Findings Of Fact During the times herein involved Respondent Kramer and Pankz were registered real estate brokers and Active Firm Member of Respondent, ILB, a registered corporate broker. Registered real estate salesmen were employed to obtain listings and WATS lines installed. Lists of out-of-state purchasers of Florida land were obtained and during the hours of 6 to 10 P.M. salesmen telephoned individuals from these lists provided them by ILB. Each salesman was provided with a script to follow in making his sales pitch. As one witness recalled the substance of the script was "if you felt you could make a profit on your property would you be interested in selling it?" Those indicating interest in selling at a profit were told that ILB was engaged in land sales on a large scale, that world wide investors were interested in acquiring Florida land, that they widely advertised the land that was listed with them in a catalog that went to brokers all over the world, that Florida land had greatly increased in price in recent years, that they would evaluate the owner's land and tell him what ILB thought the land would sell for. They inquired what the owner had paid for his land and obtained enough of the description to ascertain the size of the plot. For those interested in selling, a package was sent containing newspaper clippings about foreign investors being interested in Florida land, an "Important Facts" sheet containing much of the information passed to the owner on the first telephone call, a list indicating publications and newspapers in which ILB advertises, photocopies of what purports to be inquiries received from around the world as a result of ILB's advertising, and a copy of a Listing and Brokerage agreement. When the owner was again called about a week after the first call he was quoted a price for his property, nearly double what he had paid for it, and advised if he would list the property with ILB every effort would be made to quickly obtain a buyer. It was explained that because of the expense of advertising it was necessary for the owner to pay listing fee, which was fully refundable out of the 10 percent selling commission that ILB would earn when the property was sold. The advance listing fee which the owner forwarded when he executed the listing and brokerage agreement varied between $250 and $350. The listing agreement provided, inter alia, that owner "understand(s) that this agreement does guarantee the sale of my property but that it does guarantee that you will make an earnest effort pursuant to the aforementioned provisions." Out of this listing fee the salesman was paid approximately 1/3. No arrangement was made between ILB and the salesman regarding any additional commission to the salesman if the property was sold. No effort was made by the listing salesman to sell any property listed, although one witness testified that she did ask some of those she called if they wanted to purchase property. No evidence was presented that any of the property for which listing fees were received was sold by ILB. Several of the witnesses had been told by Respondents that sales had been made, but no corroboration of this hearsay was ever presented. The Respondent brokers Kramer and Pankz refused to answer any questions regarding the operation of the corporate broker ILB on grounds that such answers might tend to incriminate them. Accordingly no substantive evidence was presented that any sales or efforts to sell the properties listed was made prior to December, 1975. Exhibit 29, the Consent Order between the Division of Consumer Affairs and ILB, corporate officers and salesmen of ILB, was entered on July 2, 1976. The Complaint in that proceeding, was the basis for Respondent's collateral estoppel argument to dismiss the instant proceeding, was filed April 10, 1976, following extensive investigation of ILB. This is pointed out solely to accentuate the fact that practically all of the documents in Exhibit 27 and 28, which were offered into evidence by Respondents to show that they were making bona fide efforts to sell the properties listed, were prepared subsequent to the commencement of the investigation of ILB. Exhibits 8, 9, and 10 were admitted into evidence, were published by Respondent but no substantive evidence was presented that these listings are "advertisements" of the properties for which Respondent received a listing fee or that they were distributed to anyone other than those making inquiries about property. In the forwarding letter printed on the inside of the front cover of these exhibits the selling brokers were offered a 7 percent commission of any cash sales they arranged. As noted above, the total commission in the Listing and Brokerage agreement was 10 percent. The information contained in these catalogs was not legally sufficient to locate the properties therein listed. Many of the land development companies which originally sold the properties which Respondents herein were soliciting listing commissions, head many unsold lots in these developments which they were offering for sale at prices less than one-half the prices Respondent had advised the owners the property would bring. Independent brokers in some of the areas involved, i.e. Lee, Collier, and Hendry counties testified that many of the lots in these developments were for resale at one-half the prices being asked by the developers. Exhibit 22, the Federal Corporate Income Tax Return for ILB for 1974 shows Respondent Kramer owned all of the stock of ILB during that taxable year and that $12.00 was spent on advertising. Exhibit 23, the Corporate Federal Income Tax Return for ILB for 1975 shows that $348,305.68 in gross receipts and deductions of $344,976.96, but no schedule of such deductions was attached. No evidence was presented regarding advertising expenses for taxable year 1975.