The Issue Whether C. Fullerton and Landscaping Co., Inc., is indebted to Other Side Sod, LLC, for the purchase of sod and pallets; and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida Limited Liability Corporation located in Arcadia, Florida, and at all times relevant hereto was a producer of agricultural products, as defined by section 604.15(9), Florida Statutes. Petitioner is also a “dealer in agricultural products” within the meaning of section 604.15(2). Respondent, during all times relevant hereto, was a “dealer in agricultural products,” within the meaning of section 604.15(2). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Great American served as surety for Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a customer of Other Side Sod. Respondent purchased sod from Petitioner and thereafter resold and installed the sod to Respondent’s customers. Petitioner sold sod to its customers on wooden pallets. An integral part of each transaction involved the pallets. There are 10 invoices in dispute which cover the period October 14, 2016, through February 10, 2017. For the underlying transactions that relate to the invoices in question, the following language is contained on each field/delivery ticket: Terms of Sale: Payment due upon receipt. All payment[s] applied to pallet balance first. Interest at the rate of 1 1/2% per month will be charged on unpaid invoice amounts after 14 days. Invoices will be charged $0.02 per square foot additional after 30 days. Purchaser agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorney fees, in [the] event it is necessary to institute suit for collection. Venue will be in DeSoto County, Florida. All Sales F.O.B. Shipping Point. On or about October 14, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47293, which showed a balance due of $462 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 83,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($1,664). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $124.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($1,664 x 7.50 percent). On or about October 23, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47378, which showed a balance due of $224 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 70,400 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($1,408). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $105.60 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($1,408 x 7.50 percent). On or about October 24, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47420, which showed a balance due of $280 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 16,000 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($320). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $24 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($320 x 7.50 percent). On or about November 13, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47549, which showed a balance due of $1,526 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 103,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($2,064). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $154.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($2,064 x 7.50 percent). On or about December 6, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47755, which showed a balance due of $434 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 30,400 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($608). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $45.60 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($608 x 7.50 percent). On or about January 8, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48093, which showed a balance due of $1,256 for 12,800 units of Bahia sod, $224 for a pallet deposit, and $72 for sales tax. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 12,800 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($256). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $19.20 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($256 x 7.50 percent). On or about December 13, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48166, which showed a balance due of $343 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 163,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($3,264). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $244.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($3,264 x 7.50 percent). On or about January 29, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48285, which showed a balance due of $3,000 for 40,000 units of Bahia sod, $308 for a pallet deposit, and $225 for sales tax (total = $3,533). On February 3, 2017, Respondent submitted to Petitioner partial payment in the amount of $3,210.50, which left an unpaid balance of $322.50. The balance remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 40,000 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($800). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $60 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($800 x 7.50 percent). On or about January 31, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48301, which showed a balance due of $390 for 5,200 units of Bahia sod, $91 for a pallet deposit, and $29.25 for sales tax (total = $510.25). On February 15, 2017, Respondent submitted to Petitioner partial payment in the amount of $468.33, which left an unpaid balance of $41.92.1/ The balance remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 5,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($104). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $7.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($104 x 7.50 percent). On or about February 10, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48409, which showed a balance due of $390 for 5,200 units of Bahia sod, $21 for a pallet deposit, and $29.25 for sales tax (total = $440.25). On February 15, 2017, Respondent submitted to Petitioner partial payment in the amount of $398.33, which left an unpaid balance of $41.92. The balance remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 5,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($104). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $7.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($104 x 7.50 percent).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order approving the claim of Other Side Sod, LLC, against C. Fullerton and Landscaping Co., Inc., in the amount of $4,981.34. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 7th day of November, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Respondent William Byron Holiday was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from October 4, 1974, to February 20, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and, active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to he walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc., began operation, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc., had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. William B. Holiday c/o D.K.W., Inc. 143 N.E. 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138
