures that Respondent will not be deterred by mere labels from its lawful responsibility to characterize properly the nature of the payments, and make reasonable allocations when allocations are indicated. The three examples under Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(a)2 are neither illustrative nor useful. To the contrary, they are vague and misleading and appear to reveal a misunderstanding of the proper taxation of mixed payments consisting of rent and payments for a privilege to do business. The first example is Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(a)2.a. A clothing retailer occupies a location in a shopping mall. The retailer pays the mall owner minimum rent plus a percentage of gross sales. The agreement characterizes the minimum rent as consideration for the lease of designated space and the percentage of sales as consideration for the privilege to do business in the mall. The failure to pay either amount is grounds for termination of the agreement. The proposed rule concludes: "The total amount required under the agreement is subject to tax, regardless of how the consideration, or a portion thereof, is characterized." In fact, both payments made by the retailer to the mall owner may constitute taxable payments for the use of real property. Supplying little useful information as to how to determine the true character of payments, the proposed example ignores all of the important factors necessary in making this determination. The proposed example overrides the characterization of the payments by the parties. As discussed above, the parties' labelling of a payment may be tax-motivated, but it may also reveal their true intent. However, the proposed example offers insufficient explanation why it ignores the label of "privilege to do business" at the mall. The only possible grounds for ignoring the label are that the retailer occupies a location inside a mall under which it pays minimum rent and percentage rent and a default in the payment of either amount is grounds for terminating the agreement. The first basis is only that the payments are mixed and, except under the most strained reading of Quick and Havey, cannot, without more, possibly be considered justification for taxing the total payments. The key factor in the first proposed example is thus the presence of a cross-default clause. Such a clause may play a role in distinguishing between payments for the use of real property and other types of payments. In certain cases, the total amount actually being paid for the use of the real property may include all payments that must be paid in order for the agreement to remain in good standing. This would likely be true of base rent and additional rent, consisting of a lessee's prorata share of insurance, taxes, maintenance, and utilities. However, there is nothing in the record to suggest that a cross- default clause is of such importance as to confer upon it the status that it is given in the rule example. Nothing in the record supports the assertion that all cross-defaulted payments are therefore payments for the use or occupancy of real property. For instance, Respondent concedes that a lessee/payor might be obligated under a lease to make taxable payments of rent and nontaxable payments of promotional fees, such as for the use of logos or other intangibles. It is conceivable that a prudent (and powerful) lessor/payee might provide in the agreement, even if called a "lease agreement," that a default in either payment is grounds for terminating the agreement. Even so, the mere existence of such a cross-default clause does not, without more, transform the promotional fee into rent. The proper characterization of the two payments under the first proposed example requires consideration of, among other things, the four factors identified by Respondent's key witness: the relationship of the parties to the real property, the use to be made of the real property, the rights granted the parties under the agreement, and the basis for the payment or charge for the real property. The proper characterization requires consideration, in some fashion, of the elements that distinguish a real property asset from a business asset, such as any contributions by the mall owner in the form of operating agreements, other leases, marketing, management, working capital, and workforce, as well as the method by which the mall owner decides with whom it will enter into agreements and the total payments that it will require. The second example is Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(a)2.b. A push cart vendor pays a mall owner minimum rent plus a percentage of gross sales for the right to sell merchandise at various locations within the common area of the mall. The mall owner may terminate the agreement if the vendor fails to make either payment. The example concludes that both payments are taxable "because the statute defines a taxable license as the granting of a privilege to use real property for any purpose, including the privilege to use real property to do business." The only difference in the first two examples is that the second involves a license and the first involves a lease. Like the example of the mall retailer, the example of the push cart vendor elevates the cross-default provision to outcome-determinative status. Again, the record does not support such reliance upon this factor for the above-discussed reasons. The third example is Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(a)2.c. A car rental company pays an airport authority for designated office and counter space in the terminal. The agreement identifies a payment as rent for the use of real property. The agreement also identifies a payment, representing a percentage of gross sales, as a privilege fee for the right to engage in business at the airport. Failure to make either payment is grounds for terminating the agreement. The example