The Issue Broadly stated, the issue in this proceeding the validity of the proposed deficiency in petitioner's corporate income in the amount of $25,712.80 for the 1972 fiscal year. More specifically, the issue is whether Florida may lawfully tax for the gain it realized on the sale of securities in the of $941,418.00. Included within this issue is the question of whether the apportionment formula set forth in Florida Statutes is applicable to petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the pleadings, the stipulations the parties and the record in this proceeding, the following relevant During the calendar year 1972, petitioner was a foreign " Corporation subject to the Florida Corporate Income Tax, imposed Chapter 220, Florida Statutes. Petitioner also operated a business in St. Louis, Missouri. January 1, 1972, petitioner held a 95 percent interest in Bal Harbour Joint Venture, which owned and operated the Ivanhoe Hotel and Restaurant in Bal Harbour, Florida. On December 15, 1972, petitioner was the sole owner of the Ivanhoe Hotel and Restaurant. November 16, 1972, the petitioner acquired by merger 100 percent interest in the Clearwater Beach Hilton, a motel and restaurant business located in Clearwater, Florida, and continued to own this interest on December 31, 1972. The Clearwater and Ivanhoe hotel and restaurant businesses in Florida and the petitioner's business in Missouri have separate, individual general managers. There is no central purchasing by the hotels and no centralized operating records are maintained by petitioner. There are no central reservation services available between the hotels and the hotels advertise separately and unilaterally in local publications in the cities in which they are located. No standardized product lines exist. On November 2, 1972, petitioner sold certain securities which resulted in a realized gain to petitioner for federal income tax purposes of $941,418.00. Said securities were purchased, located and sold in the State of Missouri, and had no relationship to petitioner's Florida transactions. Petitioner timely filed its 1972 Florida corporate income tax return on which it subtracted from its federal taxable income the gain realized from the sale of the securities. Its "Florida net income" and its "total tax due" were thus reported as "none." On or about May 8, 1974, respondent advised petitioner of a proposed deficiency in petitioner's 1972 tax in the amount of $29,392.00. In accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes Sec. 214.11, petitioner timely filed with respondent its protest of the proposed deficiency assessment. After a hearing, respondent issued to petitioner its Notice of Decision in which the proposed, deficiency was reduced to $25,712.80, and the reasons therefor were set forth. Petitioner requested reconsideration by respondent. On March 11, 1975, the parties stipulated that further proceedings in this cause would be, processed under the Florida Administrative Procedures Act. The petition for hearing was forwarded by respondent to the Division of Administrative Hearings, the undersigned was duly assigned as the Hearing Officer.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that: the proposed deficiency assessment in the amount of $25,712.80 be vacated and set aside; and The respondent permit petitioner to file an amended 1972 return utilizing, within the discretion of the respondent, the employment of either separate accounting, a monthly averaging formula or another method which would effectuate an equitable apportionment of petitioner's income to the State of Florida. Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Pleasants Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings and Evans Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601 Louis de la Parte, Jr. 725 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Patricia S. Turner Assistant General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Petitioner's challenge to the Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, that was filed by the Respondent March 13, 1978. A copy of the Notice of Proposed Assessment together with the attendant work papers may be found as the Respondent's composite Exhibit #3, admitted into evidence. (By stipulation of the parties, in view of certain evidence presented by the Petitioner in the course of the hearing a First Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest under Chapter 212. Florida Statutes, has been filed and it is this First Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest which is in dispute between the parties. A copy of the First Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest, dated October 17, 1978 may be found as Hearing Officer's composite Exhibit #1, admitted Info evidence. That composite exhibit contains the First Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment, together with the applicable work sheets and Petitioner's Exhibits #1 through 3, admitted into evidence in the course of the hearing. These Petitioner's exhibits are those referred to as constituting the basis of the stipulation previously mentioned.) The Petitioner is registered with the State of Florida, Department of Revenue as a wholesale business, for purposes of Florida taxes. A copy of the certificate which shows this regis- tration may be found as Respondent's Exhibit #1 admitted into evidence. The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Revenue is an agency of the State of Florida that audits business record, to include the Petitioner's records. Specifically, in this instance, an audit was conducted in accordance with Chapter 21, Florida Statutes, to ascertain whether or not the Petitioner was responsible for the payment of sales and use tax under the authority of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. The tax examiner assigned to conduct the audit was carrying out that function as a follow-up to an audit performed on a business known as Quail Ridge located in Delray Beach, Florida. The audit of Quail Ridge led the Respondent to believe that the Petitioner had made certain retail sales to Quail Ridge without collecting sales tax. If this were true, then the Petitioner would become responsible for the payment of those sales taxes under the provision of Section 212.07(2), Florida Statutes. There ensued an audit of the Petitioner's books and records, which were constituted of certain bank statements and a ledger book together with invoices and signed resale certificates that were made available. In the course of this audit process, the Petitioner was allowed a period of two months within which time to collect certain invoices and signed resale certificates. The significance of the invoices and resale certificates was, assuming the sales had been made for purposes of resale; thereby constituting a wholesale transaction, no sales tax would be due because the collection of that sales tax would become the responsibility of the purchaser who had obtained the item from the Petitioner in a wholesale transaction. That purchaser would become the "dealer", within the meaning of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and therefore would be responsible for the collection of the sales tax upon a further sale to a third party in a retail transaction. After the Petitioner had been given time to establish those wholesale transactions in his flower business and given credit for certain months in which no business income was gained, the calculations were made by the tax examiner of the Respondent and the March 13, 1978, Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, was issued. This Notice of Proposed Assessment taxed the Petitioner for all business transactions arising from the sale of flowers which could not be established as exempt sales in the capacity of a wholesaler. (This requirement for the establishment of an exemption by the proof of the petitioner is found in Chapter 212, Florida Statute and in accordance with Rule 12A-1.38, Florida Administrative Code.) After the Notice of Proposed Assessment of March 13, 1978, had been served on the Petitioner, an informal conference was held between the tax examiner and the petitioner. This conference was held on April 26, 1978, and at that time the Petitioner offered to introduce further invoices and resale certificates. Brandjes claimed that these invoices and resale certificates established further exemptions. The invoices and resale certificates were not accepted at that time because the tax examiner felt that the case was to be submitted for formal hearing and he was not of the opinion that he could make further adjustments to the proposed assessment at that juncture. The same invoices and resale certificates which were of fered at the April 26, 1978 conference were produced in the course of the hearing before the undersigned. After such production, the Exhibits, 1 through 3, were submitted to the Respondent's tax examiner for review to establish possible further reduction of the proposed assessment, through the process of showing other exempt sales, or wholesale transaction. That review led to the First Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of October 17, 1978, which reduces the amount of tax, penalties and interest claimed by the