Findings Of Fact Arrowhead Country Club (Arrowhead) is a business entity owned by Can Am Company, Ltd., a limited partnership, which held at all times pertinent to this case a beverage license issued by the Division of Beverage. Can Am Company, Ltd. entered into a lease with EST Corporation (EST) to lease the restaurant and lounge at Arrowhead to EST. Subsequently, RST applied for its corporate charter but was unable to use the name RST. It amended its corporate name to Wilval Corporation (Wilval). RST/Wilval continued to operate the restaurant and lounge under the terms of its lease. EST/Wilval obtained a sales tax number, collected tax, and remitted taxes for several months, May through October, 1978. Thereafter, RST/Wilval failed to remit sales taxes to the Department of Revenue. RST/Wilval also began to fall behind on its payments to Arrowhead under its lease. This resulted in Arrowhead taking certain charges in payment for monies due under the lease and collecting them from club members. Arrowhead remitted the four percent lease tax but not the sales tax on these collections. Testimony was submitted by the Department's auditor that there was no evidence of collusion between RST/ Wilval and Arrowhead or indication that they did not deal at arm's length with one another. The Department audited RST/Wilval and determined that, although the first few months of records were complete, its total records were incomplete. An estimate of sales taxes due was based upon estimates of the sales based upon the records of Arrowhead on the restaurant and lounge operations for the preceding year adjusted for price increases. These estimates, when compared against the records which were maintained by RST/Wilval in its first months of operation, show a close correlation. Based upon these estimates, the sales taxes assessed against RST/Wilval were $7,965.14. This assessment was presented to Ralph Williams, the manager of the RST/Wilval operation. Williams, an officer of the corporation, advised that RST/Wilval was unable to pay the taxes. The Department of Revenue then filed a warrant for collection of delinquent taxes, and the Sheriff of Broward County attempted to levy on the warrant. Williams tendered to Arrowhead a Notice of Termination of the Lease and vacated the premises on March 26, 1979. When the Sheriff attempted to levy the warrant, he found that Williams had left the location and the property on the premises belonged to Arrowhead. On Nay 18, 1979, the Department presented a jeopardy assessment to Arrowhead, which led to the instant controversy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the sales taxes due not be assessed against Arrowhead Country Club. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Linda C. Procta, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis J. Pleeter, Esquire 6200 Stirling Road, Davie Post Office Box 8549 Hollywood, Florida 33024
The Issue Whether the contested and unpaid portions of the tax, penalty and interest assessment issued against Petitioners as a result of Audit No. 9317210175 should be withdrawn as Petitioners have requested?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Shuckers is an oceanfront restaurant and lounge located at 9800 South Ocean Drive in Jensen Beach, Florida. In November of 1992, Petitioner Mesa's brother, Robert Woods, Jr., telephoned Mesa and asked her if she wanted a job as Shuckers' bookkeeper. Woods had been the owner of Shuckers since 1986 through his ownership and control of the corporate entities (initially Shuckers Oyster Bar Too of Jensen Beach, Florida, Inc., and then NAT, Inc.) that owned the business. Mesa needed a job. She therefore accepted her brother's offer of employment, notwithstanding that she had no previous experience or training as a bookkeeper. When Mesa reported for her first day of work on November 19, 1992, she learned that Woods expected her to be not only the bookkeeper, but the general manager of the business as well. Mesa agreed to perform these additional responsibilities. She managed the day-to-day activities of the business under the general direction and supervision of Woods. After a couple of weeks, Woods told Mesa that it would be best if she discharged her managerial responsibilities through an incorporated management company. Woods had his accountant draft the documents necessary to form such a corporation. Among these documents were the corporation's Articles of Incorporation. Mesa executed the Articles of Incorporation and, on December 3, 1992, filed them with the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, thereby creating Petitioner TAN, Inc. TAN, Inc.'s Articles of Incorporation provided as follows: The undersigned subscribers to these Articles of Incorporation, natural persons competent to contract, hereby form a corporation under the laws of the State of Florida. ARTICLE I- CORPORATE NAME The name of the corporation is: TAN, INC. ARTICLE II- DURATION This corporation shall exist perpetually unless dissolved according to Florida law. ARTICLE III- PURPOSE The corporation is organized for the purpose of engaging in any activities or business permitted under the laws of the United States and the State of Florida. ARTICLE IV- CAPITAL STOCK The corporation is authorized to issue One Thousand (1000) shares of One Dollar ($1.00) par value Common Stock, which shall be designated "Common Shares." Article V- INITIAL REGISTERED OFFICE AND AGENT The principal office, if known, or the mailing address of this corporation is: TAN, INC. 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 The name and address of the Initial Registered Agent of the Corporation is: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 ARTICLE VI- INITIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS This corporation shall have one (1) director initially. The number of directors may be either increased or diminished from time to time by the By-laws, but shall never be less than one (1). The names and addresses of the initial directors of the corporation are as follows: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 ARTICLE VII- INCORPORATORS The names and addresses of the incorporators signing these Articles of Incorporation are as follows: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 On the same day it was incorporated, December 3, 1992, TAN, Inc., entered into the following lease agreement with the trust (of which Woods was the sole beneficiary) that owned the premises where Shuckers was located: I, Michael Blake, Trustee, hereby lease to Tan, Inc. the premises known as C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, 9800 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, Florida for the sum of $3,000.00 per month. This is a month to month lease with Illinois Land Trust and Michael Blake, Trustee. Mesa signed the agreement in her capacity as TAN, Inc.'s President. She did so at Woods' direction and on his behalf. No lease payments were ever made under the agreement. 