The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is liable for use tax, pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, to the Florida Department of Revenue for the use and storage of a vessel.
Findings Of Fact Camden Corporation (Petitioner) is a foreign corporation, incorporated in Delaware on August 7, 1990. Petitioner is a solely owned, closed corporation. Petitioner has two officers: a President, who is the sole owner, and a Treasurer. At all times material hereto, Petitioner's President and Treasurer were residents of Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner's business address is in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner's officers handled its day-to-day activities and records from Jacksonville, Florida. Prior to the Petitioner's incorporation, its President wanted to purchase a vessel to take a world wide cruise. He obtained the services of a law firm to advise him on avoiding a state's sales and use tax on the purchase of a vessel, with Florida being one of the states. A lawyer in the firm contacted the Florida Department of Revenue (Respondent) and inquired, without relating any of Petitioner's factual circumstances, as to whether the case of Department of Revenue v. Yacht Futura, 510 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) was still good case law in Florida. Yacht Futura was a case in which the parameters of Florida's sales and use tax were interpreted regarding repairs and personal use of vessels while in Florida waters. Respondent's representative informed the firm's lawyer that Yacht Futura was still being followed by Respondent and that no exceptions existed; but Respondent's representative further cautioned that the factual circumstances must conform to Yacht Futura. The firm's lawyer prepared a memorandum advising Petitioner's President, among other things, that no liability for Florida's sales and use tax would be incurred for repairs and personal use of a vessel in Florida's waters, so long as the circumstances complied with Yacht Futura. After having received the firm's advice and advice from tax advisors, Petitioner's President created and incorporated Petitioner. On August 14, 1990, Petitioner purchased a used motor vessel in international waters for $5,618,000. The vessel was a 131' Feadship with Coast Guard documentation number 623589. Petitioner named the vessel "CAMDEN." The CAMDEN was the only assest owned by Petitioner. Petitioner did not pay any Florida sales tax at the time of CAMDEN's purchase. From August 14, 1990 through October 15, 1990, the CAMDEN was outside the State of Florida. Petitioner's President had taken the vessel on a cruise. During the time period that the vessel was on the cruise, Petitioner did not pay any sales or use tax in any jurisdiction in the United States. Also, during the time period that the vessel was on the cruise, Petitioner did not license, title, or register the CAMDEN in any jurisdiction in the United States. On October 15, 1990, relying on the law firm's advice, Petitioner imported the CAMDEN into Florida waters for major repairs, with the intention of departing after the repairs and not returning to Florida waters. Petitioner obtained the services of Huckins Yacht Corporation, a registered repair facility, in Jacksonville to perform repairs to the CAMDEN, which had a dock in Huckins Marina. However, the dock at Huckins Marina was unable to accommodate a vessel the size of the CAMDEN. The vessel was docked at Southbank Marina which could accommodate the vessel and which was the closest marina to Huckins Marina. Petitioner's President was not in the State of Florida when the CAMDEN arrived in Florida waters. He did not return to Florida until October 24, 1990. Petitioner did not have a written contract with Huckins Yacht Corporation (Huckins) to perform any repairs on the CAMDEN. However, Huckins did perform some minor repairs to the CAMDEN. Also, Huckins arranged for a major repair to the CAMDEN. It arranged for Petitioner to purchase a global position satellite electronic system as a nonwarranty repair. The electronic system was to be installed by someone who was not an employee of Huckins and who did not have a contractual agreement with Huckins for the installation. The electronic system was installed on the CAMDEN at the Southbank Marina. During the time that repairs were being made to the CAMDEN, its crew remained on board. Petitioner never received any bill from Huckins for any repairs made to the CAMDEN, including the installation of the electronic system. While the vessel was docked for repairs at the Southbank Marina, it was used for personal entertainment. On October 25, 1990, Petitioner's President and his friends had an open house type of party on the CAMDEN. On October 26, 1990, Petitioner had a luncheon cruise on the CAMDEN. On October 27, 1990, Petitioner had a dinner cruise and a birthday party for the daughter of Petitioner's President. On October 28, 1990, Petitioner took the CAMDEN from Jacksonville to St. Augustine for a pleasure trip. Leaving St. Augustine, the CAMDEN traveled to Miami, Florida and docked there on October 30, 1990, to get the vessel prepared for world travel. In Miami, the CAMDEN was docked at the Moorings Yacht Services, Inc. (Moorings), a registered repair facility. In November 1990, the Moorings began repairs to the CAMDEN, and in December 1990, the vessel departed the Moorings. In November 1990, Petitioner hired a tax consultant, who was a former employee of Respondent, for advice regarding Petitioner's liability for sales and use tax of the CAMDEN in Florida. The tax consultant advised Petitioner to register the CAMDEN as a charter for sales and use tax. Further, he advised Petitioner to late-file with Respondent an Exemption Affidavit for Boats Placed in a Registered Repair Facility, referred to as a Safe Harbor Affidavit, pursuant to Subsection 212.08(7)(t), Florida Statutes. On December 19, 1990, a Safe Harbor Affidavit was executed by both Huckins and Petitioner's President. The Safe Harbor Affidavit indicated, among other things, that Huckins was a registered repair facility in Jacksonville, Florida and that, from October 16, 1990 through October 25, 1990, the CAMDEN was under the care, custody, and control of Huckins for the purpose of installing electronics, which was the electronic system. Even though the Safe Harbor Affidavit does not provide that Huckins