Findings Of Fact The Petitioner holds a valid special fuel dealer's license issued by the Respondent. The license was issued during approximately March, 1972. The Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner's sales operations, and assessed special fuel taxes, plus penalty, on approximately 264,973 gallons of special fuel for which the Respondent contended inadequate account was given. 29,166 gallons of the special fuel involved in the assessment was sold to local oil field drillers. These sales are reflected in invoices which were received in evidence as Joint Exhibit 1. This fuel was used for industrial and commercial purposes, and not for the propulsion of motor vehicles on the public highways of the State of Florida. 161,900 gallons of the special fuel involved in this assessment was sold to Ard Oil Company, Summerdale, Alabama. Petitioner had every reason to believe that Ard Oil Company held a valid license as a dealer of special fuels in the State of Florida. Petitioner took reasonable steps to insure himself as to Ard's status, and received no instructions from the Respondent as to steps that could be taken to identify persons who were not properly licensed as special fuel dealers. 11,700 gallons of the special fuel involved in this assessment was sold to Hagler Grocery. All subsequent sales made by Hagler Grocery were for off- road, agricultural uses. During July, 1973, 5,000 gallons of the Petitioner's special fuel was mistakenly mixed with gasoline. The mixing rendered the special fuel unusable, and it was emptied onto Petitioner's property. This 5,000 gallons of fuel was never sold by the Petitioner, and was never used. On one occasion during the period of the audit, 5,000 gallons of special fuel leaked from one of the Petitioner's storage tanks due to a valve being left open erroneously. This fuel was never sold by the Petitioner, and was never used. During the period covered by the audit involved in this case, the Petitioner sold more than 5,000,000 gallons of special fuel. The Petitioner donates approximately 2,000 - 3,000 gallons of fuel yearly to the local fire department for training purposes. The Petitioner rinses his tanks periodically to keep down the lead content, and this results in some loss in special fuel. The Petitioner loses approximately 5 gallons of special fuel in each loading operation. The Petitioner made effort to account for all special fuel which came into his possession. Less than one percent of the fuel that came into his possession during the audit period has not been accounted for. It is reasonable to conclude, that 52,207 gallons of the Petitioner's special fuel was lost due to spillage, flushing operations, and donations to the local fire department. There was no evidence offered at the hearing from which it could be determined that any unaccounted fuel was used for a taxable purpose, or for any purpose.
The Issue Petitioner's alleged liability for motor fuel and special fuel tax, interest, and penalties, pursuant to Chapter 206, F.S., as set forth in Notice of Proposed Assessments, dated April 1, 1977.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Walker Oil Company is located in Pensacola, Florida and is licensed by the State of Florida under Chapter 206, Florida Statutes, as a dealer in special fuels. The firm is also licensed in the State of Alabama with respect to the sale of both special fuels and motor fuel. The company was formed in 1955 and during ensuing years operated service stations and sold motor fuel and special fuels in the Pensacola and south Alabama area. Its operations were audited yearly during the period 1955 to 1961 by Respondent. In 1972 an audit for the period October 1970 to March 1972 revealed underpayments of special fuel tax in the approximate amount of $600 during the audit period. (Testimony of Walker, Exhibit 5) In July 1975, Respondent's auditor, Clyde Whitehead, commenced an audit of Petitioner's records to determine whether any motor fuel or special fuel taxes were delinquent for the period July 1, 1972 through June 30, 1975. Although Petitioner's records were available to the auditor for the period January 1, 1974 through June 30, 1975, no records were available for the initial 18 month period of the audit from July 1, 1972 through December 31, 1973. Petitioner had filed monthly tax reports with Respondent as to special fuels, but had not submitted any such reports during the audit period for motor fuel. (Testimony of Whitehead, Walker) As a result of the audit, an assessment of $43,356.11, including interest and penalty, for motor fuel taxes incurred during the period January 1, 1974 through June 30, 1975, was asserted against Petitioner. The assessment was based on audit findings that Petitioner had sold 430,866 taxable gallons, but had not remitted the tax to Respondent. Petitioner paid the assessment. C. C. Walker, Petitioner's former president, testified at the hearing that such payment was made in order to secure the dismissal of then pending state criminal charges alleging that Petitioner had "bootlegged" gasoline during the period in question. (Testimony of Walker, Exhibit 2) Pursuant to the audit findings, a Notice of Proposed Assessment for delinquent motor fuel taxes during the period July 1, 1972 through December 1, 1973, in the amount of $20,076.43, including penalty and interest through March 31, 1977, was issued by Respondent on April 6, 1977. On the same date, a Notice of Proposed Assessment for special fuel tax in the amount of $51,022.96, including penalty and interest through March 31, 1977, was also issued to Petitioner. A revised assessment, dated September 19, 1978, deleted certain portions of interest charged on the original proposed assessments. These deletions resulted in the reduction of motor fuel assessment to $12,396.52, and the special fuel assessment to $38,052.90. After the hearing, under date of February 27, 1979, Respondent further reduced the motor fuel assessment to $6,732.22. (Exhibit 1, Hearing Officer Exhibit 1) Due to the absence of Petitioner's records for the first 18 month period of the audit, Respondent based liability for motor fuel and special fuel taxes for that period on an estimate, using audit findings of the second 18 month period of the audit for which Petitioner's