3/ The execution of the lease agreement had no impact upon Shuckers. Woods remained its owner and the person who maintained ultimate control over its operations. At no time did he relinquish any part of his ownership interest in the business to either Mesa or her management company, TAN, Inc. Mesa worked approximately 70 to 80 hours a week for her brother at Shuckers doing what he told her to do, in return for which she received a modest paycheck. Woods frequently subjected his sister to verbal abuse, but Mesa nonetheless continued working for him and following his directions because she needed the income the job provided. As part of her duties, Mesa maintained the business' financial records and paid its bills. She was also required to fill out, sign and submit to Respondent the business' monthly sales and use tax returns (hereinafter referred to as "DR- 15s"). She performed this task to the best of her ability without any intention to defraud or deceive Respondent regarding the business' tax liability. The DR-15s she prepared during the audit period bore NAT, Inc.'s Florida sales and use tax registration number. On the DR-15 for the month of December, 1992, Mesa signed her name on both the "dealer" and "preparer" signature lines. Other DR-15s were co-signed by Mesa and Woods. In April of 1993, Woods told Mesa that she needed to obtain a Florida sales and use tax registration number for TAN, Inc., to use instead of NAT, Inc.'s registration number on Shuckers' DR-15s. In accordance with her brother's desires, Mesa, on or about May 14, 1993, filed an application for a Florida sales and use tax registration number for TAN, Inc., which was subsequently granted. On the application form, Mesa indicated that TAN, Inc. was the "owner" of Shuckers and that the application was being filed because of a "change of ownership" of the business. In fact, TAN, Inc. was not the "owner" of the business and there had been no such "change of ownership." By letter dated June 22, 1993, addressed to "TAN INC d/b/a Shuckers," Respondent gave notice of its intention to audit the "books and records" of the business to determine if there had been any underpayment of sales and use taxes during the five year period commencing June 1, 1988, and ending May 31, 1993. The audit period was subsequently extended to cover the six year period from June 1, 1987 to May 31, 1993. Relying in part on estimates because of the business' inadequate records, auditors discovered that there had been a substantial underpayment of sales and use taxes during the audit period. The auditors were provided with complete cash register tapes for only the following months of the audit period: June, July, August and December of 1992, and January, February, March, April and May of 1993. A comparison of these tapes with the DR-15s submitted for June, July, August and December of 1992, and January, February, March, April and May of 1993 revealed that there had been an underreporting of sales for these months. Using the information that they had obtained regarding the three pre- December, 1992, months of the audit period for which they had complete cash register tapes (June, July and August of 1992), the auditors arrived at an estimate of the amount of sales that had been underreported for the pre- December, 1992, months of the audit period for which they did not have complete cash register tapes. The auditors also determined that Shuckers' tee-shirt and souvenir sales, 4/ Sunday brunch sales, cigarette vending sales, vending/amusement machine location rentals 5/ and tiki bar sales that should have been included in the sales reported on the DR-15s submitted during the audit period were not included in these figures nor were these sales reflected on the cash register tapes that were examined. According of the "Statement of Fact" prepared by the auditors, the amount of these unreported sales were determined as follows: TEE-SHIRT SALES: Sales were determined by estimate. This was determined to be $2,000/ month. No records were available and no tax remitted through May, 1993. SUNDAY BRUNCH SALES: Sales were determined by estimate. This was determined to be 100 customers per brunch per month (4.333 weeks). No audit trail to the sales journal was found and no records were available. CIGARETTE VENDING SALES: The estimate is based on a review of a sample of purchases for the 11 available weeks. The eleven weeks were averaged to determine monthly sales at $3/pack. VENDING MACHINE LOCATION RENTAL REVENUE: The revenue estimate is based on a review of a one month sample. TIKI BAR SALES: The sales estimate is based on a review of infrequent cash register tapes of February, 1993. The daily sales was determined by an average of the sample. The number of days of operation per month was determined by estimate. In addition, the auditors determined that TAN, Inc. had not paid any tax on the lease payments it was obligated to make under its lease agreement with Illinois Land Trust and Michael Blake, Trustee, nor had any tax been paid on any of the pre-December, 1992, lease payments that had been made in connection with the business during the audit period. According to the "Statement of Fact" prepared by the auditors, the amount of these lease payments were determined as follows: The estimate is based on 1990 1120 Corporate return deduction claimed. This return is on file in the Florida CIT computer database. The 1990 amount was extended through the 6/87 - 11/92 period. For the period 12/92 - 5/93 audit period, TAN's current lease agreement of $3,000/month was the basis. No documentation was produced during the audit supporting any the sales tax exemptions that the business had claimed during the audit period on its DR-15s. 6/ Accordingly, the auditors concluded that the sales reported as exempt