Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in this Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was licensed as a registered real estate broker in the State of Florida. In the early part of 1982, Respondent entered into a partnership agreement for the purchase and operation of the Cleveland Street Apartments with several individuals including Mr. Bradwell, Mr. Boulson, Mr. Crouse, and Mr. Tafton (sp). Respondent was to be managing partner because of his status as a real estate broker responsible for the operation of the facility and the payment of all expenses including taxes. Periodically, the Respondent would notify the other partners of the status of their investment. This generally indicated a negative cash flow and required additional contributions from the partners in order to meet the expenses incurred in the operation. Specifically, among the obligations to be paid were county real estate taxes for the years 1983 and 1984. In response to Respondent's notification to the partners of the taxes due, each partner periodically forwarded his pro rata share of the expenses, including taxes, to the Respondent with the anticipation that these expenses would be met and the taxes would be paid. As it happened, however, when Mr. Boulson, one of the partners, went to the Palm Beach County Court House at some time in 1985 to inquire as to what the taxes for that year would be, he was advised that the 1983 and 1984 real property taxes on the property had not been paid and were delinquent. This came as a complete surprise to him, and he and the other partners were required to contribute additional funds to pay both the 1983 and 1984 property taxes and the interest accrued thereon. Respondent admits that he did not pay the 1983 and 1984 taxes as they were due. He contends, however, that because of the fact that the apartment was operated with a negative cash flow, and because of the fact that the other partners repeatedly made their makeup contributions after the fact and slowly, he was forced to advance the money for other expenses as far as he could and utilized the money when paid by the other partners for taxes, to make up the other expense shortfall that he could not or did not make. Respondent contends that if the other partners had paid their assessments in a timely fashion, the other bills could have been paid on time and it would not have been necessary for him to utilize the money contributed for tax payments for the payment of these other expenses. This argument is without merit. The accountant's testimony clearly shows that sufficient money was paid in by the partners to pay the expenses and that the inflow/outflow was in balance, assuming the taxes had been paid on time as required. The evidence is overwhelming that Respondent was derelict in his responses to his partners and in his availability to them when they attempted to contact him regarding apartment business. In addition, Mr. Sonderholm, the individual from whom Respondent and the other partners bought the property, and who held a purchase money mortgage on it, indicates that for the first year, Respondent faithfully made the mortgage payments on time. However, thereafter, he began to be delinquent in the payments and on at least five occasions, issued checks in payment of the monthly mortgage payment which were returned dishonored for non-sufficient funds. Each of these checks was in an amount in excess of two thousand dollars. Toward the end of the relationship, in August, 1985, Respondent submitted his last property operating statement to the partners which showed a net operating loss in excess of $800.00 for the period covered, along with a request that that sum be forwarded to Respondent for reimbursement of expenses. By the admission of Mr. Bradwell, this money was not paid to the Respondent because it was extremely difficult to contact him and repeated efforts by phone, mail, and in person at his office were unsuccessful. By this time, however, the property was being managed for the partnership by a different management agent and after Respondent stopped handling the property for the partnership, he was no longer furnished any statements regarding the partnership operations though he was officially still a partner. This was because, according to Mr. Bradwell, it was impossible to reach Respondent and no one knew where he was. There is, however, a letter from Mrs. Crouse, dated in October, 1985, which is addressed to Respondent at his address of record which he received. There is also evidence to indicate that other letters sent to him at this address by certified mail were returned undelivered. These letters were not offered into evidence, however, and there is no way to know if the nondelivery was due to an inadequate address or whether Respondent refused delivery. Respondent was not furnished tax form K-1 for his share of the partnership for 1985 in early 1986 because the other partners felt, after consultation with their attorney, that his unavailability, coupled with his failure to properly manage the funds of the partnership and his alleged misapplication thereof was sufficient to deprive him of his partnership interest. There is no evidence to indicate that Respondent failed to make 1985 tax payments as required. In 1984, Respondent entered into a partnership with James M. VanSleet to purchase and operate an apartment building in Lake Worth, Florida. Because Respondent was in the real estate brokerage business and operated a property management concern, he was given, as a part of his partnership function, the tasks of manager and rental agent for the building. This arrangement was, however, a partnership rather than a broker-client relationship. In his capacity as rental agent in May, 1984, Respondent rented a unit in the building to Anthony Grieco and received a check from Mr. Grieco in the amount of $900.00 which represented a $500.00 security deposit and the first month's rent in advance. Mr. Grieco occupied the premises until May, 1985 and upon moving out, requested that his security deposit be refunded. He was advised by the Respondent that an inspection was necessary and that if the inspection revealed no damage, the deposit would be refunded. Several days later, he was notified that the inspection was satisfactory and that the $500.00 would be refunded, however, repeated contacts both by Mr. Grieco and his father, as well as others on his behalf, failed to result in return of the deposit which has not been returned as of the date of hearing. In his efforts to secure the return of the deposit, Mr. Grieco was subjected to numerous delaying tactics such as being required to call back week after week because the refund check was not ready; a failure of Respondent to return calls left for him; and references to the other partner, Mr. VanSleet as the source of refund. Notwithstanding the fact that the $500.00 security deposit has not been returned to Mr. Grieco, there is no evidence as to what was done with it or whether it was misappropriated to Respondent's own use as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Toward the end of 1985, Mr. VanSleet turned the operation of this building over to another rental agent. At that time, he had received several requests for the return of deposits which had been paid to Respondent and which Respondent had failed to reimburse. Mr. VanSleet's practice was to allow the tenant to remain an extra month in the unit without rent rather than pay back the cash deposit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a registered real estate broker in Florida be suspended for a period of two years; that he be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Division of Real Estate his continuing education in the ethics of the real estate profession; and that he pay an administrative fine of $2,500.00. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 John E. Knowles 755 Huff Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency, charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the state of Florida, in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the state of Florida having been issued license number 0120021 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker at 1170 John Anderson Drive, Ormond Beach, Florida 32074. On November 26, 1986, Respondent signed a plea of guilty to the felony offense of willfully aiding or assisting in the preparation and presentation to the Internal Revenue Service of a false or fraudulent corporation federal income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7206(2), as charged in Count 7 of an indictment filed against Respondent and others. The indictment count to which Respondent pled guilty read as follows: That on or about January 13, 1983, in Volusia County, Florida in the Middle District of Florida, NORMA F. NEWFIELD, defendant herein, a resident of Ormond Beach, Volusia County, Florida, did willfully aid and assist in, procure, counsel, and advise the preparation and presentation to the Internal Revenue Service of a U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, Form 1120, for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1982 for the corporation Aron P. Newfield, D.O., P.A., 255 South Yonge Street, Ormond Beach, Florida, which was false and fraudulent as to a material matter, in that the said corporate tax return represented the gross receipts for the corporation Aron P. Newfield, D.O., P.A., to be $361,366.00 for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1982, whereas, the defendant then and there well knew and believed the gross receipts for the corporation Aron P. Newfield, D.O., P.A., for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1982 were in excess of that heretofore stated; all in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(2). On December 15, 1986, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Respondent was found guilty of the felony offense described above. The Judgment And Probation/Commitment Order issued that date included the following disposition: The court asked whether defendant had anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced. Because no sufficient cause to the contrary was shown, or appeared to the court, the court adjudged the defendant guilty as charged and convicted and ordered that the defendant pay a fine to the United States of America in the amount of TWENTY- THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,000.00). It Is Further Ordered that imposition of a sentence of imprisonment is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation with the probation office of the Court for a period of THREE (3) YEARS under the standing conditions of probation and the Special Conditions that the defendant perform 250 hours of community service and that the defendant serve FIVE (5) DAYS in a jail-type institution reporting to the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons no later than Noon January 15, 1987. Said institution to be the Seminole County Jail. Following the completion of her 250 hours of community service, Respondent's Probation Officer recommended the Respondent be discharged from probation. By order dated April 21, 1987, the court discharged Respondent from probation. By letter dated May 18, 1987, and received May 20, 1987, counsel wrote to the Florida Real Estate Commission on Respondent's behalf and advised the Commission of Respondent's plea of guilty and of Respondent's conviction. The letter had attached to it copies of the judgment and sentence and the order terminating probation. The letter of May 18, 1987, was the first notification to the Commission by or on behalf of the Respondent regarding her plea of guilty and her felony conviction. The corporation named "Aron P. Newfield, D.O., P.A.," is an incorporated medical practice of Aron P. Newfield, who is Respondent's husband. The corporation named "Aron P. Newfield, D.O., P.A.," is not involved in the business of real estate brokerage.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing the allegations in Count One of the Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent guilty of violation of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statues, as alleged in Count Two of the Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Three of the Administrative Complaint; Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for the violation of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes; Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for the violation of Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes; and Suspending Respondent's license for a period of three (3) years for the violation of both Section 475.25(1)(f) and Section 475.25(1)(p) DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2571 The following are my rulings on the findings of act proposed by the parties in their respective proposed recommended orders. Findings Proposed by Petitioner The findings of fact in this recommended order contain the substance of all of the findings proposed by Petitioner. Findings Proposed by Respondent Ruling on the findings of fact proposed by Respondent has been complicated by the fact that at pages three through nine of the Respondent's proposed recommended order the proposed findings are intertwined with proposed conclusions of law and legal arguments. I have attempted to glean the proposed facts from the mixture of facts, conclusions, and arguments, and the findings of fact in this recommended order contain the substance of all of the findings of fact proposed by Respondent, except as specifically noted below. Proposed findings regarding Respondents application for restoration of civil rights are rejected as irrelevant. Proposed findings regarding a disgruntled former employee are rejected as irrelevant. Proposed