installed the electronic system on the CAMDEN, it does infer that Huckins had installed the electronic device. Respondent interprets "care, custody, and control" as the vessel being in the "physical" care, custody, and control of the registered repair facility. Clearly shown on the Safe Harbor Affidavit is that it is to be filed with the Respondent within 72 hours after the repair facility takes possession of the vessel. Additionally, clearly shown on the Safe Harbor Affidavit is that a copy of it is to be filed with Respondent within 72 hours after the work is completed and the vessel is released to the owner. On or about December 22, 1990, the CAMDEN departed Florida waters for a pleasure cruise to the Bahamas. In early January 1991, the vessel returned to Florida. The CAMDEN remained in Florida until mid-January 1991, when it traveled to the Caribbean. Around mid-May 1991, the vessel returned to Florida. In 1990, Petitioner was not issued a permit by any agency of the United States government to use the CAMDEN in Florida waters. In April 1991, one of Respondent's representatives discovered, during a routine examination of the records of the Miami Marina, that the CAMDEN was named as a boat docked in Florida with an out-of-state hailing port. On May 13, 1991, Respondent's representative sent a Declaration for Florida Sales and Use Tax (Declaration) to Petitioner for it to complete and return to Respondent. Instead of completing the Declaration, on December 10, 1991, Petitioner's tax consultant delivered the Safe Harbor Affidavit executed on December 19, 1990, to Respondent's representative. Additionally, Petitioner's tax consultant verbally supported the Safe Harbor Affidavit by stating that the CAMDEN was docked at Southbank Marina in Jacksonville while the repairs to the vessel were being completed by Huckins and the nonemployee. The Moorings filed a Safe Harbor Affidavit with Respondent, providing that the CAMDEN entered the facility in November 1990 and departed in December 1990. The Safe Harbor Affidavit was not submitted to Respondent within 72 hours of the CAMDEN either entering the facility for repairs or departing the facility after the repairs were completed. 1/ Respondent has a practice of accepting late-filed Safe Harbor Affidavits, with the condition that all documents supporting repairs are also to be submitted. A subsequent review of all the documents submitted would determine whether a person would be responsible for sales and use tax. On December 10, 1991, based on the Safe Harbor Affidavit and the representations by Petitioner's tax consultant, Respondent's representative closed her file regarding the sales and use tax, without assessing any sales or use tax against Petitioner. However, she forwarded neither a closing letter nor a closing agreement to Petitioner. Even though Petitioner had not received a closing letter or a closing agreement from Respondent, it believed that Respondent had terminated its inquiry of any assessment against it. In or around November 1991, another of Respondent's representative (Respondent's second representative) observed, while performing a routine marina check, the CAMDEN docked at the Palm Harbor Marina in West Palm Beach, Florida. Subsequently, he opened a new file on the CAMDEN. Petitioner was unaware that Respondent's second representative had opened a new file. Respondent's second representative performed an investigation of the vessel, including reviewing the Safe Harbor Affidavit submitted to the Respondent's other representative on December 10, 1991. His investigation led to the assessment at issue. The investigation by Respondent's second representative showed, and it is determined as a finding of fact here, that the CAMDEN was not in the physical care, custody, and control of Huckins during the repairs for the period October 16, 1990 through October 25, 1990. From October 15, 1990, when the CAMDEN entered in Florida waters for repairs, the vessel remained in Florida for more than a total of 10 days. Petitioner decided to sell the CAMDEN and listed it for $6.9 million. On February 14, 1992, Petitioner sold the CAMDEN for $5.3 million, which was $1.6 million less than it was originally listed. For 1991 and 1992, Petitioner's President treated the CAMDEN as his personal second home and took a home interest deduction for federal income tax purposes. On October 10, 1992, Respondent notified Petitioner that it was assessed, as of April 10, 1992, a tax of $337,080, representing: 6 percent of the CAMDEN's purchase price of $5,618,000; $84,270 in penalty; $168,540 in specific penalty; and $59,826.60 in interest. On October 26, 1992, Respondent issued a notice of final assessment to Petitioner which included the above assessment and the facts and reasons, including legal reasons, for the assessment. Petitioner contested the assessment. On January 14, 1994, Respondent issued a notice of reconsideration of the assessment and revised final assessment, withdrawing the $168,540 in specific penalty but sustaining the remaining assessment of $503,113.02, which represented: $337,080 tax; $84,270 penalty; and $81,763.02 interest. In its notice of reconsideration, Respondent determined, among other things, that Petitioner was issued an out-of-state registration, effective December 1, 1990, as a result of Petitioner submitting an application for sales and use tax registration, listing the major business activity as rental of tangible personal property. Additionally, Respondent determined, among other things, that Petitioner, as the corporation, maintained control and use of the CAMDEN during the period December 1990 through February 1992 when the CAMDEN was sold. No tax at issue was assessed for this period of time. Petitioner protested the revised assessment. Petitioner has not paid any Florida use tax.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order affirming the assessment of use tax against the Camden Corporation in the amount of $503,113.02, plus accrued interest. DONE AND ENTERED on this 30th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, 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 30th day of September, 1996.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was convicted of specified criminal offenses, requiring the forfeiture of all his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System, except for the return of accumulated contributions.