on the business' DR-15s were in fact taxable. Using records of sales made on a date selected at random (February 1, 1993), the auditors calculated effective tax rates for the audit period. They then used these effective tax rates to determine the total amount of tax due. An initial determination was made that a total of $201,971.71 in taxes (not including penalties and interest) was due. The amount was subsequently lowered to $200,882.28. On or about December 22, 1993, TAN, Inc., entered into the following Termination of Lease Agreement with Ocean Enterprises, Inc.: TAN, Inc., a Florida corporation, hereby consents to termination of that certain lease of the premises known as C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 of ISLAND BEACH CLUB, located at 9800 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, Florida, dated December 3, 1992, acknowledges a landlord's lien on all assets for unpaid rent; and transfers and sets over and assigns possession of the aforesaid units and all of its right, title and interest in and to all inventory, equipment, stock and supplies located on said premises 7/ in full satisfaction of said unpaid rent; all of the foregoing effective as of this 22nd day of December, 1993. FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing termin- ation of lease, OCEAN ENTERPRISES, Inc., a Florida corporation, hereby agrees to pay Linda Mesa, each month all of the net revenues of the operation of the bar and restaurant located on said premises, up to the sum of $15,000.00, for sales tax liability asserted against TAN, Inc. or Linda A. W. Mesa based upon possession or ownership of said premises or any of the assets located thereon, plus attorney's fees incurred in connection with defending or negotiating settlement of any such liability. Net revenue shall mean gross revenue, less operating expenses, includ- ing, but not limited to, rent, up to the amount of $5,000.00 per month, costs of goods sold, utilities, payroll and payroll expense and insurance. OCEAN ENTERPRISES, Inc. represents that it has entered into a lease of said premises for a term of five years commencing on or about December 22, 1993, pursuant to the terms and conditions of which OCEANFRONT [sic] ENTERPRISES, Inc. was granted the right to operate a restaurant and bar business on said premises. Ocean Enterprises, Inc., leases the property from Island Beach Enterprises, which obtained the property through foreclosure. TAN, Inc., has been administratively dissolved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order withdrawing the contested and unpaid portions of the assessment issued as a result of Audit No. 9317210175, as it relates to TAN, Inc., and Linda A. W. Mesa. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of June, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 27th day of June, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Documentary evidence was received that Hangar Two, Inc. was chartered on April 4, 1980, and had "Hangar Two, Inc." and its unique logo registered as a service mark on June 18, 1980. See Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 6. Documentary evidence was received that Hanger Two Aviation, Inc. was incorporated on November 25, 1980. See Exhibits 4 and 5. Wallace I. Garrick testified on behalf of Hangar Two, Inc. Garrick has been the attorney for Carl Knight for a number of years and handled the incorporation of Hangar Two, Inc. for Knight. For several years, Knight has been engaged in the business of repairing, rebuilding and maintaining aircraft. Garrick has been to Knight's place of business many times. The business was located at North Perry Airport for a number of years and did business as Hangar Knight was forced to move his business and incorporated his business as Hangar Two, Inc. The business of the corporation is the repair and maintenance of aircraft. Knight moved his business to a building on the southeast corner of the same airport, which he caused to be identified and marked with his service mark "Hangar 2." See Exhibit 6. Located in this building when Knight moved there was an aircraft repair and maintenance business operated by George Ritch. Thereafter, Ritch retained a one-room office and leased a small portion of the floor space for his business use. Hanger Two Aviation, Inc. was incorporated by Milton Margulies, a local attorney. Its primary Director and agent for service of process is Jean S. Morse, an employee of Margulies. Garrick was advised by Margulies that he had incorporated Hanger Two Aviation, Inc. for George Ritch, and that he had no further relationship with the corporation or with Ritch. Incorporation of Hanger Two Aviation, Inc. was sought after the date that Knight's business moved into the same building occupied by Ritch and after the date Knight's business was incorporated in the name Hangar Two, Inc. Incorporation of Hanger Two Aviation, Inc. was not in good faith. Both corporations are engaged in the same business, aircraft repair and maintenance, and their principal places of business are located in the same building at the same airport. Garrick has seen bills and other mail intended for Ritch's business delivered to Knight's business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of State revoke the reservation for the corporate name Hanger Two Aviation, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 26th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Wallace I. Garrick, Esquire Concord Building, Suite 1000 66 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Jean S. Morse, Registered Agent Hanger Two Aviation, Inc. 2020 NE 163rd Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Stephen Nall, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Out Island Charters, Inc., Miami, Florida is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of selling, leasing, repairing and chartering yachts in South Florida. Robert H. Anderson is president of the firm. During the tax period in question, i.e., December 1, 1973 to November 30, 1976, Petitioner sold various sailing vessels and made repairs thereon. The purchasers individually entered into a "Yacht Charter Management Agreement" with Petitioner under which the latter agreed to act as the owners' agent to obtain charters of the boats from third parties, and to maintain, repair, and dock the vessels at the owners expense. The agreement provided