findings regarding Respondents character traits for responsibility, honesty, and integrity are rejected in part because they are irrelevant and also in large part because they are not fully supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Most of the testimony about Respondent's character had to do with how generous and kind she was in her personal life rather than how she conducted her business activities. Proposed findings regarding notice to the Commission by Margaret Penoyer are rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 James M. Russ, Esquire Tinker Building 18 West Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801-2697 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact On August 27, 1976, the Respondent, State of Florida Department of Revenue, notified the Petitioner of its intention to assess sales tax, penalties and interest against the Respondent for business transactions in the period August 1, 1973 through July 31, 1976. This Notice of Proposed Assessment was revised on May 27, 1977, and the Petitioner was notified of that revision. By his letter of June 19, 1977, the Petitioner has challenged the assessment, as revised. Upon receipt of the June 19, 1977 petition, the Respondent moved for a more definite statement and the Petitioner was afforded fifteen (15) days from the date of the Order within which time to amend his petition. Petitioner took advantage of that opportunity to amend and by an undated document did make such an amendment. The Respondent subsequently moved to strike certain portions of the amended petition and filed its answer to the petition. A pre-hearing conference was held to consider the Motion To Strike and after that pre-hearing conference was concluded an Order was issued which struck certain portions of the amended Petition and allowed copies of the proposed notices of assessments of August 27, 1976 and the revision of May 27, 1977 to be made a part of the complaint/petition as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. After the pre-hearing Order had been issued by the undersigned, the case was noticed for hearing for December 5, 1977. At the December 5, 1977 hearing date a Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest Under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes was tendered. This revision dated from December 5, 1977, was allowed to be introduced as the final position of the Respondent on the question of the assessment. It was also allowed to be attached as Exhibit 3 to the amended petition. (Under cover of a separate correspondence the original petition, amended petition, exhibits to the amended petition, an Order which was entered after consideration of the Motion To Strike, are being submitted as a part of the record herein). In the ordinary course of his duties a tax examiner employed by the Respondent went to the business premises of the Petitioner to perform an audit to determine whether or not the Petitioner was collecting and remitting sales tax for the category of sales which the Petitioner was making, that required the payment of sales tax. These requirements spoken of are those set forth in Chapter 212, F.S. Mr. DeCico, the tax examiner, allowed Mr. Farhud to pick three (3) months in the year 1976 as being the period to be audited. DeCico then returned to Farhud's place of business and showed him the details of the three (3) month audit. Farhud was dissatisfied wish this audit and indicated that he preferred to have the audit sample expended for a full three (3) years. DeCico replied that he would be willing to expand the audit period. but cautioned Farhud that expansion of the audit period might promote an increased liability. Nonetheless, at Farhud's request, the audit period was expanded to one for thirty-six (36) months. The new audit period dated from August 1, 1973, through July 1, 1976. The work papers on that audit may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. This audit which is depicted in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, left out invoices pertaining to stamps, electric bills, wrapping paper, grocery bags, etc., since they were not retail items for sale. The audit was rendered on August 27, 1976. Before the Notice of Assessment was filed, Farhud had expressed his displeasure with the outcome of the second audit process because he felt that certain amounts depicted in the gross sales were not accurate; to wit, the inclusion of certain so-called "service fees", namely income tax preparation, notary fees, etc. DeCico tried to get a reasonable statement of the amounts of the categories which Farhud desired to have excluded. Farhud did not have records of the matters and was unable to provide an estimate as to the amount of income which had been derived from the aforementioned "service fees". The August 27, 1976, proposed assessment was computed on the basis of the proposition that the gross sales are equivalent to actual sales and are subject to sales tax in the taxable categories. As indicated before, this audit did not take into consideration any "service fees", nor did it grant any allowance for pilferage. No allowance was made for the latter category, because Farhud had not provided any estimate and/or police records to indicate the amount which would be lost to pilferage, and cause a reduction of the sales tax liability. Farhud formally challenged the audit of August 27, 1976, by his correspondence of September 8, 1976 in which he rejects the amount claimed and asks for a hearing. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. An informal conference was held between the parties on October 12, 1976 to see if a resolution of the dispute could be achieved. Mr. Farhud was represented at the informal conference by Michael J. Burman, Esquire, an attorney in Jacksonville, Florida. By a letter of October 14, 1976, Farhud's attorney requested the Respondent to utilize the figures for the three (3) month audit period, as opposed to the thirty-six (36) month period. The letter concluded by stating that Mr. Burman was unaware of any intention Mr. Farhud had to appeal the assessment of August 27, 1976. This letter was followed by a series of letters in which the various parties were indicating the desire to determine whether or not Mr. Farhud intended to accept the August 27, 1976 assessment or to appeal it. In the course of his correspondence Mr. Farhud continued to insist that he did not accept the amount of assessment as accurate. Mr. Farhud failed to indicate to Mr. Burman whether he was going to appeal the assessment or not and Mr. Burman withdrew as his attorney, as shown in the January 31, 1977 correspondence addressed to one of the employees of the Respondent. This correspondence is Respondent's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. On February 2, 1977, the audit supervisor in the Jacksonville district of the Respondent wrote