records were available. This was the first instance in at least 13 years in which an estimated assessment of fuel tax had been made by Respondent. Respondent had no regulations or established policy for arriving at such an estimate, but its officials testified that they simply tried to be "fair and equitable" in making the determination. (Testimony of Williamson, Thomas, Deposition of Whitehead, Exhibit 3) Respondent's method of estimating Petitioner's motor fuel tax liability was predicated upon relating the known 1974-75 figures on purchases and sales of gasoline and the amount of tax found delinquent during that period, to known purchases of gasoline by Petitioner during the period of the estimated assessment. The audit for the period 1974-75 showed that 60 1/2 percent of Petitioner's gasoline purchases from known suppliers in Florida and Alabama had been sold in Florida. Respondent therefore determined from the sales records of Petitioner's known gasoline suppliers and from tax reports it had submitted to Alabama, that the firm had purchased 4,221,454 gallons of motor fuel during the 1972-73 period. Applying the 60 1/2 percent factor, Respondent's auditor determined that 2,554,259 gallons had been sold in Florida during that period. Since it had been found that Petitioner had sold 430,866 taxable gallons during the 1974-75 period for which tax had not been remitted to the state, which was 7 1/2 percent of its total Florida sales for that period, Respondent applied the same factor to the estimated amount of Florida sales during the 1972-73 period. This resulted in an estimated 191,569 gallons on which Respondent assumed Petitioner had collected but not remitted the motor fuel tax. By multiplying this figure by the 8 cents tax per gallon, it was estimated that Petitioner owed $15,325.52 to the state. This figure was later revised by the February 27th Notice of Adjusted Final Assessment to $10,176.15 plus a 10 percent penalty of $1,017.62. This reduction was based on the fact that approximately 1/3 of Petitioner's total sales of motor fuel during the 1974-75 period was made to one company named Pac-a-Sak, which did not do business with the firm during the first 18 month period of the audit. After deducting the sum of $4,461.55 representing overpayment of interest in the 1974-75 assessment payment, Respondent determined that $6,732.22 was due for motor fuel tax during the 1972- 73 audit period. The original estimated assessment reflects Respondent's acknowledgment that only the lesser amount reflected therein is due. (Testimony of Whitehead, Thomas, Deposition of Whitehead, (Exhibit 3), Exhibits 2, 4B, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Respondent's proposed assessment against Petitioner for special fuel tax and penalty in the total amount of $38,052.90 is derived from audit findings based on availability of Petitioner's records for the 1974-75 portion of the audit period, and on an estimated assessment for the 1972-73 period. Additionally, Petitioner's Florida tax reports for the entire period were used in making the audit. It was determined that Petitioner had purchased 1,510,073 gallons of special fuel in Florida during the 1974-75 period and had sold 1,590,587 gallons in Florida during the same period. The auditor found that Petitioner had sold 156,150 gallons of special fuel for which Petitioner should have collected tax, but did not. The bulk of the untaxed gallonage was sold to Hinesway Trucking Company and Polar Ice Cream Company, neither of which were licensed as special fuel dealers in Florida. Therefore, all of the sales to these two companies were treated as taxable sales, because no resale certificates were obtained by Petitioner when it sold special fuel tax free to those companies. The principal of Hinesway Trucking Company had mistakenly informed Petitioner's office employee that it was licensed as a special fuel dealer when in fact it was not. The audit findings showed that Petitioner had sold a total of 841,855 taxable gallons during the 1974-75 period, for which tax was due in the amount of $67,348.40, but that tax had only been remitted by Petitioner in the amount of $46,809.60, leaving a total tax due of $20,538.80. The total due and payable by Petitioner to Respondent for this period was therefore computed to be $24,443.05, including penalty and interest through June 30, 1975. It is found that the audit correctly reflects Petitioner's special fuel tax liability for the 1974-75 period. (Deposition of Whitehead (Exhibit 3), Exhibit 2, 4A) The estimated special fuel tax for the 1972-73 period was calculated in a manner similar to that of the estimated motor fuel tax assessment. Respondent's auditor determined that Petitioner's taxable sales during the 1974- 75 period were approximately 53 percent of its total sales. He also determined that Petitioner had experienced a 15 percent increase in business in the latter period. It was therefore determined to estimate the sales for the 1972-73 period as being 85 percent of the total sales of 1,590,587 gallons during the later period which resulted in an estimated 1,351,999 gallons sold in Florida during 1972-73. Applying the taxable percentage of approximately 53 percent to this figure led to a finding that 715,577 taxable gallons had been sold by Petitioner. Petitioner had reported the sale of 539,893 taxable gallons; and accordingly, the audit found that additional tax was due on the difference of 175,684 gallons at 8 cents per gallon, resulting in estimated tax due of $14,054.72. Thus, this figure added to the 1974-75 deficiency of $20,538.80 resulted in an alleged special fuel tax deficiency for the audit period in the amount of $34,593.52, plus a 10 percent penalty in the amount of $3,459.38 for a total amount due of $38,052.90. Respondent, in formulating the above estimated assessment for the 1972-73 period, assumed that Petitioner had the same percentage of taxable sales as that for the 1974-75 period. However, approximately 150,000 taxable gallons on which tax had not been collected during the 1974-75 period were sold by Petitioner to Hinesway Trucking Company from about June 1974 through June 1975, under a misapprehension as to its nonlicensed status. Hinesway had not been a customer of Petitioner prior to 1974. Respondent's auditors made no allowances for this unusual situation, nor did it consider the low deficiencies accrued by Petitioner as a result of its 1970-72 audit. (Testimony of Walker, Deposition of Whitehead (Exhibit 3) Exhibit 1-2, 4A) Petitioner's president, C. C. Walker, testified at the hearing that as a result of the "personal vendetta" of an employee of Respondent in harassing Petitioner's customers and releasing unfounded information to the press, plus the instigation of criminal charges against the firm, a great loss of business was caused and severe damage to its reputation in the community. He denied any intentional wrongful acts on the part of the company or any of its personnel and claimed that any Florida sales of fuel for which tax was not paid was due to "human error." (Testimony of Walker)