Findings Of Fact Allis-Chalmers Corporation (ACC), Petitioner in Case 82-2774, is a Delaware corporation commercially domiciled in West Allis, Wisconsin. ACC operates in Florida at the following locations: U.S. Highway 1 opened 2/1/77 Grant (Industrial Pump Division) 5200 Kennedy Blvd. closed 10/30/78 Tampa (Industrial Pump Division) 406 Rio Street opened 11/1/78 101 Federal Place opened 5/1/80 Tarpon Springs (Cement & Mining System Division) (The locations listed are those operating during the audit period. Other locations closed prior to or opened after the audit period.) ACC makes sales of tangible personal property to Florida customers directly from the locations at (b) and (c) and also makes sales to Florida customers from these two locations where the property is shipped from out-of-state locations to the Florida customers. ACC is a diversified company which manufactures and markets the following items: (a) agricultural equipment; (b) hydropower equipment; (c) coal gasification systems; (d) ore conveyors, crushers and screening equipment; (e) bulk material-handling equipment, such as ship self-unloaders; (f) stackers and reclaimers for steel mills; (g) compressors and pumps; (h) cement and asphaltic concrete production equipment (i) valves for units larger than household or commercial plumbing installations; (j) systems for the direct reduction of iron ore; (k) kilns and coolers; (l) lawn and garden equipment; and (m) lift trucks and industrial tractors. The amount in dispute is as stated in the Petition and is not an issue in these proceedings. The only issue is the method of computing the intangible taxes. ACC contends the tax base should be the net accounts receivable based on sales transacted in Florida divided by sales transacted everywhere else. The department contends the ratio should be Florida-destination sales divided by sales everywhere else. The issue is the "business situs" of the intangibles. Allis-Chalmers Credit Corporation (ACCC), Petitioner in Cases 82-2816 and 82-2817, is a Wisconsin corporation doing business in Florida. It is the wholly-owned subsidiary of ACC and its principal business is financing the sale or lease of equipment by ACC dealers. Case 82-2816 involves an income tax assessment against ACCC for the years 1977-1979. The item in dispute involves treatment given to "waiver interest" in arriving at the ratio by which federal income tax is multiplied to determine state income tax due. This issue applies to the denominator of that equation, hence the higher the figure the lower the tax. On occasion ACC, as a marketing tool, agrees to forego interest on either retail or wholesale financing for a period of perhaps six months. If these notes are assigned to ACCC, ACC must pay the waived interest to ACCC that its dealer or the dealer's customer would otherwise have paid. This is charged to ACC at the rate of one and one-half times the cost of funds to ACCC plus the actual cost of insurance. This rate is one percent to three percent per annum less than ACCC would charge the original debtors for the same period. The difference takes into account the elimination of bad debts and the simplified collection from one source instead of many. Therefore, as contended by ACCC, this "waiver interest" is thus already net of the "expenses of the recipient related thereto." The department contends that "waiver interest," and ACCC's explanation thereof, merely reflects the fact that a reduced rate of return "interest" is charged by ACCC with respect to the higher quality risk attendant to its relationship with its parent, ACC. As to ACCC's interest expense as a cost carrying the underlying receivables, the department contends that the ratio of ACCC's interest expense as applied is an appropriate adjustment as none is reflected elsewhere as a cost of carrying "waiver interest" generating receivables. As to the related bad debt expense, the department contends it merely applied the overall bad debt information ACCC used in determining its underlying federal taxable income and, that in its use of such data, the department did not find evidence wherein ACCC in its determination of its federal bad debt expense, distinguished between classes of risks which may be in its aggregate receivables, including the receivables giving rise to the "waiver interest." Thus, the department contends that directly related expense includes interest expense and bad debt expense. By the department's calculation, "waiver interest" as an item in the sales denominator has been reduced by 61 percent to 70 percent in various years to reflect these two categories of directly related expense as mandated by Section 214.71(3)(b) Florida Statutes, and Section 220.44, Florida Statutes. The issue is what constitutes directly related expense to inter-company income. There is no dispute on the numbers. Either the return numbers or the audit numbers on this item will prevail. Case 82-2817 involves an intangible tax assessment against ACCC for the years 1979-1981. During the audit period ACCC was represented in Florida by one employee whose duties were to call on ACC Florida dealers to persuade these dealers to use ACCC for financing sales they made, to keep these dealers supplied with necessary forms, and to give advice to these dealers if complicated or difficult financing situations arose. This representative worked out of the Atlanta office but lived in Florida, the state for which this representative was responsible. Buyers of ACC equipment with good credit ratings can generally obtain bank financing at better rates than are offered by ACCC. The dealer is not required to assign conditional sales contracts to ACCC (via ACC) but is encouraged to do so. The sales contracts for Florida buyers of equipment delivered to Florida are the intangibles upon which the tax here involved was based. When a dealer sells a piece of equipment on which the buyer wants financing by ACCC, the dealer has the retail customer fill out the purchaser's statement and execute three additional forms that are provided by ACCC. Under his franchise agreement with the parent corporation, the dealer is required to use appropriate precautions in conducting financing transactions, to warranty the truth and completeness of statements in the documents and their enforceability, and to repurchase the paper on demand in the event of default. The dealer forwards the executed documents to ACCC's Atlanta branch office for review and approval before any extension of credit to the customer. In Atlanta ACCC's branch manager, acting under a power of attorney from the parent