Respondent. The amount claimed, effective October 17, 1978, was $3,129.77. This included tax, penalties and interest computed to that date. The audit period is November 1, 1974 through October, 1978. The Petitioner in this cause has pled ignorance to the requirements of law in the question of collecting sales and use taxes under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and the necessity to establish exempt sales which were made as wholesale transactions. He makes his contention premised upon the belief that his registration as an inactive business relieved him of the necessity to collect the taxes and to establish an exemption from tax. Notwithstanding this belief on the part of the Petitioner, it is clear that Chapter 212, Florida Statutes through its provisions places an obligation on the Petitioner to collect sales and use taxes for a retail transaction and the failure to meet that obligation places the responsibility for that payment of sales and use taxes on business transactions entered into by the Petitioner, with the Petitioner. This carries with it the potentiality of the assessment of penalties and interest for the failure to collect and remit those taxes under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. The only possibility to escape the payment of the sales and use taxes under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes exists with the ability of the Petitioner to establish that the sales were sales at wholesale and not taxable under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. To the extent that the Petitioner has established the exemptions in keeping with Chapter 212, Florida Statutes and Rule 12A-1.38, Florida Administrative Code, the Petitioner has been given credit for those exemptions. The balance of the sales transactions in the audit period November 1, 1974 through October 1978, as reflected in the First Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest, under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, becomes the responsibility of the Petitioner for his failure to collect the taxes for the sales. Therefore, the Petitioner is responsible for the payment of tax, penalties and interest through October 17, 1978 in an aggregate amount of $3,129.77.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, Jack Brandjes, d/b/a Jack's Flowers be required to pay the tax, penalties, add interest under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes in the amount of $3,129.77 as set forth in the October 17, 1978 First Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1978. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Brandjes c/o Jack's Flowers Ixora Market 4700 Canal 14 Road Lake Worth, Florida 33463 Cecil Davis, Esquire State of Florida Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Attorney, Division of Administration Department of Revenue Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue (DOR) has properly issued an assessment against Petitioner for sales and use tax, interest, and penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida resident. In 1996, Petitioner began doing business as a sole proprietor under the name of "Duraline Industries" and registered with DOR as a sales tax dealer. Later, this entity was called "Dura Steel." Petitioner also operated as a corporation, Steel Engineered Design Systems, Inc. Petitioner's Florida sales tax numbers are 42-11-009271-63 and 40-00-003416- For purposes of these consolidated cases, Petitioner has been audited and charged individually as "Charles R. Bielinski," because the audit revealed that no checks were made out to the corporation(s) and that the monies received were received by Mr. Bielinski as a sole proprietor in one or more "doing business as" categories. Petitioner engaged in the business of fabricating items of tangible personal property, i.e., prefabricated steel buildings, many of which later became improvements to real property in Florida. Petitioner used some of the steel buildings in the performance of real property contracts by installing the buildings as improvements to real property. Petitioner also engaged in the business of selling buildings and steel component parts such as sheets and trim in Florida. Petitioner sold buildings and component parts in over- the-counter retail sales, also. On October 7, 2002, DOR issued Petitioner a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records for the period of September 1, 1999 through August 31, 2002. This audit was assigned number AO226920428. In 2002, Petitioner provided DOR's auditor with his sales activity records, such as contracts and job information. A telephone conversation/interview of Petitioner was conducted by the auditor. Over a period of several months, the auditor attempted to get Petitioner to provide additional records, but none were forthcoming. DOR deemed the contracts and job information provided by Petitioner to be an incomplete record of his sales activity for the audit period. Petitioner claimed that most of his sales activity records had been lost or destroyed. Due to the absence of complete records, DOR sampled Petitioner's available records and other information related to his sales in order to conduct and complete its audit. Petitioner purchased materials used to fabricate his steel buildings. Petitioner sometimes would erect the buildings on real property. Petitioner fabricated main frames for smaller buildings at a shop that he maintained at the Bonifay Airport. Otherwise, Petitioner subcontracted with like companies to fabricate main frames for larger buildings. Petitioner made some sales to exempt buyers, such as religious institutions and government entities. When he purchased the materials he used to fabricate the buildings, Petitioner occasionally provided his vendors with his resale certificate, in lieu of paying sales tax. Petitioner did not pay sales tax on the materials he purchased to fabricate buildings when such buildings were being fabricated for exempt buyers such as churches and governmental entities. On June 23, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (Form DR-840), for audit number AO226920428, covering the period of November 1, 1997 through August 31, 2002. DOR has assessed Petitioner sales tax on the buildings, sheets, and trim he sold over-the-counter in Florida. DOR has assessed Petitioner use tax on sales of the materials used in performing real property contracts in Florida. The auditor calculated a method of estimating taxes based on the limited documentation that had been provided by Petitioner. She used a sampling method based on Petitioner's contract numbering system; isolated the Florida contracts; and divided the Florida contracts between the actual sale of tangible property (sale of just the buildings themselves) and real property contracts (where Petitioner not only provided the building but also provided installation or erection services). The auditor scheduled the real property contracts and assessed only the material amounts as taxable in Florida. Since she had only 19 out of 47 probable contracts, or 40 percent, she projected up to what the taxable amount should be and applied the sales tax and surtax at the rate of seven percent, as provided by law. She then divided that tax for the entire audit period by the 58 months in the audit period, to arrive at a monthly tax amount. This monthly tax amount was broken out into sales and discretionary sales tax. Florida levies a six percent State sales tax. Each county has the discretion to levy a discretionary sales tax. Counties have similar discretion as to a surtax. The auditor determined that Petitioner collected roughly $22,000.00 dollars in tax from one of his sales tax registrations which had not been remitted to DOR. During the five-year audit period, Petitioner only remitted tax in May 1998. DOR gave Petitioner credit for the taxes he did remit to DOR during the audit period. The foregoing audit processes resulted in the initial assessment(s) of August 28, 2003, which are set out in Findings of Fact 25-31, infra. On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR-832/833), for additional discretionary surtax, in the sum of $2,582.19; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $782.55; and penalty, in the sum of $1,289.91; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.50 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0008) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional sales and use tax in the sum of $154,653.32; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $50,500.06; and penalty, in the sum of $77,324.54, plus additional interest that accrues at $31.54 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0009) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional local governmental infrastructure surtax, in the sum of $7,001.82; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $2,352.09; and penalty in the sum of $3,497.35; plus additional interest that accrues at $1.45 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0010) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional indigent care surtax, in the sum of $513.08; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $156.33; and penalty, in the sum of $256.24; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.10 