Mr. Farhud indicating the intention of the Respondent to collect the taxes pursuant to the August 27, 1976 audit. A copy of this correspondence is Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. It should be indicated at this point, that the Respondent's representative had continued to request documentation from Farhud on the items requested for exemption which have been referred to as "service fee". The subject of pilferage had also been discussed at the October 12, 1976 informal conference and a request made for some form of records of police reports which would verify pilferage allowances. No documentation had been provided at the time the February 2, 1977 letter was written to Farhud. Subsequent to the February 2, 1977 letter another informal conference was held on April 4, 1977. As a result of that conference it was determined that certain items would be deleted from the audit assessment of August 27, 1976. This is evidenced in Respondents Exhibit No. 9 which is a copy of a letter dated May 27, 1977, from the audit supervisor, Mr. McCrone, to Mr. Farhud. At the April 4, 1977, discussion the subject of pilferage allowance as brought up in the deletion of 4 percent of the purchase price of taxable goods, as to soft drinks, paper and said products, pet foods and miscellaneous sundries were allowed. No allowance was given for beer, wine and tobacco products because these were felt to be out of reach of prospective pilferers. Again, this deletion is found in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 9. The 4 percent figure was arrived at as an industry estimate. Farhud still was not satisfied after the April 4, 1977, conference had been held and adjustments to the assessment had been mode. In view of this dissatisfaction, the Respondent elected to make a new type of audit, which was performed and was premised upon an analysis of the taxable purchases by the Petitioner for the three (3) year period. These purchases were divided into taxable categories and these categories were then marked up in price using an industry average to arrive at the actual taxable sales. The industry average was based upon an examination of the United Food Stores, Inc.'s sales catalog, which had suggested retail prices for low volume and high volume stores. The Respondent gave the Petitioner the benefit of the range of high volume stores, although the Petitioner's store was a neighborhood convenience store and therefore a low volume operation. The effect of allowing the average retail price for the high volume stores was that it made the differential between his purchase price and the retail price less than that for a low volume neighborhood store, causing lesser tax liability. As stated before, this alternative method was elected for the reason that the Respondent had objected that the gross sales figures reported in the monthly tax returns were incorrect, due to the fact that the Petitioner was unable to document his claim for entitlement to certain exemptions due to pilferage and "service fees", and due to the belief that the more correct approach to the audit was the second method. The work sheet on the alternative method may be found on Respondent's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence. The utilization of this method led to the revised assessment of May 27, 1977, which is the subject of the appeal by petition, and amended petition of the Petitioner. This revision was superceded by the second revision of December 5, 1977, which was allowed to be entered without objection from the Petitioner. The second revision reduces the amount of tax liability claimed by the Respondent. An analysis of the documents offered in this cause and the testimony, leads to the conclusion that the Petitioner/taxpayer owed sales tax during the audit period August 1, 1973 through July 31, 1976. Furthermore, the more correct form of audit procedure under the circumstances, was the alternate method employed in arriving at the May 27, 1977 revised Notice of Assessment as further revised by the December 5, 1977 Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment. This conclusion is grounded on the requirements of Section 212.05(1), F.S., which requires persons in the Petitioner's category for the exercise of the privilege of doing business, to assist in levying a tax in the amount of 4 percent in the categories covered. Furthermore, Sections 212.06(3) and 212.07(2), F.S., places the duty on the Petitioner to collect this 4 percent sales tax. The Petitioner failed to act in accordance with the provision of Chapter 212, F.S. and the Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment is correct and in keeping with the authority of Section 212.12(6), F.S.
Recommendation Therefore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest found as Exhibit 3 to the amended petition which total is $2,238.92 be allowed with such adjustments as may be necessary for a computation of interest prior to the rendition of a final order. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan Weil, Esquire 203 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Patricia Turner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Attorney, Division of Administration Department of Revenue Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to certain facts, legal issues, and their respective contentions, as follow: "1. At all times pertinent to this action, Petitioner Lawrence Nali Construction Company, Inc., was a Florida Corporation licensed and doing business in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this action, Respondent Department of Revenue, State of Florida, was an agency of the State of Florida exercising duties relating to the assessment and collection of sales and use taxes pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Respondent conducted an audit of tran- sactions involving Petitioner for the period November 1, 1972, through October 31, 1975. As a result of that audit, Respondent claims that as of September 17, 1976, the Petitioner had a balance due to the Depart- ment of Revenue of $17,383.58 in taxes, interest and penalties. The assessment indicating the above amount is attached as Exhibit A. Petitioner is in agreement that if the assessment is upheld, Petitioner owes to the Respondent the amount of $17,383.58 plus interest calculated to date of payment to Respondent. The tax assessment in this case is based upon two factual situations: Petitioner, manufactured and installed asphaltic concrete from raw material at a rate certain per ton determined by bid, as an improvement to the real property of political entities consisting of cities, towns, municipalities, counties, school boards, junior colleges and others. Petitioner also hauled the asphalt to the job cite (sic) at a fixed ton/mile rate determined by bid. Petitioner, as a subcontractor, manu- factured and installed asphaltic concrete from