Recommendation That the proposed assessment of motor fuel tax and penalty, as set forth in Respondent's Notice of Adjusted Final Assessment, dated February 27, 1979, be withdrawn. That Respondent's Notice of Proposed Assessment (adjusted) for special fuel tax and penalty, dated September 19, 1978, be revised to delete inclusion of Petitioner's sales to Hinesway Company as a factor in determining an estimated assessment, and that such revised assessment be asserted against Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 16 day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Davis, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol LL05 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James R. Green, Esquire Seville Tower 226 South Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ACTION NOTICE =================================================================
The Issue Is Ann L. Bell (Ms. Bell) entitled to the issuance of a license to act as an independent motor vehicle dealer through A & B Auto Sales of Jacksonville, Inc. (A & B), that license to be issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the Department)? See Section 320.27, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Bell made application to the Department for an independent motor vehicle dealer license. The name of the business would be A & B. The location of the business would be 7046 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. In furtherance of the application Ms. Bell received a certificate of completion of the motor vehicle dealer training school conducted by the Florida Independent Automobile Dealers Association on January 26 and 27, 1999. Ms. Bell submitted the necessary fees and other information required by the Department to complete the application for the license, to include the necessary surety bond. At present Ms. Bell lives at 98 Kent Mill Pond Road, Alford, Florida, some distance from Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. Bell intends to move to Jacksonville, Florida, if she obtains the license. Ms. Bell's work history includes a 35-year career with the State of Florida, Department of Insurance, from which she retired as a Deputy Insurance Commissioner. Her duties included supervision of employees and auditing. More recently Ms. Bell has worked as an insurance agent for approximately five years with Allstate Insurance. Ms. Bell also had 17 years' experience involving a business with her former husband in retail floor covering in which she dealt with sales staff and contracts. During another marriage, her then-husband was involved in the automobile business in Mobile, Alabama, as well as the Florida panhandle. Ms. Bell was not an employee of the automobile business conducted by her husband. Ms. Bell was "in and out" of the dealership and attended automobile auctions with her husband. Ms. Bell intends to locate her dealership at the address where Mr. Badreddine formerly operated an independent motor vehicle dealership. Ms. Bell has known Mr. Badreddine for approximately 10 to 12 years. Ms. Bell has purchased cars from Mr. Badreddine. Ms. Bell has borrowed money from Mr. Badreddine. Mr. Badreddine has borrowed money from Ms. Bell. Ms. Bell has a lease related to the location where she would operate her dealership. At present Ms. Bell is using the prospective business location to collect on some accounts for automobiles purchased through Mr. Badreddine in which Ms. Bell has bought the accounts receivable from Mr. Badreddine. The arrangement concerning the accounts receivable is one in which Mr. Badreddine is expected to assist in the collection of monies owed on the accounts. The customers involved with those accounts are Arabs and African Americans. Mr. Badreddine is fluent in Arabic. The amount of money which Ms. Bell has invested is approximately $35,000, in relation to the purchase of the accounts receivable. If Ms. Bell obtains the license she intends to employ Mr. Badreddine to sell automobiles at her lot and to be involved in the purchase of cars at automobile auctions. These duties would be in addition to the collection on the accounts receivable which Ms. Bell purchased from Mr. Badreddine. Ms. Bell does not intend to allow Mr. Badreddine access to the company bank accounts or the completion of the necessary paperwork when cars are sold to the public from her business. In the past, Mr. Badreddine held independent motor vehicle dealer licenses issued by the Department. He lost those licenses based upon unacceptable performance under their terms. Ms. Bell is not unmindful of Mr. Badreddine's performance as a licensee, being informed by the Department in the details. Mr. Badreddine held an independent motor vehicle dealer's license under the name A & D Wholesale, Inc. (A & D), for a business at 9944 Beach Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. The Department issued an administrative complaint against that license in Case No. DMV-94FY-566, concerning problems in cars sold by A & D in which the titles and registrations were not transferred appropriately and emissions tests were not performed appropriately. This case was disposed of through an informal hearing and a $5,000 administrative fine was imposed. A further complaint was made against the licensee for the business A & D under an administrative complaint drawn by the Department in Case No. DMV-97FY-621. This complaint involved problems in title and registration transfer, failure to pay an existing