Findings Of Fact From 1999 until 2017, Bautista was an employee of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools (“MDPS”). On August 24, 2017, Bautista resigned from his position as principal of the Miami Jackson Adult Education Center, an office he had held since 2011. Bautista departed shortly after being arrested on charges of organized fraud, official misconduct, and grand theft. In the criminal Information leading to Bautista’s arrest, the State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit alleged, in summary, that Bautista had used his position as principal to misappropriate between $20,000.00 and $50,000.00 of MDPS’s funds for personal expenses, and had destroyed official payroll records to cover his tracks. On or about July 10, 2019, Bautista pleaded nolo contendere in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court to one count of official misconduct, a felony of the third degree pursuant to section 838.022, Florida Statutes, and to one count of grand theft under section 812.014, Florida Statutes, also a third- degree felony. The court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed Bautista on community control, to be followed by probation. In addition, Bautista was ordered to pay restitution to MDPS in the amount of $41,798.22. SBA is an agency of the state of Florida whose jurisdiction includes the administration of the Florida Retirement System Investment Plan (the “Plan”). By letter dated August 14, 2019, SBA notified Bautista that his rights and benefits under the Plan are forfeit as a result of his pleas of no contest to the aforementioned criminal charges, which had arisen from acts allegedly committed by Bautista as an MDPS employee. SBA offered Bautista an opportunity to request a formal administrative proceeding to contest the determination, and Bautista timely requested a hearing. As grounds for opposing the forfeiture, Bautista claims that his former employer, MDPS, failed to provide him due process of law during the run-up to his forced resignation. He complains, as well, that “procedural irregularities” in the criminal prosecution likewise deprived him of due process. Next, Bautista notes that he never admitted guilt and insists that he is, in fact, innocent of the charges to which he pleaded no contest. Finally, Bautista argues that he was not “convicted” for purposes of forfeiture of retirement benefits, because the court withheld adjudication of guilt on the criminal charges against him. To be sure, if Bautista was not afforded due process or was otherwise victimized by prosecutorial abuse or inadequate legal representation, as he alleges, then Bautista might have suffered an injury for which the law affords redress. But this proceeding is not the vehicle, and DOAH is not the forum, for hearing such disputes. It does not minimize the seriousness of Bautista’s allegations to recognize that, even if true, none of them changes the undisputed facts that he pleaded nolo contendere to the crimes of official misconduct and grand theft, each of which is a “specified offense” under section 112.3173(2)(e), Florida Statutes. Conviction of a specified offense results in the forfeiture of retirement benefits pursuant to the plain language of section 112.3173(3).1 Thus, the MDPS investigation and any “irregularities” in the criminal prosecution are irrelevant to the issues at hand, and the undersigned declines to make findings of fact concerning Bautista’s allegations in this regard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration enter a final order determining that Joey Bautista forfeited all his rights and benefits under the Plan, except for the return of any accumulated contributions, when he pleaded nolo contendere to “specified offenses” committed prior to his retirement from public service. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Soeurette Michel, Esquire The Michel Law Firm, LLC Post Office Box 245131 Pembroke Pines, Florida 33024 (eServed) Rex D. Ware, Esquire Moffa, Sutton & Donnini, P.A. 3500 Financial Plaza, Suite 330 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Jonathon W. Taylor, Esquire Moffa, Sutton & Donnini, P.A. Trade Center South, Suite 930 100 West Cypress Creek Road Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 (eServed) Ash Williams, Executive Director and Chief Investment Officer State Board of Administration 1801 Hermitage Boulevard, Suite 100 Post Office Box 13300 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-3300
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in her employment based on her gender or race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Janet Cartwright is a white female who formerly worked at the Department of Revenue (DOR or the Department) as a tax auditor. Ms. Cartwright began employment with the Department of Revenue May 1, 2000, as a tax auditor at the Atlanta Service Center. During her employment with DOR, she had four supervisors: Emmanuel Minta, Ron Lee-Owen, Glynn Walters and Evonne Jones Schultz. The function of a tax auditor is to audit all pertinent books and records of taxpayers assigned to them. Auditors are required to maintain a working knowledge of the taxes within their area of responsibility; to travel to the site of the taxpayer's books to perform their audit duties; to review all records during an audit for potential non-compliance with Florida tax statutes; to gather pertinent tax records to support their findings; and to prepare supporting work papers. Ms. Cartwright went on medical leave in September 2003 and did not return to work. On January 2, 2004, she notified her supervisor that she would be applying for early retirement based on a disability, and requested that her medical leave without pay status be extended until her retirement date was established. On or about March 29, 2004, her request for disability retirement benefits was denied. On April 19, 2004, a recommendation was made to terminate her employment based on Petitioner's inability to perform her duties. On July 13, 2004, Petitioner was advised by certified letter that the Department was proposing to terminate her from the position as Tax Auditor II, effective August 31, 2004. Ms. Cartwright acknowledged receiving the July 13, 2004, letter. The July 13, 2004, letter stated: You began employment with the Department of Revenue effective May 1, 2000, as a Tax Auditor I, and on July 12, 2000, you were promoted to a TA II position. You are currently a TA II, which is a field audit position that requires the auditor to independently travel to the taxpayer's location to audit the company's information for Florida taxes. You have been on Leave Without Pay (LWOP) status since September 18, 2003. Further, in a letter dated September 29, 2003, from your physician, Dr. Daniel Goodman, M.D., he indicates that due to your medical condition of narcolepsy, cataplexy and sleep apnea, you