concludes that the "total amount required under the agreement is subject to tax." As with the preceding examples, the example of the airport car rental company relies upon a cross-default clause to characterize all payments as for the use of real property. Again, for the reasons stated above, the record does not support such reliance upon this single factor. The three examples make no "reasonable allocation" between the real property and business components of what are probably mixed payments. Best revealed by the last sentence of the second example, the examples illegitimately transform business payments into real property payments simply because the business payor uses or occupies real property to conduct its business. In reality, the three examples seek to find their way back to the haven of Quick and Havey by equating cross-default clauses with inextricable intertwining and enmeshment. It is only conjecture whether a court would today so readily abandon an attempt to allocate between real property and business income. In any event, the present record demonstrates that "reasonable allocations" are achievable and require consideration of much more than cross- default clauses. Respondent's defense of the examples is inadequate. Respondent argues that the examples are modified by the language of Proposed Rule 12A- 1.070(4)(a)2. As previously stated, the two sentences of Proposed Rule 12A- 1.070(4)(a)2 represent a fair restatement of the statutory taxing criteria. But the role of the two examples is to illustrate the application of Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(a)2, not provide a circular restatement of the rule and, thus, the statute. Given their language, the proposed examples stand alone and cannot be saved by the implicit incorporation of the first two sentences of Proposed Rule 12A- 1.070(4)(a)2. Standing alone, the illustrations are erroneous in their reliance on cross-default clauses, misleading in their omission of material factors required for any reasonable allocation, and misguided in their implicit bias against making allocations between payments for real property and business components. Respondent claims that the examples create presumptions that a taxpayer may rebut. This claim is dubious on two counts. First, Respondent's key witnesses disagreed on whether the presumptions created by the examples were indeed rebuttable. One witness testified clearly that, if a nonexempt transaction fit one of the examples, then the transaction was taxable. Nothing in the examples suggests that these presumptions are rebuttable. But the examples do not work even if they establish only rebuttable presumptions. The cross-default provision cannot bear the burden even of creating a rebuttable presumption. A cross-default provision is simply not that important to the proper characterization of the payments, especially in light of far more important factors. Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(a)d warns taxpayers that all past declarations, including technical assistance advisements, that "advised that fees . . . identified as privilege fees to engage in business were exempt, and . . . are inconsistent with this rule" are rescinded. Proposed Rule 12A- 1.070(4)(a)d concludes: "Therefore, such privilege fees are taxable payments for a lease of license to use real property for business purposes." Respondent's key witness could not identify with certainty the past declarations rescinded by Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(a)d or the past declarations left unaffected. This leave the proposed rule unnecessarily vague, at least as to airport authorities. There are a limited number of airport authorities and concessionaires that could be relying on past declarations and, if there are any besides those uncovered in this proceeding, they should be easily found. Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(b) identifies as a taxable license to use real property the "full consideration paid for the license to use airport real property for the purpose of picking- up or dropping-off passengers and baggage from airport sidewalks, landings, and other facilities" by any provider of ground transportation services, regardless whether the provider "enters the airport terminal building while . . . providing such service." The full payment for the real property component is taxable, and Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(b) accurately interprets the statutes. However, Respondent again encounters problems in the three examples that follow Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(b). In Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(b)1, a hotel pays a fee to an airport authority for the privilege of coming onto airport property to pick up and drop off hotel guests at the terminal. The example states that the payment is taxable because it is for a license to use airport real property. The second and third examples are identical except they involve a taxicab and limousine company and an off-site car rental company. Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(b) states the obvious-- i.e., that whatever the payor pays for the right to use or occupy real property is subject to sales tax. Proposed Rule 12A- 1.070(4)(b) does not require the characterization of all payments between such parties as taxable payments for the use or occupancy of real property. The problem with the proposed examples is that they depart from the real-property language of Proposed Rule 12A- 1.070(4)(b) and use the business language of a privilege to do business. The first example baldly provides that a fee paid by a hotel to an airport for the "privilege" to enter airport property and pick up and drop off hotel guests is a license to use airport property and is taxable. There is no mention of allocation or of the factors that would go into a reasonable allocation. The fee is taxable. The language and paucity of reasoning are practically identical for the second and third examples. Respondent argues that Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(b) must be read in connection with the language of Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(a)2, which restates the statutory language. This argument fails for two reasons. Like the examples under Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(a)2, Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(b) does not incorporate by reference the language of Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(a)2. Respondent's argument of implicit incorporation is even weaker here because Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(4)(b) is not even a subparagraph of Proposed Rule 12A- 1.070(4)(a)2. The first set of proposed examples at least mentions a cross-default clause, which could have some bearing on the proper characterization of the payments, even though the omission of far more important factors invalidates the first set of examples. The second set of proposed examples fails even to mention a single factor. If the hotel, taxi cab company, or rental car company pays for the privilege of entering airport property to do business, the entire payment is taxable. Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(1)(a)6.b and c Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(1)(a)6.b provides that property "used by an airline exclusively for loading or unloading passengers onto or from an aircraft is exempt." The proposed rule identifies examples of such property as common terminal walkways used by passengers for boarding or exiting planes, ticket counters, baggage claim areas, ramp and apron areas, and departure lounges (but distinguished from VIP lounges or clubs that require a membership not determined by ticket status). Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(1)(a)6.c adds that "[r]eal property used by an airline for purposes of loading or unloading passengers or property . . . which is exempt from tax includes ... office areas used to process tickets, baggage processing areas, operations areas used for the purpose of the operational control of an airline's aircraft, and air cargo areas." Petitioners object to the use of "exclusively" in subparagraph b. The statute provides an exemption for property used exclusively for aircraft landing or taxiing or property used by an airline for loading or unloading persons or property or for fueling. Clearly, due to the repetition of "property used" in the second clause, the modifier "exclusively" applies only to the first clause, which is consistent with the doctrine of the nearest antecedent argued in Petitioner's proposed final order. It is unclear how Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(1)(a)6.b and c work together because they seem to define the same exempt property under different subparagraphs. Both subparagraphs apply to real property, and both seem to describe the same examples of real property, using different words. The subparagraphs under subparagraph b present reasonable rules for determining what is real property based on ownership of the underlying land, with a special rule when the airport authority leases, but does not own, the land on which the airport is situated. The subparagraphs under subparagraph c identify a prorating process, which applies when the property is used for both exempt and nonexempt purposes. It is unclear how property could be used for exempt and nonexempt purposes under the requirement of "exclusive" use in subparagraph b, although such mixed uses is contemplated by subparagraph c. The requirement contained in the first sentence of Proposed Rule 12A- 1.070(1)(a)6.b that the property be used exclusively for loading or unloading passengers conflicts with the language of Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(1)(a)6.c, as well as the language of Rule 12A-1.070(1)(a)6.a; neither of the latter two provisions predicates the exemption upon exclusivity of use. More importantly, the first sentence of Proposed Rule 12A- 1.070(1)(a)6.b conflicts with the relevant statutes. However, the remainder of Proposed Rule 12A- 1.070(1)(a)6.b, including subparagraphs (I) and (II), is a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes, as is Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(1)(a)6.c, including subparagraphs (I) and (II). Petitioners argue that Respondent intends to tax nonairline concessionaires for their use of property used for loading or unloading persons or property. This argument is unclear, perhaps because the unobjectionable proposed rules do not require such an application. Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(1)(b)3 Proposed Rule 12A-1.070(1)(b)3 defines "retail concessionaire" as either a lessee or licensee that makes sales directly to the public within an airport. The words "retail concessionaire" are not used elsewhere in the rule or proposed rules at issue except in Rule 12A-1.070(1)(b)1 and 2, which addresses "a person providing retail concessionaire services" involving the sale of food or drink or other tangible personal property in an airport. Subparagraph 1 imposes tax on rent paid by such persons, and subparagraph 2 exempts from tax any license payments made by such persons. Petitioners' arguments against the definitional proposed rule are misplaced. The definition covers lessees and licensees, but does not impose any tax. In conjunction with subparagraphs 1 and 2, the proposed definition of "retail concessionaire" says, in effect, that all lessees and licensees selling food and drink or other personal property are subject to tax on payments for the rental of associated real property, but are not subject to tax on payments for the licensing of associated real property. The subparagraphs that carry tax consequences honor the legislative directives as to taxability.