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0011) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional school capital outlay surtax in the sum of $3,084.49; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $922.23; and penalty, in the sum of $1,540.98; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.60 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0012) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional charter transit system surtax, in the sum of $2,049.22; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $766.07; and penalty, in the sum of $1,023.27; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.46 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0013) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), additional small county surtax, in the sum of $10,544.51; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $3,437.85; and penalty in the sum of $5,282.30; plus additional interest that accrues at $2.15 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0014) However, the auditor testified at the May 13, 2004, hearing that she attended Petitioner's deposition on March 18, 2004. At that time, Petitioner provided additional documentation which permitted the auditor to recalculate the amount of tax due. The auditor further testified that she separated out the contracts newly provided at that time and any information which clarified the prior contracts she had received. She then isolated the contracts that would affect the Florida taxes due. Despite some of the new information increasing the tax on some of Petitioner's individual Florida contracts, the result of the auditor's new review was that overall, the contracts, now totaling 33, resulted in a reduction in total tax due from Petitioner. These changes were recorded in Revision No. 1 which was attached to the old June 23, 2003, Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, which was sent by certified mail to Petitioner. The certified mail receipt was returned to DOR as unclaimed. The auditor's calculations reducing Petitioner's overall tax are set out in Respondent's Exhibit 16 (Revision No. 1). That exhibit appears to now show that taxes are owed by Petitioner as follows in Findings of Fact 34-40 infra. For DOAH Case No. 04-0008, discretionary surtax (tax code 013), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $1,937.37, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0009, sales and use tax (tax code 010), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $111,811.04, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0010, local governmental infrastructure surtax (tax code 016), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $5,211.00, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0011, indigent care surtax (tax code 230), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $317.39, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0012, school capital outlay tax (tax code 530), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $2,398.68, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0013, charter transit system surtax (tax code 015), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $1,558.66, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0014, small county surtax (tax code 270), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $7,211.83, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order upholding the amount of tax calculated against Petitioner in its June 21, 2003, Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, Revision No. 1, in the principal amounts as set forth in Findings of Fact Nos. 34-40, plus interest and penalty accruing per day as provided by law, until such time as the tax is paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 2004.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Florida Welding Services Corp., is a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida. The Respondent, Florida Department of Revenue, is the agency charged with enforcing the taxing statutes of this State, including the Florida Income Tax Code, Chapter 220, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Chapter 220, Florida Statutes, the Petitioner is required to file a Florida Corporate Income Tax Return annually with the Respondent. The Return is due on the first day of the fourth month after the close of the tax year. The Petitioner's tax year for 1977 was April 1, 1976, through March 31, 1977. The Florida Corporation Income Tax Return for the 1977 tax year was due on July 1, 1977, and the Petitioner failed to file its Return by this date. The Petitioner's tax year for 1978 was April 1, 1977, through March 31, 1978. The Florida Corporation Income Tax Return for the 1978 tax year was due on July 1, 1978, and the Petitioner failed to file its Return by this date. In January 1977, all of the Petitioner's corporate records were seized, pursuant to a subpoena issued in the United States Federal District Court in and for the Southern District of Florida. (See Exhibit 1) The Petitioner's records were not returned to it for over a year. On September 15, 1978, the Petitioner filed a Tentative Income Tax Return and Application for Extension of Time to File Income Tax Return, wherein Petitioner requested an extension of time until November 15, 1978, in which to file its Florida income tax return for the 1977 and 1978 tax years. (See Exhibit 2) On October 5, 1978, the Department of Revenue denied the Petitioner's request for an extension of time on grounds that the request had been filed after the respective due dates of July 1, 1977, and July 1, 1978. (See Exhibit 2) On November 16, 1978, the Department of Revenue received Petitioner's Florida Corporation Income Tax Returns for the tax years 1977 and 1978. The Petitioner also remitted the tax it believed owing for each taxable year, $3,734.96 for 1977 and $6,803.56 for 1978. On February 2, 1979, the Department of Revenue, Corporate Income Tax Bureau, issued a Delinquent Notice of Tax Due to the Petitioner. The Notice indicated that the Petitioner had a balance due of $1,547.28 for the tax year ending March 31, 1977, which amount represented $933.74 penalty and $613.54 interest. (See Exhibit 3) On February 5, 1979, the Department of Revenue, Corporate Income Tax Bureau, issued a Delinquent Notice of Tax Due to the Petitioner. The Notice indicated that the Petitioner had a balance due of $1,986.43 for the tax year ending March 31, 1978, which amount represented $1,700.89 penalty and $285.54 interest. (See Exhibit 4) On March 15, 1979, Mr. Karl J. Leib, Jr., contacted the Department of Revenue on behalf of his client, the' Petitioner, requesting the Department to delay in issuing any tax warrants against the Petitioner until Mr. Leib had an opportunity to communicate with someone from the Department. (See Exhibit 5) A follow-up letter was sent by Mr. Leib to the Department on June 8, 1979. (See Exhibit 6) On April, 23, 1980, the Department of Revenue issued to the Petitioner a Final Notice and Demand for payment in the amount of $1,547.28. (See Exhibit 7) Although no Final Notice and Demand for payment in the amount of $1,986.43 was issued by the Department, the amount is still outstanding and the Department maintains that Petitioner owes this sum as well. It is the Petitioner's position that its inability to timely file its Florida Corporate Income Tax Returns was entirely due to factors beyond its control, i.e., the confiscation of its corporate records. The Petitioner maintains that it should not be assessed penalty and interest for late filing, as its failure to timely file was "due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect," as is provided for in Section 214.40(1), Florida Statutes. The Department's position is twofold. First, the Petitioner's failure to make a timely request for extension of time in which to file its return does constitute willful neglect. Second, that while Section 214.40(1), Florida Statutes, may provide the Department with some discretion in assessing penalties, there is no comparable provision for modifying interest payments and such amount is absolutely mandated by the statute for any late filed returns. In addition to the foregoing, along with the attached Exhibits, the undersigned hereby incorporate by reference and jointly offer as evidence those Exhibits attached to Petitioner's Request for Formal Proceedings. WHEREFORE, both parties respectfully request the Hearing Officer to consider the foregoing facts and exhibits, along with a Memoranda of Law to be filed by each party within 10 days of the filing of this Joint Stipulation, and to issue his Recommended Order, without the necessity of holding a formal hearing.
The Issue What, if any, is Petitioner's tax liability to the State of Florida, after any legitimate tax credits are applied, for June 1998 through December 1998?