are chronically exhausted and always at a risk of falling asleep at any time and have difficulty operating a car at all times. Additionally, Dr. Goodman recommended that you look into getting long-term disability. On January 2, 2004, you provided a letter to your supervisor, Eve Jones, Process Group Manager, requesting that your LWOP status be extended until your retirement benefits are established. However, on March 29, 2004, you were denied disability benefits. The July 13, 2004 letter identified the disciplinary standard upon which the Department relied and the documents considered by the Department in making its decision. It concluded: Your continuing inability to perform your duties has caused not only a concern for your well being, but has also imposed a hardship on the other staff that have had to handle your job duties and responsibilities in addition to their regular duties. Your Program Director and I agree that because of your continuing inability to perform the duties of your position, with no indication of when you might be able to begin performing your normal work duties, dismissal for inability to perform assigned job duties [is] the only appropriate action in your case. No evidence was presented that Ms. Cartwright's termination was based upon her race or gender. The letter contained a notification of Petitioner's right to appeal the action to the Public Employees Relations Commission or to file a grievance pursuant to Section 447.401, Florida Statutes. Ms. Cartwright did not pursue either remedy. Instead she continued to pursue approval of her request for disability retirement, which was successful. On August 30, 2004, the day before her termination would be effective, she faxed to the Department a letter which stated: Last week I received the "Order of Remand," the final document necessary to process my disability retirement effective September 1, 2004. Therefore, after what was an extraordinary amount of time to apply for, and be approved for, disability retirement, I will be terminating employment as a Tax Auditor II effective August 31, 2004. I thank the Department for allowing me to remain on a leave of absence without pay during this process. On August 30, 2005, she filed a complaint against the Department with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging racial and gender discrimination. Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was denied training essential to her position; that she was denied a flex schedule; that she was asked to perform clerical and janitorial duties not required of her male counterparts; and that she was not allowed to drive her own car to field audit locations. The more credible evidence indicates that Ms. Cartwright received formal training in Tallahassee a few months after she was hired, received computer based training and on-the-job training. No credible evidence was received that other similarly situated employees received training denied to Ms. Cartwright. Her claim that she was denied training involved events occurring before she began medical leave without pay, well over a year before she filed her complaint with the Commission. Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was denied a flex time schedule. To the contrary, while there was a delay in approval of flex time during part of her tenure, Ms. Cartwright was approved for flex time schedules on May 2, 2000 (the day after beginning work with the Department) and on August 13, 2002. Ms. Cartwright admitted that the issue regarding flex time was resolved over three years before she filed her complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ms. Cartwright, along with other members of the staff, was asked to perform clerical duties when the office was short- handed. Ms. Cartwright did not identify any person on the staff who was not asked to perform such functions. Likewise, members of the staff were asked to take shifts on a volunteer basis with respect to "coffee duty." Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was asked to clean out the refrigerator, but did not testify when this request was made. As she did not return to work after September 18, 2003, it would have been well over a year before she filed her complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations August 30, 2005. Finally, Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was not allowed to drive her own car to field audits. The more credible evidence indicates that Ms. Cartwright was never prohibited from driving her own car, but that office policy provided that when more than one auditor went to an audit location, only the senior auditor would be paid for mileage when using a personally owned vehicle. Ms. Cartwright did not identify any other employee who was not a senior auditor who was paid mileage when accompanying a senior auditor in the field. Moreover, the trips for which mileage was not approved occurred during the period covering September through December 2002. These trips occurred well over two years before Ms. Cartwright filed her complaint with the Commission on Human Relations. The issues raised in her complaint, i.e., lack of training, denial of flex schedule, performance of clerical or janitorial duties and not being compensated for driving her own car, are separate incidents and do not constitute a continuing violation tied to her proposed termination. All of the incidents identified in her complaint, including the proposed termination, occurred more than 365 days before Petitioner filed her complaint with the Commission on Human Relations.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 2nd day of January, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the pleadings, stipulations and oral representations of the parties, the following facts are found: During the years in question, petitioner was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and was duly qualified and authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Petitioner is the parent corporation of a consolidated group of corporations, two of which (including petitioner) had Florida transactions or were otherwise separately subject to the Florida corporate income tax code. None of the other members of the consolidated group were subject to taxation in Florida. For the fiscal and calendar years 1972 through 1974, Petitioner filed federal and Florida income tax returns on behalf of the parent corporation, which included the returns for the consolidated group of corporations -- both the Florida and non- Florida members. Each member of the group consented to such consolidated filing and the component members of the Florida return group were identical to the members of the federal return group. Respondent issued its proposed deficiencies for the 1972 and 1973 tax years, ruling that for a parent corporation to include all of its subsidiary corporations for the purposes of consolidating its taxable income, it must be incorporated in Florida. For the years 1972, 1973 and 1974, respondent's Rule 12C-1.131(1), F.A.C., contained a definition of a "Florida parent company" as the term is used in the second sentence of Florida Statutes 220.131(1). This rule was amended on August 4, 1975, to delete said sentence defining the term "Florida parent company."