corporation, accepts the document on behalf of the parent corporation, and tenders them to himself as agent for ACCC. If the paper meets the ACCC requirements as to form, terms, execution and credit-worthiness, as defined in the Master Credit Agreement between the parent corporation and ACCC, he then accepts the documents on behalf of ACCC. In some instances he conducts a supplemental credit inquiry by mail or telephone to assure ACCC's requirements are met. His acceptance of the documents for ACCC constitutes in effect the purchase and receipt of the obligation. The customer receives his financing, and the appropriate credits are transferred from ACCC to the parent corporation to the dealer's inventory account. The dealer receives an additional credit as an incentive to recommend ACCC's financing services to his customers. ACCC files the signed financing statement with the Florida Secretary of State to protect its security interest under U.C.C. Article 9, and pays the appropriate filing fee. ACCC also files continuation statements in the event the account is extended or refinanced beyond five years. The customer makes his installment payments reflecting the base price plus a time-price differential or finance charge by mailing the payments to ACCC's Atlanta lock box. ACCC furnishes him coupon books or reminder notices by mail. In the event a customer account becomes overdue, ACCC takes limited enforcement action by issuing dunning letters. ACCC, through its Florida Finance Representative, contacts the delinquent customer by telephone or in person, and arranges in appropriate cases for extensions or refinancing of the initial obligation, using printed forms with ACC's name prominently displayed thereon. In the event the customer defaults, ACCC has authority to repossess and resell the security, to sue on the note, or to amend, extend, renew or release the customer's obligations. In practice ACCC rarely, if ever, exercises these powers, but simply resells the paper to the parent corporation which takes the actions described above. The agreement between Allis-Chalmers and its dealers is that of buyer and seller and this agreement specifically provides the dealer is not an agent of Allis-Chalmers and is without authority to bind the company. In Case 82-2817 Petitioner contends that no tax is due because it is not transacting business within the state. The department contends that tax is due because the original contracts, which have been assigned once or twice depending upon whether they were wholesale or retail, have acquired a business situs in the state since they arose from, or are issued in connection with, the sale of tangible personalty in this state. In the event the department prevails, the parties have stipulated to the manner in which the modified tax shall be computed, for this case only. This stipulation is not material to the issues involved and is not replicated herein.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of failing to account for and deliver a share of a real estate commission, as required by Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes, and, if, so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 0314643. Petitioner does business under the name, Blue Ribbon Realty. Petitioner employs several real estate salesmen in her brokerage business. Virginia M. Poole is a licensed real estate salesman. During 1988, she was looking for a house to buy. At the time, she was working in a hotel as a cashier. While working at the hotel, Ms. Poole met Mary Asian, who was also working at the hotel. At the same time, Ms. Asian was and remains a real estate salesman working at Blue Ribbon Realty. In a period of several weeks, Ms. Asian showed Ms. Poole several houses and presented at least one offer with a small deposit. One day while driving on her own, Ms. Poole came across a house that appealed to her. At or prior to this time, Ms. Poole had placed her salesman's license with Blue Ribbon Realty. Ms. Poole negotiated a sales contract with the seller. The contract was signed by Ms. Poole and the seller on November 10, 1988. By a separate commission agreement signed the same date, the seller agreed to pay Respondent a commission equal to 3% of the sales price. The closing took place on December 14, 1988. The closing agent duly paid Respondent the sum of $2172, which represents 3% of the purchase price. Respondent cashed the check and received the proceeds thereof. Under the agreement between Ms. Poole and Respondent, Ms. Poole was to be paid one-half of all commissions that she earned for Blue Ribbon Realty. At the closing, Ms. Poole asked about her share of the commission. Refusing to pay anything to Ms. Poole, Respondent told her, "You get it any way you can." Respondent believed that Ms. Asian, not Ms. Poole, was due the salesman's share of the commission, which by agreement was one-half of the sum paid to Blue Ribbon Realty. Ms. Poole, who never listed or sold any properties for the two or three months that her license was placed with Respondent, had placed her license with another broker over ten days in advance of the December 14 closing. Under the agreement between Respondent and her salesmen, no commission was due any salesman who left Blue Ribbon Realty more than ten days prior to a closing. The reason for this policy was that much work had to be done in the ten days preceding a closing, and it was unfair to require others to perform the work while paying the salesman's share of the commission to a departed salesman. After repeated attempts to obtain payment of the $1086 due her, Ms. Poole filed a legal action against Respondent in Orange County Court. The defenses raised by Respondent apparently proved unavailing. On April 12, 1989, Ms. Poole received a final judgment in the total amount of $1197.44, including interest and costs. Although the filing date does not appear from the face of the exhibit, a Notice of Appeal was served on Ms. Poole on June 30, 1989. Subsequent attempts to recover on the judgment were unsuccessful. At this point, Ms. Poole filed a complaint with Petitioner. Respondent never requested the Florida Real Estate Commission to issue an escrow disbursement order determining who was entitled to the disputed half of the commission, never sought an adjudication of the dispute by court through interpleader or other procedure, and never submitted the matter to arbitration with the consent of the parties. The only thing that Respondent has done in this regard is to deposit the contested sum in the trust account of her attorney, apparently pending the resolution of the appeal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of failing to account or deliver a share of a commission to one of her salesmen, issuing a written reprimand, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000. ENTERED this 23 