Findings Of Fact During the period of June 1998 through September 1998, Petitioner Ron Ross Meardy operated a used car lot from a location in Duval County, Florida, to wit: 1400 Mayport Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida, 32233-3440. Mr. Meardy conducted business through a sole proprietorship named Auto Liquidation Center (ALC). Mr. Meardy's business included both retail sales and wholesale sales of motor vehicles. Between June 1998 and December 1998, Mr. Meardy was a registered dealer with DOR. Mr. Meardy's sales tax registration number was 26-02-151942-23/4, which registration number pertains to the Mayport location in Duval County, Florida. Mr. Meardy filed State of Florida Sales and Use Tax returns, standard form DR-15, for each month between December 1997 through May 1998. In so doing, he relied entirely on his employees. Mr. Meardy also filed State of Florida Solid Waste returns, standard form DR-15SW, for each month between December 1997 through May 1998. In so doing, he relied entirely on his employees. In September 1998, Mr. Meardy opened a car lot in St. Augustine, St. John's County, Florida and closed the Duval County car lot. Mr. Meardy filed no DR-15 (sales tax) forms for the period of June 1998 through December 1998. Mr. Meardy filed no DR-15SW (waste tax) forms for the period of June 1998 through December 1998. Mr. Meardy asserted that he did not know that his employees had made a lot of bad loans or failed to file tax returns for June 1998 through September 1998. Mr. Meardy admitted that from September to December 1998, he deliberately filed no tax returns. First, he claimed he did not file returns because there were no taxable sales made in that period. Then, he asserted that he did not file because, in an unrelated matter, the Florida Attorney General's Office, investigating several businesses "run" by him, held necessary business documents from October 27, 1998 until December 11, 1998 (+/- 45 days). Mr. Meardy's credible testimony that he did not have his business records from October 27, 1998 to December 1998 was unrefuted. As a result of Mr. Meardy's not having filed any DR-15 and DR-15SW forms for the period of June 1998 through December 1998, DOR filed a sales and solid waste tax warrant against him dated March 30, 1999, for $11,937.86. As permitted by law, this audit/warrant merely estimated Mr. Meardy's liability. Mr. Meardy did not then file formal tax returns, file a formal request for an alleged credit (DR-95 form), or provide DOR access to his business records so that DOR could make an accurate assessment/audit/warrant for any tax, penalty, interest, and/or credit. Instead, he timely-filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing on May 28, 1999. The Petition for Administrative Hearing, dated May 21 and filed May 28, 1999, was the first written expression by which Petitioner alerted DOR that he was seeking a tax credit due to repossessions he claimed to have made on defaulted loans. The Petition only stated that DOR "owes ALC money due to repossession credits." The Petition does not contain all of the information required by rule or by the standard credit claim form DR-95B. Petitioner had, in the past, applied for credit for tax paid on repossessed items by attaching the DR-95B form to his monthly tax returns (P-3). He maintained he had relied on his employees for this function. Petitioner's credible testimony that the Attorney General again held some of his documents from the end of May 1999, until September 30, 1999 (+/-five months), due to an unrelated matter, was unrefuted. However, at no time did Petitioner ever file a formal request for credit (form DR-95B) or any tax returns for the period at issue in this proceeding. Only during the course of discovery in the instant proceeding, which discovery Petitioner resisted by every legal means, did it become clear that Petitioner was claiming a tax credit from his May 1998 sales tax return, and that the credit he sought was in excess of the tax he had paid by way of his May 1998 tax return. Only during the discovery process herein did Petitioner provide DOR with any information concerning repossession and default amounts that he was claiming. He did this by producing a "database" (DOR-4). It is unclear from the evidence at hearing when this information was provided, but the date Petitioner claims in his Proposed Findings of Fact to have first produced DOR-4 is February 10, 2000. Petitioner also claims to have given someone at DOR a computer disc with his supporting information, but no DOR witness confirmed this. Petitioner produced no such disc at hearing. Exhibit DOR-4 did not provide the vehicle registration number as part of the property description, the date the sales and use tax was paid, the purchase price less trade-in, the purchase price less cash down, or the actual date of repossession. A copy of each invoice supporting each repossession was not attached. Petitioner did not submit any tax return with DOR-4. Petitioner admits that DOR-4 does not contain all of the information required by the tax credit claim form, DR-95B. DOR revised its assessment once, based on the information Petitioner was required to produce in this proceeding. DOR revised its assessment a second time as a result of the information Mr. Meardy provided in the course of his deposition taken January 19, 2001, approximately a week-and- a-half before final hearing. As agreed-to within the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, the revised assessment figure in this case is now limited to $2626.31 sales tax, $1313.40 penalty, and $75.35 interest, for a total of $4735.56, as of January 31, 2001. If the foregoing base amounts are, in fact, owed, penalties and interest continue to accrue, pursuant to statute. In making the final audit/assessment/warrant, DOR's Auditor IV, Thelmesia Whitfield, used original materials supplied by Petitioner. From these, she took the actual amounts Petitioner had listed on his dated invoices and other original records as the tax he collected for June 1998 through December 1998. She then calculated the sales tax due, but not remitted, for that period. In so doing, she determined that no additional taxes were due for the months of August 1998 through December 1998. She also concluded that for Petitioner's sales in June and July 1998, a penalty should be assessed at the legal rate of 10% per month on a cumulative basis up to 50% and interest should be assessed at the legal rate of 12% per year or 1% per month on the cumulative balance that is due. Petitioner's solid waste fee liability was calculated by Ms. Whitfield on the basis of the dated sales invoices provided by Petitioner where he had charged fees for tire and battery disposal. Ms. Whitfield's calculations did not include transactions without invoices or other original records. She noted that on several transactions Petitioner had collected more solid waste tax than was required, and she concluded that once collected, those amounts should be remitted to DOR unless they had been refunded to the customer. She calculated local option taxes at the applicable rate for Duval County. Ms. Whitfield's re-calculations do not reflect credits for the repossessions shown on DOR-4, because no state tax returns were filed from June through December 1998, because all the necessary information had not been provided, and because she believed the information on DOR-4 had been provided beyond the period available to claim repossession credits, which is 13 months after the repossession takes place. Ms. Whitfield's re-calculations also do not include credits for worthless accounts orally claimed by Petitioner in the course of his January 19, 2001, deposition or which he urges that she extrapolate from DOR-4, because Petitioner did not also provide either federal tax returns or equivalent financial statements as required by law. Because Petitioner was asking for a refund of more than he said he had paid, and because the sales he was referencing took place before the period being audited, Ms. Whitfield had no way to verify that the amount of sales tax actually had been paid. Therefore, Ms. Whitfield only used DOR-4 where there was a question as to whether a sale had taken place at all. Although DOR-4 is merely a summary, because it was produced by Petitioner and listed sales dates, she used it only as his admission that certain questionable sales had, in fact, taken place. Accordingly, it is found that DOR has not relied on estimations based on prior sales outside the time frame audited, but has made its final assessment (DOR Composite Exhibit 3) upon reasonable documentation provided by Petitioner, which documentation he represented as being accurate to the best of his ability. It is further found that DOR applied defineable legal standards. Petitioner essentially challenges DOR's last assessment/audit/warrant because Ms. Whitfield did not use DOR-4 to assign him a credit or off-set. He seeks to have the undersigned relate, according to his theory of repossession/default credits, DOR's final assessment reflected in DOR's audit report and work papers (DOR Composite Exhibit 3); DOR-4, Petitioner's "database"; and Petitioner's Exhibits 1-3 so as to determine Petitioner's sales tax and solid waste liability for the June 1998 through December 1998 period, and to thereby assign him a credit against his May 1998 tax return and payment (P-3). Petitioner's theory is based on his representation that his database (DOR-4) uses the first time he received money from each sale of a vehicle as the date of the sale/transaction, even though his own invoices and other original