that Petitioner would receive a percentage of the gross bareboat charter fee. It also contained a provision that the owner could use his vessel at any time without cost provided that no charters had been booked for the particular time period. Although this was a standard provision in all of the contracts, some of the owners deleted it prior to execution of the agreement. In most cases, the owners used their vessels occasionally for the purpose of testing equipment and performing routine maintenance and repairs. At such times, some of them were accompanied by their wives, mechanics, or friends who assisted in handling the vessels or performing the routine maintenance functions. They did not use the vessels for purely personal pleasure trips. When the vessels were purchased, sales tax under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, was neither collected from the buyers by the Petitioner nor otherwise paid to the state. Sales tax was not paid on various equipment purchases, repair parts, dockage, or other expenses incident to the management and maintenance of the vessels. However, sales tax was collected by Petitioner from the third parties who rented the vessels except for a few inadvertent omissions. At the time Petitioner sold the vessels, none of the purchasers had applied for nor received from Respondent a certificate of registration to engage in or conduct business as a "dealer" in yacht chartering under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, nor had they provided Petitioner with a certificate of resale. Anderson believed the transactions to be exempt from sales tax because the vessels were purchased for rental purposes, and he was unaware that registration as a dealer and submission of a resale certificate were required to establish such an exemption. (Exhibits 5-7, 9, Testimony of Wolin, Witmer, Gay, Harrill, Krapf, Purdy, Anderson, McLean (Exhibit 1), Bennett (Exhibit 2)) Pursuant to an audit of Petitioner's business by Respondent's tax examiner, a proposed assessment of sales tax, penalties, and interest was issued to Petitioner in the total amount of $28,790.76. The parties met at an informal conference on March 29, 1977, and, as a result of adjustments at that time, a revised Notice of Proposed Assessment was issued on May 19, 1977, showing a total sum due of $26,646.91. Petitioner thereafter requested an administrative hearing in the matter. (Exhibit 3) In March, 1977, Petitioner's counsel advised the various purchasers of the pending tax audit and requested that they either pay the sales tax if they had used the boats for personal business, or, if the boats had been exclusively used for chartering purposes, that they execute affidavits to that effect, together with applications for certificate of registration as dealers and blanket certificates of resale. Most of the purchasers returned the executed documents and were later registered with the Respondent as dealers in the chartering business. (Testimony of Anderson, Gay, Wolin, Witmer, Harrill, Krapf, Purdy, McLean, Bennett, Exhibits 1 - 2, 4 - 14) In one particular transaction wherein James Morgan purchased a vessel from Petitioner, Anderson testified that the vessel was removed from Florida to Tennessee where Morgan lived on the day after full payment had been made under the contract. Anderson, however, did not know if Morgan provided him with an affidavit for exemption of the boat by removal from the state, and no documentary evidence concerning the transaction was presented by Petitioner at the hearing. (Testimony of Anderson, Exhibit 15) In another transaction, Anderson purchased a vessel in 1973 from Coastal Sailing Services, Inc., of Tallahassee, Florida, and paid sales tax in the amount of $1,027.40. Later, Anderson believed that he was exempt from the payment of tax because he had purchased the vessel solely for rental purposes. He communicated with Respondent's sales tax bureau through his accountant for information concerning refund procedures. Remus O. Cook, Jr., an examiner in the state sales tax bureau, advised in a letter of August 14, 1974, that a refund from Coastal Sailing Service could be secured if the vessel had been purchased solely for rental purposes, and that such request to the seller should be accompanied by a certificate of sales tax exemption utilizing a form enclosed with the letter. Although the vessel had been purchased by Anderson, the letter made reference to Out Island Charters, Inc. as the buyer and cited its sales tax registration number. Cook testified that it was departmental policy to grant an exemption if tangible personal property was purchased exclusively for rental purposes, even if the purchaser was not registered as a dealer at the time of sale. However, Henry Coe, Jr., Respondent's Executive Director, testified that registration at or a few days after the time of sale was a prerequisite to exemption in such cases. Anderson proceeded to request the refund from the seller, but the exemption form was executed in the name of Out Island Charters, Inc. He received the refund in 1975. Respondent's tax examiner assessed this sale in the current proposed tax assessment because he found no documentary evidence that Anderson intended to use the boat for charter purposes when he purchased it, and there was no evidence that Anderson was registered as a dealer at that time or furnished a resale certificate to the seller when it was purchased. No evidence was presented that Anderson had used the boat for personal purposes and he testified that he purchased it solely for rental, but conceded that he had no dealer's registration number at the time of purchase. (Testimony of Anderson, Lloyd, Exhibit 18, Depositions of Cook, Coe (Exhibits 19, 20)) Petitioner conceded at the hearing that the tax computations were correct, but contested liability therefor except for the several instances where sales tax had not been collected on boat rentals. (Testimony of Anderson)