lien on a trade-in, and the payment for automobiles obtained in automobile auctions upon which the drafts were not honored. No request for an administrative proceeding was received in relation to this administrative complaint. A final order was entered which revoked the independent motor vehicle dealer's license in relation to A & D. Subsequently, Mr. Badreddine made an application for an independent motor vehicle dealer's license under the business name King Kar Auto Sales, Inc. (King Kar) for the address at which Ms. Bell would operate her business. The decision was made to grant Mr. Badreddine's request for an automobile dealer license for King Kar. Following the grant of the license to King Kar an administrative complaint was brought in Case Nos. DMV-99FY-165 and DMV-99FY-166. The complaint involved the failure to pay off a lien, in which a check intended to settle the account with the lien holder was dishonored and falsification of the application in support of the license for King Kar. The final order disposing of these cases was premised upon the recognition that the license for King Kar had been revoked by virtue of the failure to maintain the necessary surety bond, rendering the allegations in the complaint moot. In the conduct of his automobile business Mr. Badreddine was accused of obtaining property in return for a worthless check involved in dealings with GMAC Corporation. The check was in the amount of $16,671.38. This action was taken in the case of State of Florida vs. Amine Badreddine, in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, Case No. 98-13690CFCR-E. Mr. Badreddine entered a plea of guilty to obtaining property in return for a worthless check and was placed upon probation for a period of one year, with a requirement to make restitution. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. In a discussion between Ms. Bell and Cindy King, Department Compliance Examiner and Nadine Allain, Regional Administrator for the Department, Ms. Bell told the Department employees that Ms. Bell would need Mr. Badreddine to go to the automobile auctions and that "she didn't think it was lady-like to go to an auction." This is taken to mean that Ms. Bell did not believe she should go to the automobile auctions. Ms. Bell also told the Department employees that she needed Mr. Badreddine to sell automobiles for her, that he was a good salesman and that he was good at dealing with Arabs and she was not. Ms. Bell noted that she didn't live in the area where the dealership would be operated and referred to her purchase of the accounts receivable. Ms. Bell told the Department employees that Mr. Badreddine would be given an office in the back of the dealership or in the dealership. Ms. Bell told the Department employees that "she knew absolutely nothing about selling cars." Ms. Bell indicated that she would be relying upon Mr. Badreddine for advise in running her dealership. The reliance on Mr. Badreddine to deal with Arab clients was mentioned pertaining to the circumstances with the previous accounts receivable. The Department offered to license Ms. Bell upon condition that Ms. Bell provide an affidavit to the effect that Mr. Badreddine would not be involved with her dealership. Ultimately, Ms. Bell did not accept this overture. In denying the application for the independent motor vehicle dealer's license the Department gave the following reasons: Your admission of not knowing anything about the car business coupled with your stated intention to rely on the advice and experience of Mr. Amine Badreddine to operate your dealership means that Mr. Badreddine is, de facto, the dealer. Mr. Badreddine previously held independent motor vehicle dealer license number VI-15265, as A & D Wholesale, Inc. An administrative complaint was filed by the department against his dealership involving consumer complaints filed by Gladys L. Stevens, complaint number 93110148; Merrian A. Coe, complaint number 94010340; and Richard Green, complaint number 94030339. As a result of the administrative action, Mr. Badreddine's license was found in violation and fined $5,000.00 for failure to apply for transfer of title within 30 days, issuing more than two temporary tags to the same person for use on the same vehicle, violation of any other law of the state having to do with dealing in motor vehicles, failure to have a vehicle pass an emissions inspection within 90 days prior to retail sale and failure to transfer title. On December 23, 1996, a second administrative complaint was filed against A & D Wholesale, Inc. because of complaints received from Mark S. Smith, complaint number 96020168; Telmesa C. Porter, complaint number 96050435; Nijole Hall, complaint number 96070365; Ella Didenko, complaint number 96080083; Salih Ferozovic, complaint number 96100067; Charles R. Wells, complaint number 9610068; and Adessa Auto Auction, complaint number 96110372. As a result of this administrative action, a Final Order was issued on January 27, 1997 revoking Mr. Badreddine's independent motor vehicle dealers [sic] license for failure to apply for a transfer of title within 30 days, - failure to comply with the provisions of section 319.23(6), F.S., failure to have a vehicle pass an emission inspection prior to retail sale, issuance of more than two temporary tags to the same person for use on the same vehicle, failure to have a title or other indicia of ownership in possession of the dealership from the time of acquiring the vehicle until the time of disposing of the vehicle, failure of a motor vehicle dealer to honor a check or draft. Mr. Badreddine applied for and was issued another motor vehicle dealer's license on April 24, 1998, under the name King Kar Auto Sales, Inc. The license was revoked on October 20, 1998, because of a surety bond cancellation. On November 24, 1998, the department received a complaint from Treflyn N. Congraves, complaint number 98070299. Ms. Congraves filed a complaint with the state attorney which resulted in Mr. Bareddine [sic] being placed on probation for issuing a bad check to GMAC and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $16,571.38. Mr. Badreddine is currently on probation. The department's investigation showed that Mr. Badreddine had a history of bad credit, failed to continually meet the requirements of the licensure law, failed to honor a bank draft or check given to a motor vehicle dealer for the purchase of a motor vehicle by another motor vehicle dealer, and had failed to satisfy a lien. Consequently, Mr. Badreddine's poor performance as a dealer forces us to deny a license where he may have a financial interest, active participation in the management, sales or any part in the operation of the dealership.