supporting data which he provided to DOR, showed different dates as the date of each sale. Then, he asserts that where vehicles have been repossessed, or where a sale has not "gone through," or where a loan has been defaulted (presumably even without repossession, of the car, although this is unclear), a credit should be related back to his May 1998, tax return (P-3). His argument and evidence are not persuasive for the following reasons. At the outset, it is noted that Petitioner's credit claim in excess of $12,000, is more than the tax Petitioner paid in May 1998, as reflected on Exhibit P-3. Likewise, although Petitioner's invoice used in Ms. Whitfield's calculations recorded a sale on June 22, 1998, to Lori Armstrong at $1500.00, Petitioner, without any supporting evidence, asserted at hearing that this sale actually was made on June 23, 1998, and that someone stole $500.00 of the tendered price, so he should pay tax, if at all, on a sale of only $1,000. He had a similar unsupported reason for attempting to reduce, by $100.00, the sales price on another invoice amount for Randy Davis, which invoice Ms. Whitfield had utilized. Petitioner also claimed, at hearing, again with no supporting evidence, that invoices he had previously produced and which were relied upon by Ms. Whitfield for customers Crumley, Mosley, and Lebourgeois "did not go through," and therefore he should not be liable for sales tax on these invoices. He asserted that since DOR could not find any title at the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) for these customers, the inference must be drawn that those sales never closed and therefore no sales tax on them is owed by him. Petitioner also claimed at hearing that the Lebourgeois sale had resulted in a repossession. At hearing, Petitioner admitted liability for a $1,000 sale to a customer Millwater, but claimed that a credit from May 1998 would cover it, without any clear explanation of how this should occur. Petitioner maintained at hearing, again only because no title in that name had been located at the DHSMV, that an invoice of September 14, 1998, to a customer Wilkerson for $200 meant that the sale to Wilkerson was an out-of-state sale, and therefore no tax was owed. In his Proposed Findings of Fact, Petitioner does not address theft as an alleged reason he did not collect the full amounts shown on his invoices (see Finding of Fact 35), but he does seek a tax credit for all sales where no title was found at DHSMV and discusses at least the Crumley, Mosley, and Lebourgeois transactions as a source of these alleged "credits," sometimes for months in which he did not file any tax return. He also addressed customers Varner, Bailey, Little, Wright, Emanual, Lanier, Maynard, Porter, Williams, Arenas, Bays, Beasley, Butt, Carvey, Catlin, Chapman, Clendenin, Cunningham, Forbes, Catina Friend, Gonzalez, Knight, Lloyd, Owens, Strickland, Daniels, Johnson, and McDade, whose names and information (except for Bailey) appear on DOR-4, Petitioner's database, as repossessions or defaulted loans. Bailey appears on DOR-4 but in a different portion of DOR-4. (See Finding of Fact 47). The two biggest problems with Petitioner's theory are that he submitted no evidence to affirmatively demonstrate that any vehicle was repossessed, and Exhibit P-3 does not allow the undersigned any way of determining which vehicle sales were included in the May 1998 tax paid. Exhibit P-3 does provide information as to the repossessions claimed in May 1998 for previous months' sales, but it does not itemize or identify May 1998 sales upon which the tax was being paid in that month. Simply testifying that a repossession or default occurred and that someone entered that information into Petitioner's database (DOR-4) is not competent and credible proof that repossession occurred. In light of Petitioner's testimony that he relied on unreliable and dishonest employees to handle both his sales and tax matters at the Duval County office and without any explanation or documentation of how repossessions or loan defaults were handled from either of his business locations, the undersigned is left with the sense that Petitioner had neither hands-on experience with the listed repossessions nor with the subsequent entries of repossessions and/or loan defaults into his database. Although Petitioner has made a logical argument for "starting at ground zero" with regard to his May 1998 tax return, without more than is in evidence here, vehicles allegedly sold prior to June 1998 cannot be related to vehicles allegedly repossessed after June 1998 by way of the May 1998 tax return (P-3). (See Findings of Fact 21 and 41.) The absence of a title of registration in a given individual's name, without more, is not sufficient to infer that a sale was not consummated or that there had been an out-of- state sale. If the buyer had the duty to transfer title, failure of title proves nothing. If the dealer had the duty to transfer title, Petitioner's failure to transfer title does not automatically translate into a tax credit. The minimal documentation underlying DOR-4 which Petitioner offered (Exhibits P-1 and P-2), also is not persuasive of Petitioner's theory of the case, including but not limited to his suggestion that DOR is required to regard the sale date as being a date when money allegedly was first received, instead of the dates of sale on his invoices or other underlying documentation. It seems undisputed that "Ralston Varner" and "Varner Dean" are the same customer, full name "Ralston Dean Varner." Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is a receipt showing a payment by Ralston Varner for an "'88 Chevy Caviler" [sic] and is dated May 1, 1998, which is the date Petitioner claims to be the completion of sale date. By Petitioner's theory, sales tax on this purchase should have been included in his May 1998 tax return, entitling him to receive a tax credit upon repossession of this or some other vehicle. This cannot be determined from the tax return (P-3). Exhibit DOR-6 is a composite exhibit concerning a sale to Ralson Varner. Those pages preceding the page titled "Certification," dated July 19, 1998, were produced by Mr. Meardy at his office. The materials following the certification constitute a DHSMV "body jacket." The first page of DOR-6 reveals "6-10-98," as the date of the used car order, but pertains to a "1989 Ford T-Bird." The twelfth page, the "Installment Sale Contract-Motor Vehicle," is dated June 10, 1998, and also relates to a 1989 Ford "T-Bird." DOR's final audit refers to a 1989 Ford Thunderbird sold to "Varner Dean," not an '88 Chevy Cavalier, as urged by Petitioner. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 shows two receipts from Dennis Bailey, one on May 26, 1998 and one on June 2, 1998. Petitioner maintained that the sale in question went through on May 26, 1998, the sales tax was remitted on his May 1998 tax return, and the car was later repossessed. The May 1998 tax return (P-3) does not help decipher this. A Dennis Bailey appears on DOR-4 as of May 26, 1998, in relation to a Ford Taurus, but it is not one of the transactions Petitioner has singled out by the hand- written notations on DOR-4 as being defaulted or repossessed. Exhibit DOR-5 is a composite exhibit concerning the sale to Dennis Bailey which Ms. Whitfield audited. Those pages preceding the page titled "Certification," dated July 19, 1999, were produced by Petitioner. The materials following the certification constitute a DHSMV "body jacket." Exhibit DOR-5, page one, shows "June 2, 1998," as the date of the used car order. DOR-5, page 10, the fourth page following the certification, reveals the date of sale as "6-2-98," as reported to the DHSMV, both related to a 1988 Taurus. Under these circumstances, Petitioner's view of this sale cannot prevail. Also, Petitioner admitted that even by his theory and calculations, his May 1998 tax return was "off" by $1,007, and he had been unable to discover the reason (TR-103). Moreover, the evidence does not clearly establish that DOR-4 was presented to DOR within either 12 or 13 months of all the repossessions in question. (See Findings of Fact 19 and 21- 22.) Lastly, Petitioner did not present any evidence of refunds to customers of solid waste tax overpayments.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order finding Petitioner is liable for the amounts as set out in Finding of Fact 24, without any credits or set-offs, and providing for accruing interest and penalties, pursuant to law. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Ross Meardy Post Office Box 1853 St. Augustine, Florida 32085 Charles Catanzaro, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera, 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
The Issue Is the Respondent's assessment for corporate income tax and interest for the tax years ending 12/31/78, 12/31/79, and 12/31/80 appropriate, and may it be properly imposed upon Petitioner?