day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23 day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Attorney Raymond O. Bodiford P.O. Box 1748 Orlando, FL 32802 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, J. R. Brooks and Sons, Inc. (Brooks), is in the business of selling agricultural products. Its offices are located in Homestead, Florida. Respondent, Fair Chester Tomato Packers, Inc. (Fair Chester), is a licensed agriculture dealer under Chapter 604, Florida Statutes. Its offices are in Mamaroneck, New York. As a licensed agriculture dealer, respondent is required to file a surety bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) to insure payment of any indebtedness to persons selling agricultural products to Fair Chester. In this regard, it has filed a $50,000 surety bond underwritten by respondent, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (Hartford). Between February and April, 1984, Brooks sold six shipments of `Pony Limes" to Fair Chester for a price of $25,039. Shortly thereafter, Fair Chester experienced financial problems and was unable to pay Brooks and other trade creditors. Because of this the creditors formed a committee in an effort to secure payment of their claims. A composition agreement was eventually drawn whereby the unsecured trade creditors agreed to settle, release and discharge in full their claims against Fair Chester on condition that each creditor signing the agreement be paid one-third of its claim "in full payment and settlement thereof, and provided further that 95 percent or more in dollar amount of all the debtor's unsecured trade creditors accepted the terms and provisions in writing on or before November 13, 1984. On or about September 2, 1984, Brooks filed a complaint against respondents with the Department which was pending when the offer to participate in the composition agreement was made. Brooks initially refused to accept the composition agreement. Because Brooks' acquiescence was necessary in order to achieve the 95 percent participation, Fair Chester, through its counsel advised Brooks by letter dated November 1, 1984 that its "acceptance of the Composition Agreement . . . shall be without prejudice to the complaint against (respondents) before the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services of the State of Florida." After receiving this letters Brooks agreed to execute the agreement and did so on November 7, 1984. Accordingly, it is found that it was the intention of the parties to allow Brooks to maintain the action herein. Thereafter, in accordance with the agreement, Fair Chester issued a check in the amount of $7,449.66 to Brooks on November 9, 1984, which represented one-third of its total claim. 1/ The check was endorsed by Brooks and deposited in its bank account. It has never rescinded that agreement. The letter of November 1, 1984, was not disclosed by Fair Chester to Hartford or any other trade creditor who executed the agreement. However, there was no effort on the part of Brooks to have the letter remain secret.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of lawn, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaint of J. R. Brooks and Sons, Inc. a against respondents be DISMISSED with prejudice, and its claim against them DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of June, 1985.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Florida Corporate Income Tax Code subjects to taxation items realized for federal income tax purposes prior to the effective date of the Code but recognized for federal purposes after the effective date of the Florida Code.
Findings Of Fact In a joint stipulation filed with the Hearing Officer, the parties stipulated to the relevant facts of this proceeding. Findings (1) through (6) listed below are quoted directly from that stipulation of facts. In 1965 MORRIS TRADING CORPORATION (whose name at that time was Morris Grain Corporation) exchanged certain property used in its trade or business with Continental Grain Company for six thousand seven hundred twenty three (6,723) acres of real estate located in Florida a description of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 1 containing a layout of the ranch acreage acquired by MORRIS TRADING CORPORATION from Continental Grain Company, including the nine hundred fifty eight (958) acre parcel sold in the fiscal year ending in 1968, the one thousand (1,000) acre parcel sold in the fiscal year ending in 1969, and the remaining acreage sold in the fiscal year ending in 1973, as well as a small parcel of property retained by the Corporation. Although MORRIS TRADING CORPORATION realized income for federal tax purposes in 1965 when it exchanged a grain elevator and other property for real estate described on Exhibit 1, the Corporation did not recognize any income for federal tax purposes in 1965 pursuant to Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended. The real estate acquired in exchange for the property traded by MORRIS TRADING CORPORATION had a fair market value in 1965 of ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED THIRTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,613,520.00), or TWO HUNDRED FORTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($240.00) per acre. The tax cost basis of the property given up by MORRIS TRADING CORPORATION in the exchange was TWO HUNDRED SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY TWO AND SIXTY SIX/100 DOLLARS ($267,832.66). MORRIS TRADING CORPORATION paid TWENTY THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THREE AND FIFTY FIVE/100 DOLLARS ($20,453.55) in cash for the purchase of mineral rights to the four thousand six hundred five (4,605) acres sold during the fiscal year ending in 1973 and there were ONE HUNDRED SIXTY TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO AND FIFTY FIVE/100 DOLLARS ($162,522.55) of costs connected with the sale of the property consisting of commissions of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE THREE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($133,300.00), attorneys fees of EIGHTEEN THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($18,000.00), and documentary" stamps and miscellaneous expenses of ELEVEN THOU- SAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY TWO AND FIFTY FIVE/100 DOLLARS ($11,222.55). MORRIS TRADING CORPORATION sold four thousand six hundred five (4,605) acres-of the property acquired in the exchange in 1965 during its fiscal year ending May 31, 1973, for a gross sales price of TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED SIXTY ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVEN AND NINETY SIX/100 DOLLARS ($2,961,807.96). On its Florida corporate income tax return for the fiscal year ending May 31, 1973, Petitioner excluded income from the 1973 sale of the 4,605 