raw material at a rate certain per ton determined by bid, as an improvement to the real property of political entities above described. The general contractor contracted with the political entities in various fashions but the Petitioner's duties were always the same and included manufacture, installation and hauling of asphaltic concrete based on a rate certain per ton and per ton mile. The issue in this case is whether the Respondent is correct in contending that the Petitioner must pay a sales and use tax on the produced asphalt which it uses in the performance of the construction contract jobs described in paragraph 6. It is agreed by the parties that no sales or use tax was remitted, by the Petitioner on the produced asphalt. It is agreed by the parties that no sales or use tax was paid by the instant customers to the Petitioner. It is Respondent's contention that, pursuant to the above-cited rules, the Peti- tioner is required to pay sales or use tax on the produced asphalt which is used to construct real property pursuant to a con- tract described in Rule 12A-1.51(2)(a), F.A.C. It is Petitioner's contention that the above-cited rules do not apply in the instant case since the customers involved in the instant fact situations are political subdivision or because the transaction was of the type described by Rule 12A-1.51(2)(d), F.A.C. Petitioner is entitled to rely on the earlier 1967 audit by Respondent because neither Petitioner's method of doing business, nor the law, has changed materially since 1967. Respondent agrees that this is an issue but fails to agree that Petitioner is so entitled to rely." All purchase orders or invitations for bid received by petitioner from political subdivisions stated that the entity was exempt from federal and state sales taxes and that such taxes should not be included in the bid. Typical bid forms entitled "Specifications for Asphaltic Concrete" called for a lump-sum price per ton for delivery and placement of the material by the vendor plus a sum per ton per mile for transportation costs. No breakdown of amounts for the cost of materials and cost of installation is reflected in the bid documents. (Testimony of Cowan, Cook, Exhibits 3, 7 (late filed)) Respondent audited petitioner's operations in 1967 and, although it had had previous transactions with governmental entities prior to that date, no assessment for back taxes was issued for failure to pay sales tax on such transactions nor was petitioner advised to do so in the future by state officials. After 1967, petitioner did not seek information from respondent concerning the subject of sales tax. As a consequence of the 1967 audit, petitioner believed that it was unnecessary to charge or pay sales tax on such transactions with political subdivisions. (Testimony of Cowan, Cook) As of April 1, 1977, Brevard County had a population of over 250,000. Although it is a large county in terms of size, respondent has only two auditors in the sales tax division to cover the entire county. (Testimony of Alberto, Cowan, Exhibit 4)
Recommendation That the petitioner Lawrence Nali Construction Company, Inc. be held liable for sales tax, penalty, and interest under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, as set forth in respondent's proposed assessment. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Brown, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Andrew A. Graham, Esquire Post Office Box 1657 Cocoa, Florida 32922
The Issue Whether Respondent Office of the Comptroller should refund to Petitioner taxes paid pursuant to Chapter 199 and 201, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the facts set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9 of the Petition herein, as follows: The agencies affected in this action are the Department of Revenue, Tallahassee, Florida, and the Office of the Comptroller, Tallahassee, Florida. The Petitioner is Zimmer Homes Corporation, 777 Southwest 12th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. Zimmer Homes Corporation, on or about December 12, 1974, conveyed a piece of property described as follows: All of that part of the Southeast quarter of Section 10, Township 44 South, Range 42 East, of Palm Beach County, Florida, lying North of the North right-of-way (r/w) line of Forest Hill Boulevard, less the West 40 feet thereof for road right-of-way and less the East 40 feet thereof. The sellers paid the necessary excise tax on documents and intangible tax as follows: a. $11,250.00 total consideration $3,750,000.00 of Section Florida 201.02(1) Statutes b. 3,900.00 based upon note of $2,600,000.00 Section Florida 201.07 Statutes c. 1,542.00 based upon note of $1,027,906.00 Section Florida 201.07 Statutes d. 4,125.00 based upon total consider- ation of $3,750,000.00 Section Florida 201.021(1) Statutes e. 5,200.00 based upon mortgage secur- ing note of $2,600,000.00 Section Florida 199.032(2) Statutes f. 2,055.81 based upon mortgage secur- ing note of $1,027,906.00 Section Florida 199.032(2) Statutes A lawsuit was commenced for reasons not relevant to this Petition and the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida entered a Final Judgment on July 12, 1978, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". In the Final Judgment the Court determined that the Purchasers had a right to rescind the transaction. The Court ordered that all obligations of the parties arising out of the Purchase and Sale Agreement were cancelled and that the Purchasers were entitled to a sum of money in order to restore the parties to their original positions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On March 22, 1979, pursuant to Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, Zimmer Homes Corporation applied for a refund of the excise tax on the documents in an amount as specified in Paragraphs 4(a), 4(b), 4(c) and 4(d), above. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On April 3, 1979, pursuant to Section 199.252, Florida Statutes, and Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, Zimmer Homes Corporation applied for a refund of the intangible tax paid in an amount as specified in Paragraphs 4(e) and 4(f) above. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). According to a letter from the Office of the Comptroller dated April 23, 1979, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", the Office of the Comptroller indicated that they concurred with the findings and conclusions of the Department of Revenue in denying the refund request on the excise tax on documents as specified in paragraph 6 above. As grounds therefore, it was indicated that the refund requests were denied because the statute of limitations under Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, barred the request for refund. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). By letter dated April 26, 1979, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C", the Office of the Comptroller indicated that they concurred with the findings of the Department of Revenue on denying the refund for intangible taxes which had been paid as specified above. As grounds therefore it was indicated that the request was denied because the applicable statute of limitations had run. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2).