Findings Of Fact The instant dispute between the parties arose out of how the substantial business interests of Petitioner Murray Kramer Corp. are to be defined and by what accounting method its corporate income tax assessments are to be made. Milton P. Weiss, C.P.A., is Petitioner's accountant and qualified representative for purposes of this proceeding. He is neither an internal bookkeeper for the corporation nor a corporate officer thereof. At all times material, Petitioner was conducting business, deriving income, or existing within the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 220, F.S. Petitioner invests primarily through partnerships. Among Petitioner's holdings and investments is ownership of an orange grove in the State of Florida from which it derived income by way of the sales of citrus fruit grown in Florida during the taxable years at issue: 1978, 1979, and 1980. The orange grove constitutes real and tangible property in Florida for purposes of Florida's corporate income tax. Petitioner has consistently filed Florida corporate income tax returns on a "separate accounting" basis since the inception of Florida's Corporate Income Tax Law on January 1, 1972. Petitioner used this method for the years at issue: 1978, 1979, and 1980. It did so without petitioning the Respondent Department of Revenue for permission at or before the filing of the returns to use the "separate accounting" method to determine the Florida tax base. Accordingly, Petitioner did not receive prior written permission from the Department to use the "separate accounting" method for those years, and the Department did not require that the Petitioner use the "separate accounting" method in those years. Nonetheless, Petitioner asserts that its pattern of using the "separate accounting" method for six years put the Department on sufficient notice that the corporate taxpayer would continue to use that method indefinitely and further asserts that it was therefore entitled to use such a "separate accounting" method on the basis of its prior consistent usage. Petitioner's Florida corporate returns declare investment income from dividends, interest, gains from securities, partnership income, and income from its orange grove located in Florida. In each of the disputed tax years, Petitioner entered its federal taxable income on Line 1 of the Florida Corporation Income Tax Return, FORM F-1120. This amount is not at issue and is accepted as a "given" by both parties. However, in each of the disputed tax years, Petitioner did not complete the apportionment schedule on Page 3 of the respective returns. Instead of using the apportionment method, Petitioner computed what it characterized as "Florida Profit" or "Florida Income" on a schedule it attached, based totally on the profits it derived from the Florida orange grove and then inserted that amount on Line 6, Florida Portion of Adjusted Federal Income, of the "Computation of Florida Tax Liability" on the Florida return. This entry did not relate computationally to the amount of federal taxable income reported federally on Line 1. All gross receipts from the sale of citrus fruit by Petitioner were derived from sales made to Zellwood Fruit Distributors. This dollar amount is also undisputed. Petitioner received payment from its Florida orange grove operation in the form of checks drawn by Zellwood. Approximately June 20, 1983, Respondent Department of Revenue made an initial audit of Petitioner's books and records for the taxable years in question. Respondent's auditor assigned at that time had full and free access to Petitioner's books and records. He and his supervisor memorialized their view that the "separate accounting" method employed by Petitioner was proper, but this judgment call (by the auditor on June 29, 1983 and by his supervisor on July 1, 1983) was in the nature of free-form agency action and was neither accepted nor formalized by their superiors within the agency who ultimately determined that the Petitioner should have employed the "apportionment" method and that the burden was upon the Petitioner even under the apportionment method to establish that one hundred percent of its income was not derived in Florida. The Respondent Department therefore determined the tax owed by Petitioner upon the basis of 100% of Petitioner's income as opposed to the yearly percentages that Petitioner had unilaterally assigned to its orange grove, and issued its Revised Notice of Intent to Make Corporate Income Tax Audit Changes on November 7, 1983. Florida's apportionment formula is a three-factor function which takes selected business activities of the taxpayer and computes the portion of that activity attributable to Florida, divided by that activity everywhere. A composite of the subtotal of those three measures (payroll, sales, and property) of business activity are used to compute Florida's share of the "everywhere" base that would be available under the adjusted federal taxable income base. See, Section 214.71(1), F.S. The Department calculated the tax using the three statutorily recognized apportionment factors of payroll, sales, and property. Concerning the first apportionment factor, payroll, Petitioner had federally reported no amount of payroll, and therefore this factor was determined by the Department to be zero, and pursuant to Section 220.15, F.S., the payroll factor was eliminated and the other two factors were used exclusively. Concerning the sales factor, all gross receipts of the orange grove were considered to be derived within the State of Florida, and all gross income attributable to intangible personal property was excluded from the sales factor, pursuant to Section 220.15(1), F.S. Concerning the property factor, the Department determined that all real and tangible personal property was within the State of Florida. The situs of the intangible property was not established by the taxpayer. Therefore, because Section 214.71, F.S. limits the construction of the property factor to include only "real and tangible personal property," it was thus determined to exclude intangible property. The Respondent Department of Revenue issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment on November 16, 1983, showing a balance of $10,596.00 ($7308.00 tax, $275.00 penalty, and $3,013.00 interest computed through October 31, 1983, plus notice of daily interest of $2.40 per day from November 1, 1983 until paid.) Petitioner timely availed itself of informal protest procedures, and the Department issued its Notice of Decision on March 15, 1985. By its June 21, 1988 Notice of Reconsideration, the Department concluded its informal proceedings and denied Petitioner's assertion of the right to use a "separate accounting" method and further denied Petitioner's challenge to the Department's assessment by the "apportionment" method, which in this instance had not made any apportionment for "outside Florida" activities. The situs of intangible personal property was not sufficiently demonstrated by the Petitioner at formal hearing. The Petitioner also did not establish that it owns real or tangible personal property outside Florida. Zellwood Fruit Distributors provided Petitioner Murray Kramer with letters attesting that, based upon information received from Winter Gardens Citrus Products Cooperative, Winter Gardens' sales percentages in the State of Florida were as follows: 1979 1980 18.60% 21.07% Zellwood provided no such figures to Petitioner for the year 1978. Petitioner contends, on the basis of the after the fact Zellwood letters, that Zellwood was a member of Winter Gardens, a cooperative, and Murray Kramer was an associate grower of Zellwood. At formal hearing, no one from Zellwood or Winter Gardens testified; no contract between Petitioner Murray Kramer and either Zellwood or Winter Gardens was introduced to prove agency; no bills of lading, sales slips, corporate documents, or other connective link among the three entities was offered in evidence; nor was any primary, direct, non-hearsay evidence of sales amounts or situs of Winter Gardens' sales offered by Petitioner. Milton Weiss, Petitioner's accountant, asserted that if a straight "apportionment" (not "separate accounting") calculation had been made for the income derived in Florida by Petitioner, percentages would be: 1978 1979 1980 24.03% 15.31% 15.01% These percentages rely in part on what are clearly the out-of-court statements of Zellwood's correspondent, relaying further out-of-court statements from Winter Gardens Citrus. (See the immediately preceding Finding of Fact). Neither of these out-of-court hearsay statements is such as may be used to supplement or explain direct evidence, since no direct, primary source evidence of these sales or income has been presented before the undersigned in this de novo proceeding. See, Section 120.58(1), F.S. Petitioner has not directly paid wages during the tax years at issue. Petitioner has not produced any federal partnership tax returns nor other persuasive proof to account for the return on its investments through partnership channels. During the tax years at issue, Petitioner was not a member of a Florida cooperative, as that term, "cooperative," is used in Section 214.71(3)(a)2, F.S. (See Finding of Fact 15). Petitioner was unable, by evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs, to establish that all amounts other than the percentages of gross income Petitioner had assigned by either of the alternative accounting methods was generated outside of the State of Florida. In so finding, the undersigned