acres, although this income was reported as recognized on its federal income tax return. The Respondent, Department of Revenue, issued its proposed deficiency for the 1973 fiscal year assessing Petitioner $121,389.33. This assessment was based upon the gain received by Petitioner for the 1973 transaction, said gain being measured by the difference between the original cost of the property exchanged in 1965 and the adjusted sales price of the property sold in 1973. The Petitioner filed a protest against the proposed deficiency. An informal conference failed to resolve the matter and the Petitioner thereafter filed its petition for an administrative hearing. On August 4, 1976, the parties entered into a joint motion for stay of proceedings pending the Florida Supreme Court's resolution of the case of Dept. of Revenue v. Leadership Housing, Inc. and Leadership Communities, Inc., 343 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1977). Thereafter, a prehearing conference was held to narrow and define the issues, briefs were filed and a hearing was held to receive oral argument on the legal issues involved.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the proposed corporate income tax deficiency for the Petitioner's fiscal year ending in 1973 be held invalid. Said deficiency should be recomputed by subtracting from the gross, sales price of the real estate sold in 1973 the amount realized on Petitioner's federal return in 1965, the selling expenses and the purchase of additional mineral rights. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald T. Hart Thompson, Wadsworth, Messer, Turner and Rhodes Post Office Box 1876 Suite 701, Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32302 E. Wilson Crump, II Assistent Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Post Office Box 5377 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is liable for the tax, penalty, and interest assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located at 2836 North Tamiami Trial, Sarasota, Florida. Petitioner primarily engages in the business of selling classic, vintage automobiles. Petitioner sells automobiles for delivery in-state, interstate, and internationally. Petitioner also engages in the business of selling other collectible items, including jukeboxes. Respondent is the state agency responsible for the administration of the Florida sales and use tax pursuant to Sections 20.21 and 213.05, Florida Statutes (1991). (All references to Florida Statutes are to Florida Statutes 1991 unless otherwise stated.) In accordance with Section 212.34, Respondent audited Petitioner's business records for the period from May 1, 1991, through July 31, 1996 (audit period). Respondent determined a deficiency and assessed Petitioner for $114,878.68, including tax, penalty, and interest through January 26, 1999. Respondent assessed tax in the amount of $55,771.16, penalty in the amount of $26,528.02, and interest through January 26, 1999, in the amount of $32,579.50. Additional interest accrues at the daily rate of $20.97. The assessed tax is based on several alleged deficiencies. Some deficiencies involve alleged failures of Petitioner to comply with taxing provisions. Other deficiencies involve alleged failures of Petitioner to comply with the requirements of claimed exemptions. Taxing provisions are construed narrowly against the taxing authority while the provisions authorizing exemptions are construed narrowly against the person claiming the exemption. The assessment against Petitioner includes tax on $51,353.10 in under-reported retail sales for 1994. Respondent compared the gross income reported by Petitioner for the 1994 tax year with the state sales tax revenues reported by Petitioner for the same year and determined that Petitioner under-reported sales tax revenues in the amount of $51,353.10. Mr. Martin Godbey is a corporate officer for Petitioner and a controlling shareholder. Mr. Godbey testified at the hearing. Mr. Godbey testified that $45,000 of the $51,353.10 was not under-reported gross sales in 1994. According to Mr. Godbey, Petitioner's accountant over-reported gross income for purposes of the federal income tax. Petitioner derives some income from providing brokerage services as an liaison between a buyer and seller. Mr. Godbey testified that Petitioner earned $1,400 in 1994 as a broker for the sale of a 1956 Jaguar XJ140 roadster on behalf of an automobile dealership in Virginia. The testimony is that Petitioner introduced the seller and buyer but never possessed the vehicle or delivered the vehicle. The price of the vehicle was approximately $45,000. Mr. Godbey testified that Petitioner's accountant incorrectly reported $45,000 as gross income under the federal income tax law and reported the difference between $45,000 and $1,400 as the cost of goods sold. The testimony of Mr. Godbey was credible and persuasive. However, the testimony was not supported by documentary evidence of Petitioner's federal income tax return or by testimony of Petitioner's accountant. The unsupported testimony of Mr. Godbey does not rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner over-reported gross income for the purpose of the federal income tax rather than under-reported gross sales for the purpose of the state sales tax. The testimony of Mr. Godbey did not explain the difference between the $51,353.10 amount determined by Respondent and $45,000 amount testified to by Mr. Godbey. For the period from 1991 through 1993, Petitioner collected sales tax on retail sales but did not remit the tax to Respondent. Rather, Petitioner paid the tax to two automobile dealers identified in the record as International Antique Motors, Inc. (IAM) and Autohaus Kolar, Inc. (AK). Petitioner registered with Respondent as a dealer sometime in 1991. However, Petitioner did not obtain a retail dealer's license from the Department of Motor Vehicles (Department) until late in 1993. From 1991 through most of 1993, Petitioner was licensed by the Department as a wholesale dealer and was not authorized by the Department to engage in retail sales of motor vehicles. Section 320.27(2) prohibited Petitioner from selling motor vehicles at retail and made such sales unlawful. Petitioner asserts that it could not have engaged in retail sales, within the meaning of Section 212.06(2)(c) and (d), because Petitioner had no legal authority to do so. From 1991 through 1993, Petitioner engaged in retail sales within the meaning of Section 212.06(2)(c) and (d). Petitioner engaged in retail sales by selling automobiles at retail in violation of Section 320.27(2). Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner collected sales tax on each sale. Petitioner did not engage in retail sales and collect sales tax on each sale in the capacity of an agent for IAM or AK. Petitioner acted in his own behalf as a principal. IAM and AK had no actual or legal control over the sales conducted by Petitioner. IAM and AK merely processed the title work for each retail sale conducted by Petitioner. Even if Petitioner were an agent for IAM and AK, Petitioner engaged in retail sales as a dealer defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.0066. (All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code during the audit period.) Petitioner registered the vehicles sold at retail from 1991 through 1993 by way of a business arrangement with IAM and AK. After Petitioner collected sales tax on each retail sale, Petitioner remitted the tax to IAM and AK. IAM and AK then registered the vehicles with the Department. Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner paid to IAM and AK the sales tax that Petitioner collected from each customer. Nor does Respondent dispute that the amount of tax Petitioner paid to IAM and AK was sufficient to pay the tax due. Section 212.06(10) requires IAM and AK to issue a receipt for sales tax with each application for title or registration. IAM obtained title or registration for 21 vehicles sold by Petitioner and at issue in this case. AK obtained title or registration for three vehicles at issue in this case. Section 212.06(10) does not operate to create a factual presumption that IAM and AK paid the sales tax due on the 24 vehicles at the time that IAM and AK applied for title or registration of each vehicle. In practice, the receipt issued by dealers with each application for title or registration contains a code indicating that the dealer has collected the tax and will pay the tax in the dealer's ensuing sales tax return. After IAM applied for title or registration for the vehicles evidenced in Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 4, 6, and 21, IAM remitted taxes to Respondent in an amount sufficient to pay the tax due on those sales by Petitioner. Respondent has no record of any tax deficiencies against IAM. Respondent's admitted policy is to avoid the collection of tax if the tax has already been paid. After IAM applied for title or registration for the vehicles evidenced in Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3, 5, and 7 through 20, IAM remitted taxes to Respondent in an amount that was insufficient to pay the tax due on those sales. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that IAM remitted to Respondent the taxes that Petitioner collected and paid to IAM in connection with the sales evidenced in Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3, 5, and 7 through 20. Petitioner is not entitled to a set-off of the taxes remitted to Respondent by IAM after the sales evidenced in Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3, 5, and 7 through 20. There is insufficient evidence to show that the taxes remitted by IAM were collected on the sales at issue in this case rather than other sales made by IAM. AK processed three vehicles for Petitioner that are at issue in this case. AK paid to Respondent the sales tax due on the three retail sales at issue. The relevant sales are evidenced in Petitioner's Exhibits 24 through 26. AK remitted taxes in an amount that was more than sufficient to pay the tax due on those sales by Petitioner. Respondent has no record of a tax deficiency against AK. Respondent's policy is to avoid the collection of tax if tax has already been paid. Several deficiencies are attributable to disallowed exemptions for 16 sales that include 14 vehicles and two jukeboxes. Statutory requirements for exemptions are strictly construed against the person claiming the exemption. Petitioner did not satisfy essential requirements for any of the disallowed exemptions. The exemptions asserted by Petitioner in its PRO are discussed in greater detail in the following paragraphs. During the audit period, Petitioner sold a 1972 Italia Spyder automobile, VIN: 50413414, to a Texas automobile dealership identified in the record as North American Classic Cars/Gene Ponder, of Marshall, Texas (North American). Petitioner claims that the sale to North American is exempt because it is a sale for resale to a non-resident dealer. The sale to North American is not exempt. Petitioner failed to obtain a non-resident dealer affidavit at the time of sale in violation of Section 212.08(10). During the audit, Petitioner obtained a Sales Tax Exemption Affidavit (DR-40) from North American. A DR-40 is not appropriate for a sale for resale to a non-resident dealer. The appropriate affidavit would have required the non-resident dealer to attest that "the motor vehicle will be transported outside of the State of Florida for resale and for no other purpose." Hand written notations on the bill of sale for the Italia Spyder indicate the North American representative took possession of the automobile in Florida. In addition, a hand- written letter to Petitioner indicates that the Italia Spyder was purchased for the private collection of the owner of North American rather than for resale. During the audit period, Petitioner sold a 1959 Mercedes Benz 190SL automobile, VIN: 12104-10-95012, to Mike Hiller, of Coral Springs, Florida (Hiller). Petitioner claimed, on the bill of sale, that the sale was exempt because it was a sale to a non-resident dealer for resale. The sale to Hiller is not exempt. At the time of the sale, Petitioner failed to obtain a non-resident dealer affidavit or a resale certificate. The bill of lading lists Hiller as an exporter and indicated that Hiller, as the exporter, took possession of the automobile in Florida. The bill of lading does not show unbroken, continuous transportation from the selling dealer to a common carrier or directly out of Florida as required in Section 212.06(5)(b)1. During the audit period, Petitioner sold a 1959 MGA Roadster, VIN: 54941, to Fabiana Valsecchi, of Rome, Italy. Petitioner claims the sale is exempt as a sale for export. The sale to Valsecchi is not exempt. At the time of the sale, Petitioner failed to obtain a bill of lading, or other shipping documentation that shows unbroken, continuous transportation from Petitioner to a common carrier or directly out of Florida. The bill of sale signed by the purchaser's agent shows that the agent took possession of the automobile in Florida. Petitioner failed to show that the sale was exempt because it was a sale for resale. Petitioner did not provide a resale certificate from the purchaser. During the audit period, Petitioner sold a 1961 Triumph TR3 automobile, VIN: TS753 38L, to Classic Automobile Investors, Inc., of Germany (Classic). Petitioner claims that the sale is exempt because it was a sale for export. The sale to Classic is not exempt. At the time of sale, Petitioner failed to obtain a bill of lading, or other shipping documentation which shows unbroken, continuous transportation