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that: petitioner pay the assessment of $3,786.33 for the year 1972, with interest, as stipulated by petitioner, the proposed assessment for the year 1973 in the amount of $112,281.06 be dismissed and set aside, and the petitioner's method of computing its corporate income tax for the year 1974 be upheld. Respectfully submitted and entered this 21st day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: M. Lewis Hall, Jr. Hall and Hedrick Greater Miami Federal Building 200 Southeast First Street Miami, Florida E. Wilson Crump, II Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Division, Northwood Mall Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner, Adwell Corporation, is entitled to separate accounting in computing its Florida corporate income tax based on the nature of its Florida operations.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. The Petitioner, Adwell Corporation, is an Illinois corporation which is actively engaged in the business of farming approximately twelve thousand (12,000) acres of farmland near Jacksonville, Illinois; owns and leases ten (10) acres of real property under a "triple net lease" arrangement for a shopping mall in Minnesota and operates a two-hundred unit (200) apartment complex called the Yacht Basin Apartments (YBA) in Clearwater, Florida. An audit of Petitioner's books during 1978 resulted in a report of income tax audit changes dated July 28, 1978, for Petitioner's Florida income tax returns for fiscal years ending May 31, 1975; 1976 and 1977. The deficiency adjustment as proposed by the Respondent amounted to $1,248.00 for fiscal year ending May 31, 1975; $10,042.00 for fiscal year ending 1976 and $11,238.00 for fiscal year 1977. As originally filed, Petitioner, computing its Florida corporate income tax, based it on a separate accounting of its Florida activities on its claim that it is not a unitary business and that to combine its total corporate income of Florida, Illinois and Minnesota would unfairly represent the extent of its tax base attributable to Florida. Thus, Petitioner contends that the formula apportionment called for in Florida Statutes Sections 220.15 and 214.71 should not be applied. Instead, Petitioner contends that it is entitled to the exceptions to the general method of formula apportionment as set forth in Sections 214.72 and 214.73, Florida Statutes. PETITIONER'S ILLINOIS OPERATIONS As stated, Petitioner farms approximately twelve thousand (12,000) acres of agricultural land utilizing two methods of farming: the "direct" farming method and the "landlord/tenant" arrangement. During the years in question, the "direct" farming operation was used on approximately one-third (4,000 acres) of Petitioner's agricultural land. Under the "direct" method, in addition to the land, Petitioner provides the equipment, fertilizer, chemical, seed, and weed and pest control. Under the "direct" farm method, Petitioner retains an operator who is paid a flat fee for his services which is negotiated on a yearly basis. The remaining two-thirds (approximately 8,000 acres) of the agricultural land is farmed using the "landlord/tenant" method. Under this method, Petitioner, in addition to providing the land, provides the tenant farmer 50 percent of the seed, fertilizer and chemicals for weed and pest control. The crop is divided equally between the farmer and the Petitioner. In both farming methods, Petitioner determines with the crop will be planted; the type of crop and fertilizer and its method of application; the type chemicals for both pest and weed control and decides when and how the crop will be planted and harvested. Prior to 1970, Petitioner's headquarters (for the Illinois farming) was situated in Chicago, Illinois. In 1970, corporate headquarters were moved to Jacksonville, Illinois, based on the corporate decision that "absentee" ownership was not conducive to efficient and productive business operations. During 1970, Petitioner invested in real property in Florida and Minnesota using income realized from the forced sale of real estate under threat of governmental condemnation. PETITIONER'S FLORIDA OPERATIONS In Florida, Petitioner purchased the real property under the Yacht Basin Apartments which was simultaneously leased to the Yacht Basin Apartment owners. The Minnesota real property lay under and was leased to owners of a shopping center. Both leases were "triple net leases", thereby relieving Petitioner of the responsibilities of taxes, maintenance and the other activities associated with land ownership. During 1973, Adwell Corporation purchased the Yacht Basin Apartments and other related improvements which were situated on the Clearwater property. From 1973 through November of 2974, Adwell retained the services of an independent property management firm to manage the Yacht Basin Apartments. However, during this period (November of 1974), Petitioner relocated an accountant, Steve McClellan, who was then employed by Petitioner as an accountant in Jacksonville, Illinois to manage YBA. After Mr. McClellan became familiar with the management operations of the Yacht Basin Apartments, the arrangement was severed with the independent management contractor and Petitioner authorized Mr. McClellan to do virtually all that was necessary to efficiently manage and operate the Yacht Basin Apartments. Examples of the authority given and exercised by Mr. McClellan included hiring and firing employees; negotiating leases; expending large capital outlays for improvements and repairs, including for example, replacement of kitchen cabinets in several apartments, total roof repair and replacement, replacement of the master T.V. antenna and replacement of all windows. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 5.) Mr. McClellan was assigned the goal of operating the Florida apartments on the rent receipts, which goal was realized. Petitioner maintains what is referred to as an internal accounting procedure which requires that all checks be signed by the operation's President, Donald R. Pankey. Evidence adduced during the hearing reveals that Mr. McClellan was given almost complete control over the operation and management of the Florida property and in no instance was any recommended expenditure by him rejected by President Pankey. Evidence also reveals that Petitioner maintains separate accounts for each of its operations in Florida, Illinois and Minnesota. The Florida operations are not integrated with or dependent upon nor contribute to the other business operations of Petitioner in Illinois and Minnesota. The Florida property as stated compromises approximately ten (10) acres of reality plus the improvements. During the period in question, the Florida operation employed approximately twelve (12) to fifteen (15) employees. Aside from its Florida employees, Petitioner only employs the President and his secretary in Jacksonville, Illinois.