specifically rejects Petitioner's assertion that the initial audit report of June 1983 could, by itself alone, legally or factually establish that only the orange grove income was Florida income, that Petitioner's Florida income was solely from the orange grove, that the interest, dividends, and gains on securities sales were not derived in Florida, that the Petitioner taxpayer received rent income from partnerships, that the partnership real estate which gave rise to the rent income was 100% outside Florida, or that the Respondent's initial audit "verified" the figures needed to compute the sales factor, the figures for the property factor, and the figures for the payroll factor of the "apportionment" method for the following reasons: In addition to the first auditor's report being free-form agency action which was ultimately rejected by the agency, and in addition to the failure of either the first auditor or his supervisor to testify in the instant Section 120.57(1) de novo proceeding as to the accuracy of the underlying primary documentation which Petitioner Murray Kramer claimed the first auditor had apparently reviewed, Petitioner did not offer in evidence at formal hearing any such direct evidence documentation which it claimed had been reviewed by the auditors. Further, Respondent's successive auditor, Mr. Siska, testified that it is auditor practice to only examine those books and records individual auditors believe to be necessary to complete the audit. This discretionary element eliminates any guarantee of what the initial auditor relied upon. For the same reasons, Petitioner's assertion that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audit of its books and records for the year 1979 "verifies" that the Petitioner's books and records accurately reflect the transactions that took place, is rejected. Petitioner Murray Kramer had admitted a letter (P-10) notifying the corporation that the IRS' "examination of ... tax returns for the above periods shows no change as required in the tax reported. The returns are accepted as filed." The tax period indicated on this exhibit is "7912", which is not helpful, and even if it means, as Mr. Weiss testified, that the 1979 federal tax return which is part of the Florida Corporate Tax Return is accurate under federal law, this IRS letter alone does not verify all the underlying documentation for all three years in question. Also, specifically with regard to investments made through other entities, Mr. Weiss' testimony suggests that the wages paid and partnership returns of these other entities never were in the possession of, nor accessible by, this Petitioner. Petitioner's reliance on its federal returns is apparently based, in part, at least, upon its assertion that it is a "financial institution" as defined in Sections 214.71(3)(b) and 220.15(2), F.S., but the presentation quality of evidence in this case does not permit of such a finding, either. Petitioner has paid no portion of the assessed taxes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order which dismisses the Petition and affirms the assessment. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 26th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4100 The following constitute rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1, 6. Accepted. 2, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19. Rejected for the reasons set out in the Recommended Order. 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Order. With regard to item 8, specifically, this determination is non-binding in the de novo proceeding. 4. Rejected upon the citation given as not proved or applicable as stated. 13. Accepted in part and rejected in part as not proved or applicable as stated. See Conclusions of Law 11-12. 15, 18. Rejected as out of context and misleading upon the record as a whole, and as not dispositive of any material issue, and as subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. Respondent's PFOF: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18. Accepted. 4, 5. Accepted in part; what is not adopted is subordinate or unnecessary to the facts as found. 17. Accepted, but by itself is not dispositive of any material issue at bar, for the reasons set out in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Milton P. Weiss, C.P.A. 686 Hampstead Avenue West Hampstead, New York 11552 Jeffrey M. Dikman, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Tax Section Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Sharon A. Zahner, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Revenue Room 204, Carlton Building Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 William D. Townsend, Esquire General Counsel 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Katie D. Tucker, Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Milton P. Weiss, C.P.A. 3091 North Course Drive Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented is what is Peaches' basis in the Sterling stock?
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute as to the material facts in the instant case, Exhibit 1 presented at the hearing is a composite exhibit which is comprised of the Petitioner's U.S. Corporate Income Tax Return and Florida Corporate Income Tax Return for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973. Exhibit 3 is the Respondent's document entitled "Income Tax Audit Changes" which reflects the adjustments made by the Respondent based upon a review of the Petitioner's return and the reasons for assessing the deficiency. Exhibit 2 is a composite exhibit comprised of the Petitioner's Amended Protest of the proposed deficiency and the Respondent's letter denying the same. Petitioner's federal return (Exhibit 1) Schedule D, Part II, reflects the 31,500 shares were acquired in 1958 at a cost basis of $10,191.00. These shares were subsequently sold by Peaches in 1972 for $1,160,131.00 or a gain of $1,149,940.00. This gain was reported on line 9(a) of the federal tax return as a portion of the "net capital gains." On its 1973 Florida Corporate Income Tax Return, Petitioner computed the income using the basis for the stock as of January 2, 1972, thereby reducing its reported income by $1,013,040.00 from the federal tax. The $1,013,040.00 reflects the amount of appreciation in the value of the stock between the transferrer's acquisition and January 1, 1972, the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax code. The shares of stock of Sterling Drugs were acquired by Peaches in 1971 from the controlling stockholder who made a contribution to capital to the corporation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Petitioner's petition be denied and that the assessment against the Petitioner in the amount of $29,435.00 together with interest be assessed. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin J. Stacker Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James S. Moody, Jr., Esquire Trinkle and Redman, P.A. 306 West Reynolds Street Plant City, Florida 33566 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA PEACHES OF FLORIDA, INC. Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-1433 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. / NOTICE TO: JAMES S. MOODY, JR., ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER TRINKLE AND REDMAN, P. A. 306 WEST REYNOLDS STREET PLANT CITY, FLORIDA 33566 E. WILSON CRUMP, II, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE BOX 5557 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304 You will please take notice that the Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida, acting as head of the Department of Revenue, at its meeting on the 5th day of April, 1979, approved the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer dated January 22, 1979, with paragraph 3 of the "Findings of Fact" therein amended to read as follows: "The shares of stock of Sterling Drugs were acquired by Peaches in 1972 from the controlling stockholder who made a contribution to capital to the corporation", in accordance with Stipulation of the Petitioner and Respondent filed in the case on March 1, 1979. This constitutes final agency action by the Department of Revenue. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF FLORIDA ROOM 104, CARLTON BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice was furnished by mail to James S. Moody, Jr., Esquire, Trinkle and Redman, P. A., 306 West Reynolds Street, Plant City, Florida 33566, Attorney for Petitioner; by hand delivery to Wilson Crump, II, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Post Office fox 5557, Tallahassee, Florida 32304, Attorney for Respondent and Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings; Room 530, Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida this 5th day of April, 1979. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to a stipulation, the following facts are found. Petitioner is a West Virginia corporation, organized under the laws of that state on January 4, 1958. Prior to June 1, 1962, it operated an automobile dealership in Huntington, West Virginia. On June 1, 9162, Petitioner exchanged assets of its automobile dealership for fifty (50 percent) percent of the capital stock of Dutch Miller Chevrolet, Inc., a West Virginia corporation organized to succeed the automobile dealership formerly operated by the Petitioner. Prior thereto, in 1961, the Petitioner had acquired one hundred percent (100 percent) of the capital stock in Palm Beach Motors (the name of which was changed on August 10, 1961 to Roger Dean Chevrolet, Inc.). Roger Dean Chevrolet, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Petitioner which operated on property owned by the Petitioner. The years involved herein are the fiscal years ending December 31, 1972 and 1973, during which years the Petitioner's principal income (except for the gain involved herein) consisted of rents received from Roger Dean Chevrolet, Inc. Petitioner and its subsidiary filed consolidated returns for the years involved. During the fiscal year ending December 31, 1972, Petitioner sold its stock in Dutch Miller Chevrolet, Inc. to an unrelated third party for a gain determined by the Respondent to be in the amount of $349,217.00, which, although the sale took place out of the State of Florida, the Respondent has determined to be taxable under the Florida Income Tax Code* (Chapter 220, Florida Statutes). In the fiscal years ending December 31, 1972 and 1973, Petitioner included in Florida taxable income, the amounts of $76.00 and $6,245.00, respectively, from the sale of property on April 23, 1971, such gain being reported for federal income tax purposes on the installment method under Section 453 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Roger H. Dean, individually or by attribution during the years involved herein, was the owner of one hundred (100 percent) percent of the stock of Roger Dean Enterprises, Inc. and seventy-five (75 percent) percent of the stock of Florida Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. The remaining twenty-five (25 percent) percent of Florida Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. was owned by Robert S. Cuillo, an unrelated person. The Respondent disallowed the $5,000.00 exemption to the Petitioner in computing its Florida corporate income tax for each of the years in question on the theory that the two corporations were members of a controlled group of corporations, as defined in Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. By letter dated April 13, 1976, the Respondent advised Petitioner of its proposed deficiencies for the fiscal years ending December 31, 1972 and 1973, in the respective amounts of $19,086.25 and $1,086.79. Within sixty (60) days thereafter (on or about May 10, 1976), Petitioner filed its written protest in response thereto. By letter dated May 27, 1976, the Respondent rejected the Petitioner's position as to the stock sale gain and exemption issues. Thereafter on September 17, 1976, a subsequent oral argument was presented at a conference held between the parties' representatives in Tallahassee, and by letter dated September 23, 1976, Respondent again rejected Petitioner's position on all pending issues raised herein. The issues posed herein are as follows: Whether under the Florida Corporate income tax code, amounts derived as gain from a sale of intangible personal property situated out of the State of *Herein sometimes referred to as the Code. Florida are properly included in the tax base of a corporation subject to the Florida code. Whether amounts derived as installments during tax years ending after January 1, 1972, from a sale made prior to that date are properly included in the tax base for Florida corporate income tax purposes. Whether two corporations one of whose stock is owned 100 percent by the same person who owns 75 percent of the stock in the other, with the remaining 25 percent of the stock in the second corporation being owned by an unrelated person, constitute members of a control group of corporations as defined by Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Many states, in determining corporate income tax liability, utilize a procedure generally referred to a "allocation" to determine which elements of income may be assigned and held to a particular jurisdiction, where a corporation does business in several jurisdictions. By this procedure, non- business income such as dividends, investment income, or capital gains from the sale of intangibles are assigned to the state of commercial domicile. This approach was specifically considered and rejected when Florida adopted its corporate income tax code. Thus, in its report of transmittal of the corporate income tax code to the legislature, at page 215, it was noted: "The staff draft does not attempt to allocate any items of income to the commercial domicile of a corporate taxpayer. It endeavors to apportion 100 percent of corporate net income, from whatever source derived, and to attribute to Florida its apportionable share of all the net income." Additional evidence of the legislature's intent in this area can be seen by noting that when the corporate income tax code was adopted, Florida repealed certain provisions of the Multi-state Tax Compact (an agreement for uniformity entered into among some twenty-five states). Thus, Article IV, Section (6)(c), a contained in Section 213.15, Florida Statutes, 1969, which previously read: "Capital gains and losses from sales of intangible personal property are allocable to this state if the taxpayer's commercial domicile is in this state", was repealed by Chapter 71-980, Laws of Florida, concurrently with the adoption of the Corporate Income Tax Code. This approach has survived judicial scrutiny by several courts. See for example, Johns-Mansville Products Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue Administration, 343 A.2d 221 (N.H. 1975) and Butler v. McColgan, 315 U.S. 501 (1942). Respecting its constitutional argument that amounts derived as installments during tax years subsequent to January 1, 1972, from a sale made prior to the enactment of the Florida Corporate Income Tax Code, the Petitioner concedes that the Code contemplates the result reached by the proposed assessment. However, it argues that in view of the constitutional prohibition which existed prior to enactment of the Code, no tax should now be levied based on pre-Code transactions. The Florida Supreme Court in the recent case of the Department of Revenue v. Leadership Housing, So.2d (Fla. 1977), Case No. 47,440 slip opinion p. 7 n. 4, cited with apparent approval the decision in Tiedmann v. Johnson, 316 A.2d 359 (Me. 1974). The court in Tiedmann, reasoned that the legislature adopted a "yard-stick" or measuring device approach by utilizing federal taxable income as a base, and reasoned that there was no retroactivity in taxing installments which were included currently in the federal tax base for the corresponding state year even though the sale may have been made in a prior year. The Respondent denied the Petitioner a $5,000.00 exemption based on its determination that the two corporations herein involved were members of a controlled group of corporations as defined in Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code. Chapter 220.14(4), Florida Statutes, reads in pertinent part that: "notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, not more than one exemption under this section shall be allowed to the Florida members of a controlled group of corporations, as defined in Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to taxable years ending on or after December 31, 1972, filing separate returns under this code." Petitioner's reliance on the case of Fairfax Auto Parts of Northern Virginia, 65 T.C. 798 (1976), for the proposition that the 25 percent ownership of an unrelated third party in one of the corporations precluded that corporation and the Petitioner from being considered a "controlled group of corporations" within the meaning of Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code, is misplaced in view of the recent reversal on appeal by the Fourth Circuit. Fairfax Auto Parts of Northern Virginia v. C.I.R., 548 F.2d 501 (4th C.A. 1977). Based thereon, it appears that the Respondent correctly determined that the Petitioner and Florida Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., were members of the same controlled group of corporations as provided in Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code and therefore properly determined that Petitioner was not entitled to a separate exemption. Based on the legislature's specific rejection of the allocation concept and assuming arguendo, that Florida recognized allocation income for the sales of intangibles, it appears that based on the facts herein, Petitioner is commercially domiciled in Florida. Examination of the tax return submitted to the undersigned revealed that the Petitioner has no property or payroll outside the state of Florida. Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that the proposed deficiencies as established by the Respondent, Department of Revenue, be upheld in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: E. Wilson Crump, II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Division, Northwood Mall Tallahassee, Florida 32303 David S. Meisel, Esquire 400 Royal Palm Way Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Thomas M. Mettler, Esquire 340 Royal Poinciana Plaza Palm Beach, Florida 33480