from Petitioner to a common carrier or directly out of Florida. During the audit period, Petitioner sold a 1947 Bentley MKVI automobile, VIN: B137B, to Mr. Bob Erickson, of Palmetto, Florida. Petitioner failed to collect and remit Local Government Surtax on the sale and owes the uncollected tax. During the audit period, Petitioner sold two jukeboxes and other items of tangible personal property to Mr. C.P. Loontjens. Petitioner claims that the sales are exempt from sales tax because they were sales for export. At the time of the sale, Petitioner failed to obtain documentation from the buyer to show that items sold were delivered to a common carrier or directly delivered outside of Florida. During the audit period, Petitioner was engaged in the business of selling items of tangible personal property other than vehicles and jukeboxes. Petitioner failed to collect and remit sales tax on the sale of these items of tangible personal property. Respondent properly assessed Petitioner for sales tax due on tangible personal property other than vehicles and jukeboxes in the amount of $3,352.50. Vintage rented commercial real property for its business. Rental payments for such real property are subject to sales tax pursuant to Section 212.031. During the audit period, Petitioner failed to pay sales tax on two payments for the commercial rental of real property. Petitioner is liable for use tax on the use of real property during the audit period. Respondent properly assessed Petitioner for additional use tax in the amount of $108.00. Although Petitioner maintained some books and records of sales and purchases, Petitioner failed to maintain adequate records. Respondent properly conducted an audit by sampling Petitioner's available books and records in accordance with Section 212.12(6)(b) but limited the claimed penalty to a delinquent penalty. The trier of fact cannot determine the taxes, interest, and penalty that are due after eliminating the deficiencies found in paragraphs 21 and 24 not to exist in connection with the sales evidenced in Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 4, 6, 21, and 24 through 26. Only Respondent can make that calculation using the same sampling formula that Respondent used to calculate the tax, interest, and penalty in the assessment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order ordering Petitioner to pay the tax, interest, and penalty that is due after Respondent recalculates the assessment against Petitioner in accordance with the findings pertaining to Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 4, 6, 21, and 24 through 26. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Martha F. Barrera, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 R. John Cole, II, Esquire Law Offices of R. John Cole, II 46 North Washington Boulevard, Suite 24 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in this Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was licensed as a registered real estate broker in the State of Florida. In the early part of 1982, Respondent entered into a partnership agreement for the purchase and operation of the Cleveland Street Apartments with several individuals including Mr. Bradwell, Mr. Boulson, Mr. Crouse, and Mr. Tafton (sp). Respondent was to be managing partner because of his status as a real estate broker responsible for the operation of the facility and the payment of all expenses including taxes. Periodically, the Respondent would notify the other partners of the status of their investment. This generally indicated a negative cash flow and required additional contributions from the partners in order to meet the expenses incurred in the operation. Specifically, among the obligations to be paid were county real estate taxes for the years 1983 and 1984. In response to Respondent's notification to the partners of the taxes due, each partner periodically forwarded his pro rata share of the expenses, including taxes, to the Respondent with the anticipation that these expenses would be met and the taxes would be paid. As it happened, however, when Mr. Boulson, one of the partners, went to the Palm Beach County Court House at some time in 1985 to inquire as to what the taxes for that year would be, he was advised that the 1983 and 1984 real property taxes on the property had not been paid and were delinquent. This came as a complete surprise to him, and he and the other partners were required to contribute additional funds to pay both the 1983 and 1984 property taxes and the interest accrued thereon. Respondent admits that he did not pay the 1983 and 1984 taxes as they were due. He contends, however, that because of the fact that the apartment was operated with a negative cash flow, and because of the fact that the other partners repeatedly made their makeup contributions after the fact and slowly, he was forced to advance the money for other expenses as far as he could and utilized the money when paid by the other partners for taxes, to make up the other expense shortfall that he could not or did not make. Respondent contends that if the other partners had paid their assessments in a timely fashion, the other bills could have been paid on time and it would not have been necessary for him to utilize the money contributed for tax payments for the payment of these other expenses. This argument is without merit. The accountant's testimony clearly shows that sufficient money was paid in by the partners to pay the expenses and that the inflow/outflow was in balance, assuming the taxes had been paid on time as required. The evidence is overwhelming that Respondent was derelict in his responses to his partners and in his availability to them when they attempted to contact him regarding apartment business. In addition, Mr. Sonderholm, the individual from whom Respondent and the other partners bought the property, and who held a purchase money mortgage on it, indicates that for the first year, Respondent faithfully made the mortgage payments on time. However, thereafter, he began to be delinquent in the payments and on at least five occasions, issued checks in payment of the monthly mortgage payment which were returned dishonored for non-sufficient funds. Each of these checks was in an amount in excess of two thousand dollars. Toward the end of the relationship, in August, 1985, Respondent submitted his last property operating statement to the partners which showed a net operating loss in excess of $800.00 for the period covered, along with a request that that sum be forwarded to Respondent for reimbursement of expenses. By the admission of Mr. Bradwell, this money was not paid to the Respondent because it was extremely difficult to contact him and repeated efforts by phone, mail, and in person at his office were unsuccessful. By this time, however, the property was being managed for the