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Facts Found and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which grants Ann L. Bell an independent motor vehicle dealer license for the business A & B. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. Jackson, Esquire Jackson & Mason, P.A. 516 West Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Findings Of Fact On July 14, 1982, Jimmy Haywood Nixon, an employee of petitioner, took samples of gasoline offered for sale at respondent's Beacon Store No. 7 in Milton, Florida, including a sample of regular gasoline mixed with alcohol, known as "regularhol." Pat Flanagan, a chemist employed by petitioner, performed various tests on the sample of regularhol, including ASTM method 86, and determined that the 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the mix as a whole was 150 F. His testimony to this effect was uncontroverted. When he learned the test results, Mr. Nixon locked the regularhol pump at respondent's store in Milton, only unlocking the pump to release the mixture when a thousand dollar bond was posted on July 16, 1982. Respondent began mixing regular gasoline with ethanol and selling it as regularhol in 1978 at the same price as regular gasoline. Until recently, Mocar made less on regularhol sales than on sales of regular gasoline. It originally offered regularhol as its way of helping to reduce the national consumption of petroleum. The Phillips' terminal in Pensacola was respondent's source of the regular gasoline it mixed to make regularhol. This gasoline reached Pensacola by barge, and petitioner's employees sampled and tested each barge's cargo. The 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the regular gas Mocar bought from Phillips varied over a range of more than 30 degrees Fahrenheit upwards from 180 F. Mixing ethanol with the gasoline lowered its distillation temperature, but until the batch sampled on July 14, 1982, Mocar's regularhol had passed the testing petitioner has regularly conducted.
Recommendation Respondent has not been shown to be more blameworthy than any of the fuel owners involved in the cases cited above, each of whom regained part of the bond that had been posted. It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner retain four hundred dollars ($400.00) and return six hundred dollars ($600.00) to the respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Milton Wilson, Esquire 201 East Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32598 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions This matter came on for determination by the Department upon submission of an Order Closing File by P. Michael Ruff, an Administrative Law Judge, of the Division of Administrative Hearings, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and no license will be issued to Flyscooter, LLC and Sunstate Powersports, LLC to sell motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG) at 825 Mason Avenue, Daytona Beach (Volusia County), Florida 32117. DONE AND ORDERED this 4, of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. L A. FORD, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division ofPiotor Vehicles this — day of June, 2009. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. CAF/vlg Copies furnished: Siegfried Kientoff Sunstate Powersports, LLC 825 Mason Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32117 David Levison Mega Powersports Corp. 390 North Beach Street Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Daniel Pak Flyscooters, Inc. 7307 Edgewater Drive, Building H Oakland, California 94621 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 P. Michael Ruff Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a dealer in liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), duly licensed in Florida. Petitioner buys LPG in Florida and resells it to dealers who in turn sell most of it at retail, but use part of it as fuel for their trucks. During the period July 1, 1975, through February 28, 1977, neither petitioner nor any of its customers paid any tax on account of petitioner's sales of LPG, other than LPG used by its customers to propel trucks. Petitioner's customers kept records as to how much LPG was sold by them for home cooking or heating use by their customers, the ultimate consumers. Until the summer of 1977, petitioner's customers who used LPG as truck fuel kept records of how far the trucks so fueled were driven. Using the resulting mileage figure, they calculated the amount of LPG that had been used as truck fuel. Until the summer of 1977, petitioner collected from its customers a tax of eight cents ($.08) per gallon on LPG used as truck fuel. During the period from July 1, 1975, through February 28, 1977, none of petitioner's Florida customers held Florida dealer's licenses, except Gene Lewis Auto Brokers, which obtained a license as a special fuel dealer in August of 1976. Also in August of 1976, Gene Lewis Auto Brokers purchased 2,052 gallons of LPG from petitioner, on which no tax was paid. Thereafter, the same customer bought 41,011 gallons from petitioner in the period ending February, 1977, on which no tax was paid. Petitioner made tax returns monthly, using forms furnished by respondent. With respect to respondent's Form DR-115-F, styled "Special Fuel Sold . . . Within the State to Licensed Dealers Tax-Free," general instructions furnished to petitioner by respondent provided: To be used in support of claims for exemp- tion ... for sales ... to other licensed dealers. Signed resale certificates ... which bear the name and address of the pur- chaser and the number of his dealer's license are required to be retained in the seller's permanent file .... Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. (emphasis supplied) Monthly, petitioner listed on Form DR-115-F the amounts of LPG sold to its Florida customers, less amounts its Florida customers advised had been used to propel trucks. On another form furnished by respondent, Form DR-115-J, petitioner listed monthly, by county, the LPG used by its Florida customers to propel motor vehicles and on which petitioner had collected tax at the rate of eight cents ($.08) per gallon. At the time petitioner filed its monthly tax return, it forwarded to respondent the taxes it had collected from its Florida customers. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which appears as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's assessment be upheld with respect to petitioner's tax deficiency, except for the portion attributable to sales by petitioner to Gene Lewis Auto Brokers after August of 1976, being three thousand two hundred eighty and eighty-eight hundredths dollars ($3,280.88). That interest and penalty be adjusted accordingly. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John Radey, Esquire Holland & Knight Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Cecil L. Davis, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 APPENDIX Paragraph one of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, except that the evidence did not show that petitioner's customers used LPG for home heating or cooking, only that persons to whom petitioner's customers sold used the LPG in this fashion. Paragraph two of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted in substance. Paragraph three of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted in large part. The gist of the information supplied to petitioner by its dealers was that LPG not used by them would be resold to domestic users. Although respondent did not undertake to determine whether petitioner listed the same LPG as taxable and as tax-exempt on the same tax return, there is no reason to believe that petitioner did so. Paragraph four of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, except that petitioner's tax returns were inaccurate as to its customers' status as dealers. The final three paragraphs of petitioner's proposed findings of fact accurately reflect evidence adduced at the hearing, but are not relevant to a decision of this controversy.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by June C. McKinney, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s Notice of Dismissal, a copy of which is attached, and incorporated by reference, in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Respondent, Rick Case Sunrise, LLC d/b/a Rick Case Kia, be granted a license to sell vehicles manufactured by Kia (KIA) at 1650 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Sunrise, (Broward County), Florida 33323, upon compliance with all applicable requirements of Section 320.27, Florida Statutes, and all applicable Department rules. Filed February 6, 2013 12:50 PM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this day of Febery 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, bil bo Baker, Chief Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Florida. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services thi Ue d f-Janauty. 03. is say ofa NOTICE OF XPPEAL: RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must ’be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/jc Copies furnished: Andy Bertron, Esquire Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Andy.bertron@nelsonmullins.com Robert E. Sickles, Esquire Hinshaw & Bulbertson, LLP 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 500 Tampa, Florida 33602 Rsickle@hinshawlaw.com Colm Moran, Esquire Hogan Lovells US, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, California 90067 Colm.moran@hoganlovells.com R. Craig Spickard, Esquire Kurkin Forehand Brandes, LLP 800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B Tallahassee, Florida 3203 cspickard@flb-law.com June C. McKinney Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Patricia M. Hart, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner's request for withdrawal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and no license will be issued to Moto Dealer Import, LLC and Continental Motor Group, Inc. to sell motorcycles manufactured by Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SHWI) at 885 Southeast Monterey Road, Stuart (Martin County), Florida 34994. Filed December 17, 2009 8:31 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ORDERED this /54,of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Divis/kthf Motor Vehicles this uday of December, 2009. ,.<.;?C?.c,,Dealllr7lcenieAdmlnistratorNOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. Copies furnished: Jack Lin Moto Dealer Import, LLC 4998-B South Royal Atlanta Drive Tucker, Georgia 30084 Mark Mourning Wenmark, Inc. d/b/a All The Wheel Toys 1540 Northwest Federal Highway Stuart, Florida 34994 Onofrio Bruno Continental Motor Group, Inc. 885 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34994 Patricia M. Hart Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On September 15, 1960, Earman Oil Company, Inc., was granted License Number 1748 (the "Special Fuels Dealer's License") authorizing it to operate as a User-Dealer of special fuels in the State of Florida. On the face of that License was the following notation: This license is NOT TRANSFERRABLE but will continue in full force and effect until cancelled or revoked as provided by law. The Special Fuels Dealer's License also contained a notation that provided as follows: This license must be returned to RAY F. GREEN, Comptroller, when a licensee terminates his operation as a User-Dealer. On April 1, 1967, Earman Oil Company, Inc., was issued State License Number 375 (the "Motor Fuels Distributor's License") by the Florida Revenue Commission, authorizing Earman to engage in the business of distributing motor fuels in the State of Florida. On the face of that License was the following notation: This license is not transferrable or assignable, and must be displayed conspicuously at all times at the Distributor's office or principle place of business. A Special Fuels Dealer's License and a Motor Fuels Distributor's License entitle a holder to purchase diesel fuel and gasoline for distribution without paying local option taxes pursuant to