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Eli Witt Company is a wholesale dealer in cigarettes in some eight states, including Florida. During the year 1976 and at the present time, Petitioner acts under the authorization of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco as an agent to buy or affix stamps pursuant to Section 210.05, Florida Statutes, and to collect and remit the cigarette tax to the Division after sale to various retailers in the State. Petitioner has some twenty-five branch offices located throughout the State who place orders for cigarettes with Petitioner on a daily basis. The cigarettes are invoiced by Petitioner to each branch and, upon arrival, the various branch offices affix the tax stamps upon the cigarette packages, primarily by means of a stamping machine. Each of Petitioner's stamping offices maintains its own records and files required reports, and is audited individually by employees of the Division. Each branch office is listed separately on a rider to the surety bond of Petitioner which is required under Chapter 210. Monthly checks are signed by each branch manager to remit tax collected to the Division. (Testimony of Hoyland) Since at least 1962, Petitioner had stamped cigarettes and collected cigarette taxes for the State of Florida. It had been allowed a discount as compensation for its services and expenses pursuant to Section 210.05 (3)(a), Florida Statutes, of 2.9 percent on the first two million cigarette packs stamped at each of its stamping locations. On March 1, 1976, the Division promulgated Rule 7A-10.25, Florida Administrative Code, which provided that a wholesaler who stamps cigarettes at more than one location would only be entitled to receive the maximum discount for a single agent doing business at a single location. Accordingly, although each of Petitioner's twenty-five stamping locations purchased more than two million stamps from the Division during the fiscal year July 1, 1976 through June 30, 1977, Petitioner retained the 2.9 percent discount as if it had done business at only one location. It filed a protest against the effect of the rule with the Division on July 1, 1976. A refund claim was filed with the State Comptroller on March 16, 1979, and denied on June 12, 1979. (Testimony of Hoyland, case pleadings, Exhibits 2- 3, 5) In 1977, the state legislature enacted Chapter 77-421, Laws of Florida, effective June 29, 1977, which provided in part in Section 8 thereof that: "Stamping locations approved by the division shall be responsible for computing the discount provided for each and every stamping location by ss. 210.05(3)(a), Florida Statutes . . ." The Division thereafter permitted discounts under the policy in effect prior to the promulgation of Rule 7A-10.25, but did not repeal the rule. On March 16, 1979, Petitioner requested the State Comptroller to refund the $64,800 paid under protest in fiscal year 1976-77 which represented the amount it could have retained as a discount if Rule 7A-10.25 had not been in effect. (Case pleadings, Exhibits 1, 4)
Findings Of Fact In Exhibit 3 Petitioner disputed the overpayment of sales tax, penalties and interest in the amount of $62,035.63. At the hearing it was stipulated that the disputed sum is $62,000.00. Petitioner is owner and publisher of a weekly paper, The Tampa/Metro Neighbor (Neighbor), published in Tampa and distributed in the Tampa metropolitan area of Hillsborough County. The Neighbor is distributed to readers free of charge. Petitioner started rack sales September 27, 1980, and has sold approximately 125 per week since that time. Its total circulation is approximately 164,009. The Neighbor has not been entered or qualified to be admitted and entered as second class mail matter at a post office in the county where it is published. The Neighbor is delivered by approximately one thousand carriers to residences and apartments in Hillsborough County each Thursday. The papers are placed in plastic bags to protect them from the weather. Petitioner claims sales tax exemption for the purchase of newsprint, ink, and plastic bags used to print and distribute the Neighbor. Newspapers such as The Tampa Tribune are exempt from sales tax on these items. Only newspapers and other periodical publications are eligible for mailing at second class rates of postage. Publications primarily designed for free circulation and/or circulation at nominal rates may not qualify for the general publications category (Exhibit 24). General publications primarily designed for advertising purposes may not qualify for second class privileges. Those not qualifying include those publications which contain more than 75 Percent advertising in more than half of the issues published during any 12- month period (Exhibit 24). Second class mail privilege is a very valuable asset for newspapers and other qualifying publications. The editorial content of the Neighbor, which they define as everything except advertisement, is comprised of local news, sporting news, local investigative reporting, an opinion