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner is entitled to and should be allowed to separately account its Florida corporate income tax as it originally filed its Florida corporate income tax returns for the tax years 1975, 1976 and 1977. Accordingly, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Respondent withdraw the Report of Income Tax Audit Changes dated July 28, 1978. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven A. Crane, Esq. Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601 Shirley W. Ovletrea, Esq. and E. Wilson Crump, II, Esq. Assistant Attorneys General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert A. Pierce, Esq. General Counsel Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the agreement of the parties as to the relevant facts in this case, the following facts are found: For the calendar years ending December 31, 1972 and 1973, petitioner filed its federal corporate income tax returns reporting gross income from dividends in excess of its taxable income before the special deduction of 85 percent of the dividends received, limited to 85 percent of taxable income. As a result, a maximum of 15 percent of its net income was included in its taxable income on the federal tax returns. The federal returns for calendar years ending December 31, 1972 and 1973 reflected the deduction of net capital losses incurred and carried forward from years ending prior to January 1, 1972, the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax code. For its calendar years 1972 and 1973, petitioner filed its Florida corporation income tax returns reporting no Florida net income. The respondent examined the returns and determined deficiencies of $374.49 for 1972 and $566.40 for 1973. Such determination was based primarily on the additions to income of net capital losses carried forward from years ending prior to January 1, 1972.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that there is no basis for affording petitioner relief from the proposed deficiency and that said deficiencies of corporate income tax of $374.49 and $556.40 for 1972 and 1973 respectively, be sustained. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. T.H. Swindal Chief, Corporate Income Tax Bureau Department of Revenue Post Office Box 3906 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Mr. Robert Fried Suite 210, Professional Centre 9000 Southwest 87th Court Miami, Florida 33176 Attorney for Petitioner Mr. Stephen E. Mitchell Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Attorney for Respondent
Findings Of Fact The facts in this cause are essentially undisputed. The Pen Haven Company was a Subchapter "S" corporation for federal income tax purposes and therefore incurred no State income tax liability. It was formed in 1960 and retained its Subchapter "S" status thorough 1976 for federal income tax purposes. In December of 1977, the capital stock of Pen Haven Sanitation Company was sold to the Board of County Commissioners of Escambia County. Inasmuch as the sole corporate stock holder then was no longer an individual, but rather a governmental entity, the corporation Subchapter "S" election for federal income tax purposes was terminated. Escambia County did not wish to own stock in a private corporation so it accordingly liquidated Pen Haven and its assets were distributed to the County's direct ownership. Thereafter the Corporation filed a final corporate income tax return for 1977 which reflected capital gains on the assets of the corporation which had been distributed. Some of those assets had tax bases which had been reduced to zero through reduction by depreciation, most of which had been charged off prior to January 1, 1972, the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax code. All of the depreciation deductions had been taken prior to the termination of the Subchapter "S" status of the Pen Haven Company. On disposition of the Pen Haven assets however, a gain was reported equal to the fair market value or salvage value, less the basis. This gain was accordingly reported on Pen Haven's federal income tax return, and on the 1977 Florida corporate income tax return, albeit under the protest as to the Florida tax return. Inasmuch as Pen Haven had previously deducted depreciation since its inception, and had the benefit thereof for federal tax purposes, it was required by the Internal Revenue Service to recapture the depreciation for federal tax purposes upon its sale and the filing of its tax return in 1977. The same recapture of depreciation treatment was required of West Florida Utilities. Thereafter an application was made by the Petitioner corporations for Florida Corporate Income Tax Refunds asserting that they should have not paid taxes on the amount of gains which represented a recapture of depreciation which had been taken as a deduction prior to the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax on January 1, 1972. In effect the Petitioner is contending that the so- called "income" which is the subject of the tax in question was not realized in 1977, but rather merely "recognized" in that year by the federal tax law and that it represented income actually "realized" during the years when the depreciation was taken as a deduction prior to January 1, 1972. The Petitioners contend that "realization" for federal income tax purposes occurs when the taxpayer actually receives an economic gain. "Recognition" on the other hand refers only to that time when the tax itself becomes actually due and payable. The Petitioners maintain that when the tax became due and payable in 1977 that was merely the point of "recognition" of the subject taxable gain and not "realization" in that the gain was actually realized prior to the Florida Jurisdictional date of January 1, 1972, in the form of the economic benefit derived from those depreciation deductions applied to federal tax liability prior to that date. The Petitioners cite SRG Corporation vs. Department of Revenue, 365 So2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), for the proposition that Florida could not tax those gains accruing to the taxpayer prior to Florida's having the constitutional and statutory power to impose a corporate income tax. The Respondent in essence agrees that the question of when the economic benefit to the Petitioners was received by them or was "realized" is the key question in this cause. The Respondent contends, however, that "realization" of a taxable