Chapter 336, Florida Statutes, motor fuel retail sales tax pursuant to Chapter 212, Part II, Florida Statutes and motor fuels tax pursuant to Chapter 206, Part I, Florida Statutes. A holder of such licenses is obligated to collect the taxes upon resale to customers and to remit those taxes to the state. If the resale is to another distributor who holds a valid license, the sale can be made tax free provided the seller follows the procedures set forth in the statutes and applicable DOR rules. In order to obtain either of the licenses during all times pertinent to this case, a company was required to have been in operation for at least one year and had to meet certain other requirements, including the posting of a bond. Sometime in 1983, Barkett, a licensed dealer of special and motor fuels in the state of Florida, purchased Florida Coast Oil Company, Inc. ("Florida Coast"), another licensed dealer of special and motor fuels in the State of Florida. The evidence did not establish the specific terms and details of that acquisition. The licenses held by Florida Coast which enabled it to purchase motor fuels on a tax exempt basis were not cancelled or revoked following Barkett's acquisition of the company. Barkett apparently acquired all of the stock of Florida Coast and Florida Coast continued in operation under that same name. Many, if not all, of the officers and directors of Barkett at this time also became officers and directors in Florida Coast. The evidence was conflicting and confusing as to the status of Earman Oil during 1980-1984. After review of all the evidence, it is concluded that Florida Coast acquired Earman Oil Company in 1980. The evidence did not establish the specific terms and details of that transaction. Apparently, this acquisition was also a stock purchase arrangement and Earman Oil Company initially remained in existence following its acquistion by Florida Coast. However, on August 31, 1981, Earman Oil Company was officially merged into Florida Coast. Harry Barkett, the president of Barkett and Florida Coast (after its acquisition by Barkett in 1983,) testified that the Department was advised of Florida Coast's acquisition of Earman Oil Company and Florida Coast was told by DOR that it could continue to use the licenses issued to Earman Oil Company in order to purchase motor fuels on a tax exempt basis. However, it does not appear that Mr. Barkett had any interest in Florida Coast at the time of the acquisition of Earman and no explanation was provided as to how he learned of DOR's alleged approval of the continued use of Earman's licenses. This contention is discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 24 below. On September 10, 1984, Florida Coast sold certain assets to Alfred Vittorino. Vittorino had previously worked as a manager for Barkett. The sales agreement provided that the assets being sold included ll rights to operate as Earman Oil Company including but not limited to all rights to the stock, licenses, permits or trademarks that are titled to Earman Oil Company that are required to operate the business. The parties have stipulated that on September 12, 1984, a Certificate of Incorporation for a new Earman Oil Company, Inc., was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State for Florida and that Alfred Vittorino was the president and sole stock holder for that company. The licenses issued to the original Earman Oil Company could not legally be transferred or assigned to the new company. Moreover, the new company could not qualify for new licenses on its own since it had not been in operation for at least one year. There is no dispute that at the time Vittorino acquired the assets from Florida Coast and began operating under the name Earman Oil Company, the Special Fuel Dealer's License and the Motor Fuel Distributor's License previously issued in the name of Earman Oil Company were delivered to Vittorino by Florida Coast. Harry Barkett, who was the president of both Barkett and Florida Coast at the time of the sale to Vittorino, testified that Vittorino told him that he would take whatever steps were necessary to get the licenses reissued and/or obtain new licenses so that Earman could continue to purchase fuel on a tax exempt basis. Earman Oil Company never applied for new licenses after its acquisition by Vittorino. Instead, the company merely obtained and used the old licenses. Since the Special Fuel Dealer's License and the Motor Fuel Distributor's Licenses issued to the original Earman Oil Company has never been cancelled, "Earman Oil Company" was still registered with DOR as a distributor of motor fuel and a dealer of special fuels and it remained registered during the entire period in question, September 1984 to April 1985. Although Harry Barkett testified that he believes DOR was notified of Florida Coast's sale of Earman's assets to Vittorino, DOR has no record of the sale and/or the transfer of the licenses of Earman Oil Company to Vittorino. No persuasive evidence was presented to establish that DOR was fully advised as to the terms of the sale and the status of the companies at the time of the sale. The contention that DOR approved the transfer of the licenses to the new company established by Vittorino is rejected. After Vittorino purchased the above described assets from Florida Coast, Earman Oil Company began engaging in the business of selling motor fuel and special fuels to its customers. During the period from September 1984 through April 1985, Earman Oil Company purchased gasoline and diesel fuel from Barkett and other companies and sold that fuel to, among others, Miami Petroleum Oil Company, Inc., an unlicensed distributor of gasoline and diesel fuel. During that period, the invoices for the sales by Barkett to Earman Oil Company indicated that the sales were tax exempt and there is no indication that taxes were being collected from Earman. Barkett did not obtain an affidavit or "resale" certificate from Earman Oil Co. prior to selling tax exempt. However, Barkett filed tax returns with DOR indicating that the sales were tax exempt. Barkett contends that its typical procedure for selling tax exempt to a customer is to obtain the customer's license number and verbally confirm the validity of that number with the Department. Petitioner