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for refund of tax paid under Chapters 199 and 201, Florida Statutes, be approved. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 6th day of September 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard B. Burk, Esquire Scott, Burk, Royce and Harris 450 Royal Palm Way Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Barbara Harmon, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained here, the Respondents, Thomas C. Pluto, Kathleen M. Pluto, and Pluto Realty, Inc., were licensed as real estate brokers and a brokerage corporation respectively. On October 23, 1985, Karen S. Hicks, listed certain property owned by her, located at 1537 Oak Park Avenue, Sarasota, Florida, for sale with Allstar Realty of Sarasota, Inc., (Allstar), utilizing Annette Schmidt as broker. On or about November 25, 1985, Respondent Thomas C. Pluto entered into a contract for sale between himself/or assigns as buyer and Karen Hicks as seller. The contract was for the sale of the property mentioned above. Respondent, Thomas Pluto was representing an investor who was to be the actual buyer and Mr. Pluto neither intended nor desired to purchase the property for himself. Because of the unfavorable interest rate then existing on the mortgage in effect on the property, which resulted in a negative amortization and a less favorable purchase opportunity, the warranty deed, mortgage deed, and closing statement to be executed in closing of the contract of sale herein were to be back dated to September 12, 1985 in order to take advantage of certain peculiarities of the federal income tax law pertinent thereto. By Respondent's own admission, had this sale been consummated in this fashion, it would have constituted at least a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Closing was held on December 27, 1985. Prior to the closing, the intended buyer of the property, Mr. Pluto's investor, backed out of the deal and Mr. Pluto so informed Ms. Hicks through her agent, Ms. Schmidt. Because Ms. Hicks was anxious to close, because of the Christmas season, and because Mr. Pluto felt that he still might be able to find an investor to take over the property, Mr. Pluto agreed to go through with the purchase and as a part of the closing, paid Ms. Schmidt a $1,000.00 split commission. When the documentation was prepared for the December 27, 1985 closing, Thomas C. Pluto was shown as the buyer, but the mortgage deed, the warranty deed, and the closing statements all reflected a date of September 12, 1985. These documents were drafted and prepared by Respondent, Kathleen Pluto, who received her instructions as to what date to utilize thereon from Respondent, Thomas C. Pluto. The date of September 12, 1985, was initially dictated by the accountant for the original proposed investor who stipulated that date be used in order to take advantage of certain tax advantages possibly involved. According to Mr. Pluto and Mrs. Pluto, independent of each other, Mr. Pluto never thought to change it, and she merely assumed the back date was still to be used. This back dating of documents was, however, even by admission by the Respondent, Thomas Pluto, an improper act. Since the closing did not go through, however, the significance of the back dating relates only to the issue of the intent of Mr. Pluto at the time he took title to the property. By the middle of February, 1986, Mr. Pluto was still unable to secure another buyer for the property and on February 21, 1986, he submitted a written request for an assumption package to the mortgagee, Cameron-Brown, Incorporated. This written request was followed up by a verbal request on February 24 and again on March 18 and April 8, 1986. The mortgage assumption package was ultimately received by Mr. Pluto on April 11, 1986 and was completed and returned to the mortgagee on April 15, 1986. It was, however, either never received or was misplaced by Cameron-Brown. On June 27, and again on July 8 - 21, 1986, another assumption package was requested which was received on July 23, 1986, and returned completed to the mortgage company on July 25, 1986. The assumption was ultimately finalized on August 12, 1986, with credit being given back to September 12, 1985, at the reguest of Ms. Hicks. In the interim, all mortgage payments were timely made by Mr. Pluto. The Respondents did not claim a tax deduction or any tax advantage on the basis of this transaction nor was it ever their intent that they gain a personal tax advantage from it. Petitioner alleges that Mr. Pluto left the original back date on the deed when he took title to the property to make the property more attractive to another buyer to whom the property could have been transferred and who could have taken advantage of the earlier date for tax purposes. Mr. Pluto, on the other hand, contends that was not his intention and that if that had been his intention, he would not have taken title to the property when he did in his own name because that would require another complete closing and the resultant additional fees and charges inherent therein. This would have made the property less desirable because of the already high interest rate, the negative amortization and other financial problems. In light of the above, it appears that Mr. Pluto was quite willing to participate in a potentially illegal scheme and at the time he executed the documents for the final closing, notwithstanding he claims he did not realize the date had not been changed, he was guilty of at the very least, culpable negligence and dishonest dealing by scheme. The fact that he paid the selling broker a commission after alleging he went through with the purchase as a favor to her, tends to weaken the credibility of his story.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Thomas C. Pluto's, license be suspended for 90 days and that he be reprimanded but that the execution of the suspension be stayed for one year with provision for automatic remission at the end thereof; that Respondent, Kathleen M. Pluto, be reprimanded; and that the charges relating to Pluto Realty, Inc., be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of February, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3084 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. BY THE PETITIONER 1 Accepted and incorporated herein. 2&3 Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6&7 Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10&11 Accepted. 