gain occurred when the assets were disposed of by the Petitioners in 1977, well after the date when Florida's power to tax such a gain was enacted. The underlying facts in the case of West Florida Utilities are substantially similar. This corporation, however, was organized in 1962 and has never been clothed with Subchapter "S" corporate status. The only grounds upon which it can therefore claim a refund is its assertion that Florida does not have authority to tax that portion of the capital gains attributable to recapture of depreciation which was originally charged off as a deduction prior to January 1, 1972. The Department of Revenue and the Comptroller of the State of Florida both denied the refund claim made on behalf of the Petitioners, and thereafter they seasonably petitioned for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witness and pleadings and arguments of counsel it is, therefore RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Thurston A. Shell Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32578 Robert A. Pierce, Esquire General Counsel Department of Revenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Basile, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Office of Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wilson Crump, II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32310
Findings Of Fact The parties have agreed that there are no issues of fact to be determined in this matter, and that the relevant facts are set out in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Petition which was received in evidence at the hearing as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. This matter involves a determination for Florida corporate income tax purposes of the net income derived by the Petitioner in connection with the purchase, development, and sale of certain property in Dade County, Florida. Petitioner purchased the property prior to January 1, 1972, the date upon which the Florida Income Tax Code became effective. Petitioner expended, through a subsidiary corporation, $369,058 in developing the property. These expenditures also occurred prior to January 1, 1972. For Federal income tax purposes the Petitioner had deducted these expenditures as business expenses during the years that they were incurred. Petitioner sold the property during 1972. Because the Petitioner had deducted the expenditures as business expenses, the expenditures could not properly have been included in the base price of the property for Federal income tax purposes, and the net income for Federal tax purposes was computed by subtracting the original purchase price from the sale price. Since the Florida Income Tax Code was not in effect at the time the expenditures were made, the Petitioner received no Florida tax benefit for the expenditures. In computing the net income for Florida tax purposes derived from the sale, the Petitioner included the expenditures in the base price of the property, and calculated its net income by subtracting the sum of the purchase price of the property and the expenditures from the sale price. The Department, contending that the $369,058 should not have been included in the base price of the property, issued a deficiency assessment which reflected the net income from the sale of property as the difference between the sale price and the purchase price. Petitioner originally contended that it was entitled to add the amount that the property appreciated prior to January 1, 1972 to the base price of the property. Petitioner is no longer contesting the deficiency assessment based upon a disallowance of that addition to the base price of the property. The Department was originally contending that it was entitled to interest at 12 percent per annum calculated retrospectively from the due date of the alleged deficiency. The Department has agreed to abandon its effort to impose that rate of interest. The issue raised in this case is whether the development expenses incurred by the Petitioner and deducted for Federal income tax purposes as business expenses prior to 1972 can be subtracted from Federal taxable income for the purpose of determining taxable income derived from the sale for Florida tax purposes.
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated to all facts in this proceeding. Those facts found relevant to a determination of the issue are as follows: Petitioner, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, is a New York corporation and is functionally divided into two divisions: the Long Lines Department and the General Department. Through its Long Lines Department, petitioner is a federally regulated public utility and common carrier which furnishes interstate and international telecommunications services. Long Lines is responsible generally for the construction, operation and maintenance of a nationwide system of interstate telecommunications facilities and related equipment which serve to interconnect the facilities of over 1700 operating telecommunications companies in the United States as well as telecommunications systems abroad. Some of these facilities extend into and through the State of Florida. In performing this interstate business, Long Lines operates, and thus has property or employees or both in 49 states, including Florida. Through its General Department, petitioner is the parent corporation of 21 operating telecommunications companies (known as "Associated Companies"), Western Electric Company, Inc. ("Western") and Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. ("Bell Labs"). The General Department holds and manages the stock owned in these subsidiaries and two minority owned companies, and provides capital. advice and assistance to them. It conducts these activities principally in New York and New Jersey and conducts no business and has no property or employees in Florida. The only business activities in the State of Florida during 1972, 1973 and 1974 were conducted through petitioner's Long Lines Department in connection with the operation of the interstate and international long distance telecommunications network. None of the Associated Companies is organized under the laws of Florida or has its headquarters in Florida. The Only Associated Company which conducts business or has property or employees within Florida is the Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (hereinafter "Southern Bell"), a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner. Southern Bell files its own separate Florida income tax returns and during the period 1972-1974 paid approximately $10 million in income tax to Florida. The respondent concurs that petitioner is entitled to deduct 100 percent of the dividends paid by Southern Bell to petitioner. Western, also a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner, is a manufacturing corporation with its own Board of Directors and officers, doing