Recommendation That the proposed tax assessment be enforced against Petitioner herein. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia S. Turner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Howard Hochman, Esquire 2121 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 201 Miami, Florida 33137 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue's final assessment of sales and use tax plus interest against Petitioner Karsten Enterprises FL, Inc., is correct.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a corporation headquartered in Dothan, Alabama, doing business in Florida. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida that has been delegated the responsibility to collect sales and use tax imposed by Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. During the audit period in controversy, from October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2007, Petitioner was a dealer in manufactured or modular homes and did business at one or more Florida locations. During the pertinent period, Petitioner entered into various contracts to provide manufactured or modular homes to its customers for delivery at locations in Florida. At a Karsten Sales Center, models of residential factory-built buildings are displayed. These residential factory-built buildings are produced by manufacturers that Karsten uses for that purpose. In most of the transactions during the audit period, Petitioner's customers would contract with Petitioner for the sale and installation of a factory built building on property owned by the customer. In the remainder of the contracts during the audit period, Petitioner would either purchase the property or enter into a contract for the sale of the property to the customer, and Petitioner would install a home that Petitioner had purchased from a manufacturer and then sell the home and land package to the customer. The contract prices were a lump sum, which included not only the manufactured or modular home, but also installation of the home at a Florida location. Petitioner’s contracts with its customers did not itemize individual components of the modular or manufactured homes, such as individual nuts, bolts, and shingles, but instead agreed to deliver the entire modular or manufactured home on an installed basis. The contracts between Petitioner and its customers specify the type of home that the customer wanted to have erected or installed on the property. Upon selection of a floor plan, options, and other customization, the customer would agree to order a specific home from a manufacturer. Petitioner purchased the pre-fabricated manufactured or modular homes from various manufacturers. The manufacturer would produce the home upon receiving an order from Petitioner. The manufacturer shipped the completed home to Petitioner, delivering the home to the property where the home would ultimately be erected and installed. Once shipped to the site, the factory-built buildings were placed on a foundation constructed for that purpose. Petitioner would either directly, through the manufacturer, or through subcontractors, construct the foundations, place the homes on the foundations, and connect the homes to required utilities. All of these activities were done as part of Petitioner's contracts with its customers for real property improvement. In many instances, the manufacturer both delivered the homes to the sites and provided post-delivery services to the homes. Additional services provided by the manufacturer after it installed the homes on the foundations included trim work, repair work, and fit and finish work. Petitioner paid the manufactures directly for these post-delivery services. During the audit period at issue, Petitioner sold, erected and installed approximately 30 residential modular or factory-built buildings in the state of Florida. If the home was built by a Florida factory, the factory would include sales tax in its invoice to Petitioner, based upon the cost of materials, but not including labor, that the manufacturer used in the construction of the home prior to its delivery to the site. If an out-of-state manufacturer built the home, the manufacturer would not include a sales tax amount in its invoices to Petitioner. Rather, the out-of-state manufacturers indicated that the cost of materials for construction of the homes at the factory was approximately 60% of the purchase price Petitioner paid for the homes. When Petitioner closed its contracts with its customers, if the manufacturer was an out-of-state manufacturer that had not previously included a sales or use tax in its invoice to Petitioner, Petitioner would remit a use tax directly to the Department, based upon 60% of Petitioner’s purchase price of the manufactured or modular homes. In either case, whether paying sales tax directly to a Florida manufacturer based only on the Florida manufacturer's cost of materials, or remitting use tax on 60% of its purchase price of manufactured or modular homes from out-of-state manufacturers, rather than paying tax on 100% of the price it paid for the homes, Petitioner did not pay sales or use tax on the manufacturer’s labor or fabrication costs. In remitting use tax, or paying sales tax to the Florida manufacturers, Petitioner was seeking to pay tax only on the manufacturer’s cost of materials used in the manufacturing process. There is no dispute concerning the Department’s math calculations. Rather, Petitioner disputes that the labor costs were taxable. Petitioner has no proof that the Department has ever received payment of tax from any person on the manufacturer’s labor costs at issue in this proceeding. Drenea York, who testified for the Department, is an accountant and auditor with twenty years of experience, all in sales and use taxation. Tammy Miller, who testified for the Department, is an attorney who has worked with the Department for eight years within the Department's Technical Assistance and Dispute Resolution section (Department's Dispute Resolution Section). The Department's Dispute Resolution Section employs “Tax Conferees,” such as Ms. Miller, who hear informal taxpayer protests, issue the Department's notices of decisions regarding final assessments, and provide guidance to the public upon request. Her practice has focused principally upon sales and use taxation, and she has handled several cases involving taxation of modular home contractors. Tammy Miller signed the notice of decision regarding the Final Assessment at issue. She also wrote the article for the Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants, which Petitioner introduced into evidence as P1. She testified as the Department’s corporate representative. Douglas Uhler testified as a former employee of Petitioner and also as an expert witness for the Petitioner. He is a CPA with some tax experience, who was not shown to be a specialist in taxation or in Florida sales and use taxation. He practices in Birmingham, Alabama, where he is licensed. He has knowledge and expertise in valuation and other areas, but was not qualified as an expert to testify as to the tax determinations at issue in this controversy. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Uhler applied for a TAA. Mr. Uhler was permitted to testify, over the Department’s hearsay and relevancy objections, that he relied on an oral statement from an alleged Department employee, concerning how Florida sales and use tax law is applied in the manufactured and modular home industry. During his testimony, however, Mr. Uhler did not know the name of the person to whom he allegedly spoke and he was not sure that the person he spoke to was an employee of the Department of Revenue. Therefore, no weight was given to his testimony regarding his recollection of a conversation with an alleged Department employee on the issue of how Florida sales and use tax law is applied in the manufactured and modular home industry. During the audit period at issue, the Department made four revisions to its original audit report in response to additional information provided by the Petitioner. During this period, the Petitioner paid the uncontested portion of the Department's assessment, leaving only one issue in dispute: whether additional tax and interest is due on Petitioner’s purchase of the modular homes. The Department’s audit and resulting tax assessment considered Petitioner, and not the manufacturer, to be the “real property contractor” responsible for the payment of the tax, within the meaning of the aforementioned rule provisions. The Department’s determination that Petitioner was the responsible “real property contractor” is consistent with the fact that the real property improvement contracts at issue were entered directly between Petitioner and its customers, and not between the manufacturer and Petitioner’s customers. In its contracts with its customers, Petitioner directly arranged installation work, either providing the installation itself or through the manufacturer or a subcontractor on behalf of Petitioner's customers. The issue of whether Petitioner or the manufacturer performed the installation work, however, was not considered by the Department to be a determinative factor, in and of itself, in making the Final Assessment. According to the Department, it would not consider a manufacturer to be the responsible “real property contractor” unless the contracts for real property improvement were directly between the manufacturer and Petitioner’s customers. The evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner's customers had direct contracts for real property improvements with the manufacturers of the homes. The Department also considered Petitioner to be the “end user” under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.051(3) and (4), which, according to the Department, imposes tax on the “end user.” The Department considered Petitioner, as opposed to Petitioner's customers, to be the end user based upon the reasoning that Petitioner was the last party to purchase the modular units as “tangible personal property,” before the modular homes became affixed to real property. Ms. York and Ms. Miller explained that the Department did not consider Petitioner’s customers to be the “end users” because Petitioner's customers did not purchase resold items of “tangible personal property,” itemized in detail under Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.051(3)(d). Rather, they explained that Petitioner’s customers, who purchased under lump- sum contracts, were considered to have purchased an improvement to real property, and improvements to real property fall outside the scope of the Florida sales and use tax chapter. In its audit, the Department examined Petitioner’s contracts with its customers solely to determine that the Petitioner was the end user or the “real property contractor.” The Department’s assessment did not seek to impose tax or interest liability on Petitioner’s transactions with its customers. Instead, the Department taxed Petitioner on Petitioner’s “cost price” of purchasing modular homes, giving Petitioner full credit for any partial tax that Petitioner had paid. As noted above, during the audit period, when it was dealing with a Florida manufacturer, Petitioner generally remitted sales or use tax directly to the manufacturer, at the time of purchase. More often, however, Petitioner paid sales or use tax on a monthly basis, by direct accrual or remittance to the Department on approximately 60% of the amount Petitioner paid for homes manufactured by out-of-state manufacturers. The invoices to Petitioner frequently included other itemized charges, which the Department did not consider part of Petitioner’s “cost price” of the purchased modular units. For example, if an invoice included sales or use tax, the Department excluded charges for tax when calculating Petitioner’s “cost price,” so as to avoid imposing tax on the itemized tax. Likewise, no charges for installation of the modular units onto real property were included in the Department’s calculation of “cost price.” The Department instead determined “cost price” by adding up the “Base Price” for purchasing the modular homes, together with itemized home “Options,” as they appeared on the manufacturer's invoices to Petitioner for the modular homes. Examples of several “Options” would be such things as better carpeting, a sliding glass door, or a plywood floor. The combined total of “Base Price” and “Options” were used by the Department in determining Petitioner’s “cost price” of purchasing the units as items of tangible personal property from the manufacturer’s factory. Petitioner's "cost price" as determined by the Department reflected the seller’s (in this case the manufacturer’s) material and labor costs. The Department's Final Assessment, however, did not include costs related to the installation of the modular homes onto real property, as those were considered by the Department as costs arising subsequent to the sale of the product as tangible personal property. The Final Assessment only sought tax on Petitioner’s purchase cost of the modular homes as tangible personal property leaving the factory. Because Petitioner had