partnership by a different management agent and after Respondent stopped handling the property for the partnership, he was no longer furnished any statements regarding the partnership operations though he was officially still a partner. This was because, according to Mr. Bradwell, it was impossible to reach Respondent and no one knew where he was. There is, however, a letter from Mrs. Crouse, dated in October, 1985, which is addressed to Respondent at his address of record which he received. There is also evidence to indicate that other letters sent to him at this address by certified mail were returned undelivered. These letters were not offered into evidence, however, and there is no way to know if the nondelivery was due to an inadequate address or whether Respondent refused delivery. Respondent was not furnished tax form K-1 for his share of the partnership for 1985 in early 1986 because the other partners felt, after consultation with their attorney, that his unavailability, coupled with his failure to properly manage the funds of the partnership and his alleged misapplication thereof was sufficient to deprive him of his partnership interest. There is no evidence to indicate that Respondent failed to make 1985 tax payments as required. In 1984, Respondent entered into a partnership with James M. VanSleet to purchase and operate an apartment building in Lake Worth, Florida. Because Respondent was in the real estate brokerage business and operated a property management concern, he was given, as a part of his partnership function, the tasks of manager and rental agent for the building. This arrangement was, however, a partnership rather than a broker-client relationship. In his capacity as rental agent in May, 1984, Respondent rented a unit in the building to Anthony Grieco and received a check from Mr. Grieco in the amount of $900.00 which represented a $500.00 security deposit and the first month's rent in advance. Mr. Grieco occupied the premises until May, 1985 and upon moving out, requested that his security deposit be refunded. He was advised by the Respondent that an inspection was necessary and that if the inspection revealed no damage, the deposit would be refunded. Several days later, he was notified that the inspection was satisfactory and that the $500.00 would be refunded, however, repeated contacts both by Mr. Grieco and his father, as well as others on his behalf, failed to result in return of the deposit which has not been returned as of the date of hearing. In his efforts to secure the return of the deposit, Mr. Grieco was subjected to numerous delaying tactics such as being required to call back week after week because the refund check was not ready; a failure of Respondent to return calls left for him; and references to the other partner, Mr. VanSleet as the source of refund. Notwithstanding the fact that the $500.00 security deposit has not been returned to Mr. Grieco, there is no evidence as to what was done with it or whether it was misappropriated to Respondent's own use as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Toward the end of 1985, Mr. VanSleet turned the operation of this building over to another rental agent. At that time, he had received several requests for the return of deposits which had been paid to Respondent and which Respondent had failed to reimburse. Mr. VanSleet's practice was to allow the tenant to remain an extra month in the unit without rent rather than pay back the cash deposit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a registered real estate broker in Florida be suspended for a period of two years; that he be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Division of Real Estate his continuing education in the ethics of the real estate profession; and that he pay an administrative fine of $2,500.00. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 John E. Knowles 755 Huff Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is engaged in the cattle business and sells its cattle to buyers from Florida and from outside Florida. All cattle are sold f.o.b. Clewiston and transportation to destination is paid for by the purchaser. It is the treatment of the sales as instate sales of cattle sold and transported to other states by contract carrier that is the issue in these proceedings. Respondent contends that these sales are instate sales but Petitioner contends that these sales are out-of-state sales for the purpose of computing the income derived from Florida operations pursuant to the provisions of Sections 214.71, 214.72 aud 214.73, Florida Statutes. Had the cattle been picked up by a common carrier for shipment outside Florida, Respondent could have held the sale to be an out-of-state sale for the purpose of computing the Petitioner's income tax. Because the cattle were picked up by contract carrier, Respondent determined the sale to be instate and directed its auditors to so conclude on all audits. This directive was determined to be a rule in case No. 78-1891R and invalid because not promulgated pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 210, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The facets herein are undisputed. On May 31, 1973 Petitioner purchased Thomas Concrete Company, and on February 28, 1973 Petitioner purchased Kelly Builders, Inc. Both companies were forthwith liquidated and federal income tax returns were filed in which depreciation in excess of fair value of the properties was recaptured for federal tax purposes. In his state corporate income tax returns Petitioner claimed deduction for that portion of the recaptured depreciation which occured prior to November 2, 1971, the effective date of the Florida Corporate Income Tax Statute. These deductions were disallowed by the Department of Revenue, that portion of the tax relating to Thomas Concrete Company was paid under protest, the portion relating to Kelly Builders, Inc. was not paid, and this petition was filed. In 1974 Petitioner sold real property on which it made a substantial capital gain. In computing its federal income tax the full capital gain was reported. However, that portion of its capital gain accruing prior to November 2, 1971 was excluded from its Florida corporate income tax and the assessment of $50,494.75 was levied against Petitioner by Respondent, Department of Revenue for the full amount of the capital gain as income received in 1974. The two issues here involved are whether Petitioner is taxable under Chapter 220 F.S. on depreciation taken prior to the effective date of Chapter 220, and subsequently recaptured, and whether Petitioner is taxable under Chapter 220, F.S. for the full amount of capital gain realized on property held prior to the effective date of Chapter 220 where part of appreciation occurred prior to the effective date of the Florida Corporate Income Tax law.