contends that it followed this procedure prior to selling tax exempt to Earman Oil Company and that the Department confirmed that the license numbers provided by Earman Oil Company were valid. While Petitioner contends that it contacted the Respondent in order to verify that Earman Oil Company was in possession of a valid license, there is no written evidence of any such communication. The applicable statutes and regulations require a distributor to obtain an affidavit or a "resale certificate" in order to sell fuel tax exempt. There is no provision in the rules or the statutes for verbal confirmation of licensure status. From September 1984 through April 1985, Earman Oil collected motor fuel taxes under Chapters 206 and 212, Florida Statutes, from its customers, but never remitted those taxes to the state. There is no evidence that any of the taxes collected by Earman Oil were transferred to Barkett. Earman Oil Company filed tax returns with DOR indicating that it had not collected any taxes. Criminal charges were subsequently brought against Vittorino for failure to remit collected motor fuel taxes for the period September 1984 through April 1985. Vittorino was found guilty by a jury of failure to remit collected motor fuel taxes and was initially sentenced to nine years in prison, which was subsequently reduced to six years on appeal. As of the date of the hearing in this administrative proceeding, the state has not collected any of the outstanding taxes from Vittorino or Earman Oil. Petitioner contends that during the trial of Vittorino, the State of Florida maintained that Earman Oil Company held valid licenses as a distributor of motor fuel and as a dealer of special fuels during the period September 1984 through May 1985. The transcript of that criminal proceeding confirms that this was one theory advanced by the prosecution during that case. However, there was considerable confusion during that trial as to the licensure status of Earman. Ultimately, Vittorino was convicted of failure to remit collected motor fuel taxes. It was not an essential element of this offense for Earman to be a valid license holder. DOR conducted an audit of Barkett (Audit Number 86-17412886) for the period September 1984 through April 1985. The Department's audit indicated that Barkett sold 9,548,414 gallons of motor fuel on a tax free basis to Earman Oil Company during the period from September 1, 1984 through April 30, 1985. During the audit, the auditor requested Barkett to provide resale certificates or affidavits from Earman Oil Company to substantiate the basis for the tax exempt sales. Barkett was unable to produce any such resale certificates or affidavits. As a result, DOR concluded that Barkett was responsible for collecting and remitting to the state taxes on all the sales made during this period by Barkett to Earman. Barkett contested the results of the audit and the Department's Notice of Decision issued on August 4, 1988. Barkett timely petitioned for reconsideration of that decision on September 2, 1988. The Department issued its Notice of Reconsideration on January 19, 1989. In its Notice of Reconsideration, the Department determined that the balance due for the Local Option Tax pursuant to Chapter 336, Florida Statutes, was $540,173.68, which consisted of $381,936.56 tax, $95,484.14 penalty and $62,752.98 interest (with interest accruing at the rate of $125.50 per day from June 6, 1986, until date of payment.) The Department also determined that the balance due for motor fuel retail sales tax pursuant to Chapter 212, Part II, Florida Statutes, was $769,747.50, which consisted of $544,259.60 tax, $136,064.90 penalty and $89,423.00 interest (with interest accruing at the rate of $178.93 per day from June 6, 1988 until date of payment.) Finally, the Department determined that the balance due for motor fuels tax pursuant to Chapter 206, Part I, Florida Statutes, was $540,173.68, which consisted of $381,936.56 tax, $95,484.14 penalty, and $62,752.98 interest (with interest accruing at the rate of $125.57 per day from June 6, 1986 until date of payment.) 1/ As part of its reconsideration, the Department deleted the fraud penalties that had previously been assessed against Barkett. Barkett timely filed a challenge to the Department's conclusions in the Notice of Reconsideration. 2/ During the late 70's and early 1980's, Barkett Oil acquired a number of different oil companies (including Florida Coast, which had previously acquired Earman). Several of the companies that were acquired by Barkett held licenses from the Department that enabled them to purchase motor fuels on a tax exempt basis for resale. Barkett contends that it notified the Department of each of those acquisitions and was never instructed that it had to reapply for a license to purchase tax exempt. Barkett suggests that these prior experiences justified its conclusion that Earman Oil Company could continue to purchase tax exempt following the sale and transfer of licenses to Vittorino. However, the circumstances and terms of the prior acquisitions by Barkett were not established in this case. It is not clear whether those transactions were stock purchase agreements or simply the acquisition of assets. Furthermore, the evidence regarding the notification supposedly given to the Department was vague and unconvincing. Although Petitioner contends that it notified the Department that Earman Oil Company had been sold to Vittorino, there is no written evidence of any such communication. It is not clear who at the Department was notified of the sale nor is it clear what information was provided regarding the sale. In sum, Petitioner's contention that Respondent should be estopped from claiming that Earman Oil Company did not hold a valid Distributor's License and/or Special Fuel License is rejected. There was insufficient persuasive evidence to establish that an authorized representative of the Department who was provided with full disclosure of the facts surrounding the transfer to Vittorino advised Petitioner that it could sell tax exempt to Earman Oil Company.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered upholding the assessments set forth in the Notice of Reconsideration. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1992.