already paid tax on approximately 60% of its cost price, the Department’s assessment sought to capture the 40% of sales and use tax that Petitioner never paid. The Department's assessment determined that Petitioner owed tax on its own “cost price” as invoiced by the manufacturer. The Department determined that the Petitioner’s “cost price” was a different “cost price” than the manufacturer’s “cost price.” According to the Department, the manufacturer’s cost price excluded labor on its factory floor but Petitioner’s “cost price” included all materials and labor costs that were necessarily a component of Petitioner's actual purchase price. The Department’s auditor gave Petitioner full credit for all taxes paid, whether Petitioner had paid the tax by direct remittance or at the time that it paid an invoice, with one exception: credit was generally not given for payments made by Petitioner to a company named Cavalier because during the audit period at issue, Petitioner remitted certain amounts of sales tax to a manufacturer named Cavalier, but Cavalier refunded these amounts to Petitioner.3/ The Department’s audit and assessment did not treat Petitioner as a “manufacturer” nor give Petitioner the benefit of the special exemption, under Section 212.06(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which is available to manufacturers of a “factory- built building.” This is because the Department did not consider Petitioner to be a manufacturer. Although Petitioner argued that it qualified for the special exemption under Section 212.06(1)(b), Florida Statutes, under the theory that it was a "manufacturer," Petitioner failed to show that it is a “manufacturer” entitled to such exemption. In accordance with Petitioner's Application for Registration with the Department, Petitioner was registered as a “Manufactured (Mobile) Home Dealer” rather than as a manufacturer. In response to audit interview questions, Petitioner advised the auditor that it was in the business of “Retail Sale” of “Mobile and Modular Homes.” Petitioner made this same representation again in its response to a Pre-Audit Questionnaire and Request for Information. The first time that Petitioner ever asserted that it was a "manufacturer" was after Petitioner received the Department’s Notice of Intent to make Audit Changes, and became aware that, as a “real property contractor,” it would be assessed tax on 100% of its “cost price.” Petitioner then changed its self-description of its business model, asserting that it was a “manufacturer.” When Petitioner protested the Department’s assessment, however, it abandoned, at least at the informal protest stage, the argument that it was a manufacturer. Petitioner instead argued that it should be treated like a real property contractor engaged in the business of stick built homes. According to Tammy Miller, Petitioner's president, Mr. Copeland, told Ms. Miller during the informal protest process, that Petitioner was not a manufacturer. The Final Assessment corroborates Tammy Miller’s recollection because it addressed Petitioner’s various legal arguments but did not address Petitioner’s argument that it is a manufacturer, because that argument apparently was not made during the informal protest. The Amended Petition does not allege that Petitioner was a manufacturer or that it should be treated like one. Petitioner instead asserts that it is a modular home dealer who purchases from “the factory” and that it should be treated like a stick-built contractor. Petitioner stipulated that it is a modular home “dealer” and that it purchased the pre-fabricated manufactured or modular homes from various manufacturers. No evidence was introduced that Petitioner owns or operates factories or an assembly line. Rather, the evidence showed that Petitioner operated out of an office building in Alabama. No evidence was presented that Petitioner has been licensed or certified as a “manufacturer” by the Department of Community Affairs, which is the agency that regulates manufacturers of factory-built buildings. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-1.002(15) and 1.007(1). Petitioner’s representative repeatedly referred to Petitioner, throughout opening statement, argument and testimony, as a dealer purchasing from the factory. The Department’s witnesses testified that the sales and use tax applies to “real property contractors” in a way that taxes all real property contractors (stick-built or modular) on their full “cost price” of purchased materials, regardless of whether the purchased materials are lumber, shingles, nails, finished kitchen cabinetry, or assembled modular home modules. The Department's witnesses explained that the cost price of each item purchased will vary because the item purchased in each instance is different and some items will include greater material and labor costs than others. The Final Assessment reflects the unpaid balance assessed, after all revisions and payments made, and provides a per diem amount so that accrued interest may be readily calculated. The Final Assessment determined that the unpaid balance of tax and interest for the audit period (after crediting Petitioner with all payments made) was as follows: $41,446.31 combined tax and interest through 1/26/09, with $7.57 per day for each day thereafter until the postmark date of payment. The Final Assessment waived all penalties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, consistent with the Final Assessment and this Recommended Order, the Department of Revenue enter a final order finding that Petitioner owes tax and interest due as of January 26, 2009, in the amount of $41,446.39, with interest thereafter accruing at $7.57 per day, without penalties. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 2010.