business in all 50 states. During the period 1972-1974 Western paid approximately $1.7 million in income tax to Florida. The respondent concurs that petitioner is entitled to deduct 100 percent of the dividends paid by Western to petitioner. For each of the 1972, 1973 and 1974 tax years, petitioner has filed a federal consolidated income tax return, and has made a valid election under Section 243 of the Internal Revenue Code for each of those years. That provision of the federal tax law permits a domestic corporation to deduct 100 percent of the dividends received from its wholly-owned domestic subsidiaries. Petitioner's federal income tax returns were audited by the Internal Revenue Service and the respective tax liabilities were determined and paid for each of the years in question. The Internal Revenue Service did not tax dividends received by petitioner from its affiliates. Petitioner timely filed its Florida corporate income tax returns for the years ending December 31, 1972, December 31, 1973 and December 31, 1974. Petitioner did not elect and was not required to file a Florida consolidated income tax return under Section 220.131, Florida Statutes. For each of the years in question, petitioner reported on line 1--"federal taxable income (line 30, Form 1120 or corresponding line on related form 1120 series, 990C or 990T)"- -of its Florida corporation income tax return (Form F-1120) its taxable income for federal income tax purposes computed as if petitioner had filed a separate federal income tax return for each of the years in question and for each preceding taxable year for which it was a member of an affiliated group. These amounts were: 1972 $ 94,020,281 1973 $213,364,165 1974 $110,770,402 On its Florida corporation income tax return for each of the years in question, petitioner made the additions and subtractions required by the form of the return in computing "adjusted federal income" and apportioned this amount by the prescribed three-factor formula to obtain "Florida net income." The Department of Revenue adjusted the amount of "federal taxable income" and hence "Florida net income" of petitioner for each of the years in question by adding thereto 15 percent of the dividends received from subsidiaries which were deductible for federal income tax purposes under Section 243 of the Internal Revenue Code. On April 10, 1978, the Department issued a notice of proposed deficiency for petitioner's tax years ended December 31, 1972, December 31, 1973 and December 31, 1974. The total amount of the proposed deficiency was $1,131,158, computed as follows: YEAR AUDITED TAX TAX AS FILED DEFICIENCY 1972 $426,468 $122,365 $304,103 1973 668,597 281,168 387,429 1974 594,300 154,674 439,626 Total $1,689,365 $558,207 $1,131,158 After a timely protest to the proposed deficiencies was filed by the petitioner, correspondence and an informal conference between the parties was had. Finally, on April 16, 1981, the Department issued a letter denying the protest and petitioner petitioned for an administrative hearing. Through correspondence and discussions with the petitioner, the Department of Revenue has taken the position that it would allow only an 85 percent dividend deduction for the dividends received by petitioner from those affiliates which were not subject to the Florida corporate income tax code. Petitioner is seeking to take a 100 percent deduction of all dividends which it received from its subsidiaries, as it did on its federal income tax returns. The dividends received by petitioner which the Department is attempting to subject to Florida tax by its proposed deficiency assessment are derived from its equity investment in its subsidiaries and they represent to petitioner a return on such investment. Since the actual capital, however, for that investment is furnished primarily by public investors, the principal use of the dividends received by petitioner is to meet its obligation to its shareholders and bondholders for the payment of dividends and interest. For example, in 1974 petitioner received dividends from the Associated Companies, Western and other affiliates in the amount of $2,538,443,000 and paid dividends to shareholders in the amount of $2,039,800,000 and interest on its long and intermediate term debt of $475,670,000. Petitioner, therefore, serves as the investor interface between the investing public and its subsidiary companies, whereby the purchase of petitioner's stock or debt issues actually represents an investment in the earnings of the Bell System. Petitioner, acting through its General Department, thus provides the avenue by which the subsidiaries pass their net earnings to the investing public. The income which the Department seeks to tax is derived from dividends received by petitioner primarily from earnings generated by the property and employees of the Associated Companies which are devoted to furnishing intrastate and interstate telecommunications services in their operating territories in states other than the State of Florida. These earnings are subject to income taxes in all states in which the Associated Companies provide telecommunications services that impose income taxes on corporations. The dividends received by petitioner do not contribute to the funding of Long Lines since (1) the pervasive regulation under which petitioner's subsidiaries operate limits their earnings to that amount sufficient for the needs of their own operations and effectively prevents those earnings from being available for use in other businesses and (2) earnings paid out as dividends by petitioner's subsidiaries are principally required to be passed to the public investors in the Bell System, through petitioner's General Department, in order to meet dividend and interest obligations to these outside shareholders and bondholders. During the tax years in question, the Department of Revenue had not promulgated any rule with respect to the disallowance of a deduction for 100 percent of dividends received as provided for under Section 243 of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Florida corporate income tax return forms did not require any such add-back or adjustment. During the 1980 legislative session, an amendment to Chapter 220, Florida Statutes, was proposed which would have changed the definition of "affiliated group of corporations." Such proposed legislation was not passed and did not become law.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that that portion of the Department's proposed assessment of deficiencies for the 1972, 1973 and 1974 tax years as is based upon dividends received by the petitioner from its affiliates be withdrawn as being contrary to law and invalid. Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of April, 1982. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 28th day of April, 1982.
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