12 Accepted and incorporated herein. BY THE RESPONDENTS 1-3 Accepted and incorporated herein. 4&5 Accepted. 6-10 Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted except for the words, "through inadvertence, oversight, or mistake" Rejected as contra to the evidence. Accepted except for the words, "by oversight and error" Accepted. 19&20 Accepted and incorporated herein. 21 Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esquire DPR, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert P. Rosin, Esquire 1900 Main Street, Suite 210 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Kathleen M. Pluto, pro se 8415 Midnight Pass Road Sarasota, Florida 34242 Darlene F. Keller Acting Executive Director DPR, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners owe the taxes, interest, and penalties assessed by the Department of Revenue based upon Petitioners’ alleged rental of their real property to a related corporation from June 2000 through August 2003.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: In July 1997, Petitioners acquired the real property located at 640 North Semoran Boulevard in Orlando, Florida (hereafter “the Property”). The Property was acquired in Petitioners’ individual capacities, and they financed the purchase of the Property through a loan secured by a mortgage on the Property. The documents relating to the 1997 loan and mortgage were not introduced at the hearing. At the time the Property was acquired, Petitioner Paul Solano was engaged in the practice of accounting through a sole proprietorship known as P. Solano and Associates. Mr. Solano has been practicing accounting in Florida since 1969 and he is familiar with Florida's sales tax laws. The Property was treated as an asset of Mr. Solano’s sole proprietorship even though he was not using it as his place of business at the time. For example, depreciation expense related to the Property was itemized on Petitioners’ tax returns as a business expense. The mortgage payments made by Petitioners were also treated as business expenses of the sole proprietorship. In October 1999, Mr. Solano incorporated his accounting practice into an entity known as Solano & Associates Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter “the Corporation”). The sole business of the Corporation is providing accounting services. At the time of its formation, the Corporation was owned in equal 20 percent shares by Mr. Solano, his wife (Petitioner Diane Solano), their two daughters, and their son-in-law. There has been no change in the ownership of the Corporation since its inception. Mr. Solano is the president of the Corporation. The other owners/family members are also officers in the Corporation. Once the Corporation was formed, the depreciation expense related to the Property was included on the Corporation's tax returns, not Petitioners' tax return. At the time the Property was purchased, it was zoned for residential use. Between 1997 and 1999, Petitioners took the necessary steps to get the Property rezoned for commercial use so that the Corporation could conduct its accounting practice from that location. In November 1999, after the property had been rezoned, the Corporation and its owners applied for a loan from First Union National Bank (First Union) to obtain the funds necessary to renovate the existing building on the Property. Although unclear from the documentation in the record, Petitioners both testified that the 1999 loan was effectively a refinancing of the 1997 loan. The Corporation was not able to obtain a loan in its own name because it had only been in existence for a short period of time. The owners of the Corporation were not able to obtain a loan at a favorable interest rate, primarily because of the lack of credit history of Petitioners’ daughters and son-in- law. As a result, the loan was obtained by Petitioners in their individual capacities. Petitioners gave a mortgage on the Property as collateral for the 1999 loan. The mortgage document, entitled “Mortgage and Absolute Assignment of Leases” (hereafter "the 1999 mortgage"), was signed by Petitioners in their individual capacities on November 18, 1999; the Corporation was not identified in the 1999 mortgage in any way. The 1999 mortgage includes boiler-plate language referring to Petitioners’ obligation to maintain and enforce any leases on the Property and requiring the assignment of rents from any such leases to First Union. That language cannot be construed to mean that a lease actually existed at the time; in fact, the Property was still undergoing renovations at the time. The Corporation began doing business from the Property in February 2000 after the renovation work was complete and a certificate of occupancy was issued. The 1999 loan was refinanced in May 2000 with First Union. The loan amount was increased from $145,000 to $200,000 and the term of the loan was extended through a document entitled “Mortgage and Loan Modification and Extension Agreement” (hereafter "the 2000 mortgage"). The 2000 mortgage refers to the Corporation as the borrower and refers to Petitioners as the guarantors. Petitioners signed the 2000 mortgage in their individual capacities (to bind themselves as guarantors) as well as their capacities as corporate officers (to bind the Corporation as borrower). The related promissory note, dated May 5, 2000, also refers to the Corporation as the borrower, and it is signed by Petitioners in their capacity as officers of the Corporation. As part of the documentation for the refinancing in 2000, Petitioners executed an “Affidavit of Business Use” in which they attested they were the owners of the Property and that the loan proceeds would be “utilized exclusively for business or commercial purposes and not for personal use.” Petitioners also executed a “Mortgagors" Affidavit” in which they attested that they were in sole possession of the Property and that no other persons have claims or rights to possession of the property “except Solano & Associates Enterprises by virtue of a written lease which does not have an option to purposes or right of first refusal.” The monthly mortgage payment for the refinanced loan was $2,044.91. That amount was due on the fifth day of each month beginning on June 5, 2000, and it was automatically deducted from the Corporation’s bank account with First Union. In addition to making the mortgage payment for the Property, the Corporation paid the ad valorem taxes, insurance, and related expenses. The amount of those payments is not quantified in the record. Petitioners formally deeded the Property to the Corporation in October 2003. Mrs. Solano testified that the failure to do so earlier was simply an “oversight.” When the Property was formally deeded to the Corporation, Petitioners did not report any income or loss on the transaction for tax purposes. Any equity that had accumulated in the Property was simply “given” to the Corporation. The