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 Petitioners' alleged liability for sales tax, interest and penalties under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the stipulation of facts entered herein, the following facts are found. Petitioners are Florida corporations having their principal place of business at Palm Beach International Airport, West Palm 8each, Florida. Petitioners conduct a fixed base aircraft operation by which they provide services to both aircraft owners and aircraft users. Petitioners are licensed, qualified and certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the State of Florida, and Palm Beach County to conduct its operation. Petitioners employ qualified mechanics, technicians, flight instructors, pilots, and consulting and sales personnel for conducting these services, which are described in detail below. Petitioners lease and occupy facilities appropriate for the storage, use, and repair of aircraft. Petitioners have written contractual agreements with aircraft owners in which Petitioners obtain the use of the aircraft. Petitioners pay the owners an agreed amount per hour for the use of the aircraft, which amount varies with the aircraft age and type. (Examples of said agreements are attached to Joint Exhibit number 1.) These agreements use the term "lease" to describe the Petitioners' rights to use the aircraft. The agreements provide that Petitioners will have exclusive supervision, control, and custody of the aircraft during the term of the agreement. The agreements permit the owner of the aircraft to use the aircraft for personal needs, however, so long as such use does not conflict with Petitioners' scheduled use thereof. Petitioners use the aircraft to conduct approved flight instruction for the public, to engage in charter transportation of passengers and property, and to rent to qualified pilots. Petitioners charge the third parties for instruction, charter, or rental and report the proceeds as "income" on their federal tax returns. Petitioners' payments to the aircraft owners are reflected as an "operating or overhead expense" for federal tax purposes. When using the aircraft, Petitioners employ and pay qualified flight instructors, pilots, crews and mechanics to fly and service the aircraft. The aircraft owners have no contractual agreement with these persons. Petitioners are responsible for providing all required inspection, maintenance, and repair services to the aircraft, subject to reimbursement by the owners. The aircraft owners pay the costs of fuel and lubricants used during Petitioners' use of the aircraft. Petitioners provide property damage insurance on the aircraft and liability insurance for the pilots, crew, and third parties who charter or use the aircraft. Petitioners are responsible, at the expiration of the agreement, to return the aircraft to the owner in substantially the same condition as at the commencement of the agreement, except for normal wear and depreciation. Petitioners advertise themselves to the public as a charter flying service and flying instruction service and actively solicit customers for these services. Petitioners are also in the business of selling aircraft and are authorized dealers for Cessna and Piper aircraft companies. Some of Petitioners' purchasers enter into agreements like those attached hereto, granting Petitioners exclusive use and control of the aircraft. Petitioners' purchasers properly pay sale tax under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, when they purchase aircraft. They do not, insofar as Petitioners are aware, furnish Petitioners with resale certificates which certify that the purchase is solely for resale, in the manner designated by Rule 12A-1.38, Florida Administrative Code. Some of the purchasers have furnished exemption certificates, however, so those purchases were not taxed. Petitioners contend that they are an integrated business for the selling, storing, maintenance, and servicing of aircraft for aircraft purchasers and the provision of chartering and instruction services for third parties. Petitioners contend that their experience and expertise in providing all these services to owners and the general public is economically feasible only through an integrated operation of this nature, or through a substantially greater capital investment. Petitioners assert that the agreements by which they obtain exclusive use of the aircraft are agreements to provide expert management services to the owners, and are not subject to sales tax under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Respondent contends that the agreements by which Petitioners obtain exclusive use of the aircraft are separate and distinct from the rest of Petitioners' business, for sales tax purposes. Respondent also contends that the remainder of Petitioners' business is immaterial to the incidence of the tax. Respondent asserts that the agreements described herein are agreements to lease tangible personal property which are taxable as "sales" under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Petitioners also assert that certain of the agreements are not taxable because the aircraft owner paid sales tax on the initial purchase of the aircraft, as described in Paragraph 13 above. The Respondent contends that the prior payment of tax at the time of purchase is immaterial, since the purchase was not for resale. The issues thus presented herein are: whether the agreements are taxable transactions, as disputed in Paragraphs 14 and 15; and whether certain of the agreements are specifically nontaxable by virtue of the owner's payment of tax at the time of purchase, as disputed in Paragraph 16. The Respondent originally assessed Petitioners for tax, penalty, and interest in the amount of $19,149.08. It then appeared that in certain of Petitioners' transactions, the aircraft owners were already remitting sales tax. Respondent thereupon revised its assessment. The Respondent now alleges that the following amounts were due on March 15, 1978: Tax $11,144.68 Penalty 557.22 Interest 1,652.86 Total $13,354.76 The penalty and interest figures are subject to revision with the passage of time. The Respondent will update those figures upon issuance of a final order. Petitioners have paid no part of the foregoing assessment. Petitioners have not placed the computation of the amount due in issue, however, in the event they are held to be liable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties, and Interest under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, dated March 15, 1978, be asserted against Petitioners pursuant to applicable law, with interest computed to reflect the passage of additional time. ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Gentry, III, Esquire David K. Miller, Esquire Moyle, Gentry, Jones, Flanigan Assistant Attorney General & Groner, P.A. Department of Legal Affairs Post Office Box 3888 The Capitol, LL04 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