First Union mortgages were satisfied in October 2003 as part of a refinancing done by the Corporation with SunTrust bank after it became the owner of the Property.1 At that point, the Corporation had been in existence long enough to establish a credit history and obtain financing in its own name. The record does not include any documentation related to the 2003 refinancing transaction. Despite the representation in the “Mortgagors’ Affidavit” quoted above, there has never been any written or oral lease between Petitioners and the Corporation with respect to the use of the Property. Petitioners have always considered the Property to be a business asset, initially an asset of Mr. Solano’s sole proprietorship and then an asset of the Corporation. Petitioners never collected any sales tax from the Corporation on the mortgage payments made by the Corporation. Petitioners did not consider those payments to be rental payments. In late-June or early-July 2003, the Department sent a letter to Petitioners stating that the Property “appears to be subject to sales tax pursuant to Chapter 212.031, Florida Statutes.” The letter was sent as part of the Department’s “Corporation Rent Project” through which the Department compares records in various databases to identify commercial properties whose owner of record is different from the business operating at that location. Included with the letter was a questionnaire soliciting information from Petitioners regarding the Property and its use. The questionnaire was completed by Mr. Solano and returned to the Department in a timely manner. Mr. Solano marked a box on the questionnaire indicating that the Property is “[o]ccupied by a corporation in which a corporate officer is the property owner,” and he identified the Corporation as the entity occupying the Property. In response to the question as to “which of the following considerations are received by you,” Mr. Solano marked the following boxes: “The corporation remits payment for the mortgage loan”; “I do not receive rental income, but the related entity pays the mortgage payments”; and “No consideration is received from this related entity.” In response to the questions regarding the “monthly gross rental income of the property” and the “amount of real estate taxes . . . paid on the property by the lessee” for 2000 through 2003, Mr. Solano answered $0 for all periods. Terry Milligan, a tax specialist with the Department, determined based upon Mr. Solano’s responses on the questionnaire that the Corporation’s use of the Property was subject to the sales tax on rentals. Mr. Milligan advised Petitioners of that determination by letter dated July 29, 2003. The letter requested that Petitioners provide “a detailed month by month breakdown of rent (or mortgage payment) amounts, any other consideration, and property taxes that you received from the tenant (or tenant paid on your behalf) for the last thirty-six (36) months).” (Emphasis in original). Petitioners responded to Mr. Milligan’s request through a letter dated August 11, 2003. The letter explained that the reason that the title to the Property appeared under Petitioners’ name rather than the Corporation's name is “due to credit history.” More specifically, the letter stated that “[i]t was decided by the Board members, my wife and our [] children, to put it under our name since we have a long history of good credit.” Included with the letter was a bank statement showing the monthly mortgage payment of $2,044.91 and a notice of the proposed property tax assessment from Orange County for the Property, which was addressed to the Corporation. In addition to providing the requested documentation to Mr. Milligan, one of Petitioners’ daughters, Joylynn Aviles, spoke with Mr. Milligan to explain the circumstances relating to the financing and use of the Property. Ms. Aviles is the Secretary of the Corporation. Ms. Aviles also spoke with Mr. Milligan’s supervisor and an individual in the Department’s legal division. When it became apparent that the matter could not be resolved informally, Ms. Aviles requested that Mr. Milligan issue a final assessment so that Petitioners could bring a formal protest. In response, the Department issued the NOFA on September 11, 2003. The NOFA was preceded by a spreadsheet dated September 3, 2003, which showed how Mr. Milligan calculated the tax, penalties, and interest amounts set forth in the NOFA. As described in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet and his testimony at the hearing, the tax was computed based upon the monthly mortgage payments of $2044.91 made by the Corporation from June 2000 to August 2003. The June 2000 start-date for the assessment corresponds to the 36-month period referred to in Mr. Milligan’s July 29, 2003, letter; it also happens to correspond to the date that Corporation began making the mortgage payments. The August 2003 end-date for the assessment was used because it was the month preceding the date of the NOFA. The Department has not sought to expand the assessment to include the period between August 2003 and October 2003 when the Property was formally deeded to the Corporation. The NOFA does not include any assessment for the property taxes, insurance or other expenses paid by the Corporation on the Property. The Department has not sought to expand the assessment to include those amounts. The sales tax rate in effect in Orange County during the assessment period was six percent from June 2000 through December 2002, and it was 6.5 percent from January 2003 through August 2003. The 0.5 percent increase resulted from the imposition of a county surtax of some kind. The NOFA calculated a total tax due of $4,784.91. As shown in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet, that amount was calculated by multiplying the monthly mortgage payment by the tax rate in effect at the time of the payment and then totaling those monthly amounts. The NOFA calculated $465.79 in interest due on the unpaid tax through September 13, 2003. As shown in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet, that amount was calculated at the applicable statutory rates. Interest continues to accrue at 53 cents per day. The NOFA calculated a penalty due of $2,233.97. That amount was calculated based upon the applicable statutory rate as shown in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet and explained in the NOFA. In total, the NOFA imposed an assessment of $7,566.43. That amount includes the taxes, interest, and penalties described above. The NOFA informed Petitioners of the procedure by which they could protest the Department's assessment. On November 10, 2003, the Department received Petitioners' timely protest of the assessment. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order rescinding the Notice of Final Assessment issued to Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March 2004.