section, and an entertainment section. The advertising is split into classified ads and other. The Neighbor contains no national or international news, no wire service reports, no comics, no stock market reports, no sports statistics, no weather reports, no national syndicated columnists, no state capital news, no obituaries, no book review section, and no special section such as home design, gardening, etc. Neighbor considers its primary competitor to be The Tampa Tribune. However, this competition is limited to advertising as the Neighbor has none of the traditional newspaper features above noted which are normally carried in daily newspapers. Petitioner presented two expert witnesses who opined that the Neighbor met the requirements to be classified as a newspaper because it was published in newspaper format; that it had an editorial section which provided some news as contrasted to that provided in a shopping guide; that the 75 percent - 25 percent advertising-editorial content did not make the Neighbor primarily an advertising paper; that the requirements of the U.S. Post Office for a periodical to obtain second class mail privileges is not relevant to a determination that the Neighbor is not newspaper; that the requirements of the Department of Revenue Rules 12A-1.08(3)(d) and 12A-1.08(4) Florida Administrative Code, are not relevant in determining whether the Neighbor is a newspaper; and that in a journalistic concept the Neighbor is a newspaper. The Neighbor was purchased in 1979 by North American Publications, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Morris Communications Corporation. Morris Communications Corporation owns several newspapers scattered from Florida to Alaska, both daily and weekly publications. Most of these publications are sold to paid subscribers. Petitioner's testimony that sales tax was not collected from Petitioner's predecessor owners was flatly contradicted by the testimony of Respondent's witness. Since the latter witness is in a much better position to know the facts respecting sales taxes levied on the former owner of the Neighbor, this testimony is the more credible. In any event, Petitioner did not claim estoppel.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Golfcrest Nursing Home (Golfcrest), is a properly licensed 67-bed nursing home located in Broward County, Florida. Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), was the state agency responsible for administration and implementation of the Florida Medicaid Program. Those responsibilities have been transferred to the Agency For Health Care Administration. Golfcrest participates in the Florida Medicaid Program and provides inpatient nursing home services to Medicaid eligible persons. Golfcrest is entitled to reimbursement in accordance with the Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Plan) which has been adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 10C-7.0482, Florida Administrative Code. The Plan contains provisions which authorize a nursing home participating in the Medicaid Program to request an interim change in its Medicaid reimbursement rate when it incurs property related costs which would change its reimbursement rate by one percent (1 percent) or when it incurs costs resulting from patient care or operating changes made to comply with existing state regulations, and said costs are at least $5,000 or one percent (1 percent) of its reimbursement rate. In 1980 Americare Corporation (Americare) purchased Golfcrest. In 1983 or 1984, Americare did some cosmetic renovations at Golfcrest. Portions of the facility are 45 years old. Americare contracted with Diversicare Management Services to manage the operations of Golfcrest. In 1988-1989, Joann Verbanic, a regional vice- president for Diversicare Management Services, recommended to the Board of Directors of Americare that major renovations to the Golfcrest facility be done. On March 19, 1990, Americare sent a team to Golfcrest to survey the facility for needed renovations. Later a plan was presented to Americare's Board of Directors and permission was given to proceed with a major renovation. In May of 1990 and July of 1991, HRS conducted its annual licensure surveys at Golfcrest. As a result, HRS identified several licensure deficiencies. Correction of these deficiencies was mandated by HRS. Failure to correct these deficiencies would have resulted in sanctions against Golfcrest's nursing home license, including administrative fines, a reduction in licensure rating, other civil penalties, and a reduction in Medicaid reimbursement. In order to correct the licensure deficiencies, Golfcrest incurred substantial property costs and costs due to patient care and operating changes. By letter dated January 6, 1992, Golfcrest submitted to HRS a request for an interim rate increase for patient care costs, operating costs, and property costs incurred or to be incurred to comply with existing state regulations and to correct identified licensure deficiencies. By letter dated April 14, 1992, Golfcrest provided additional information which had been requested by HRS. Golfcrest requested that the following costs be included in the calculation of its interim rate: Operating Costs Office Furniture $ 896.45 3 Laundry Carts 696.31 Office Door 125.00 Light Fixtures 1,067.30 Laundry Table 482.00 Structural Repairs 100.00 Repairs for Boiler 390.00 42 Overhead Lights 11,861.07 Patient Care Costs 57 Hi-Lo Beds 19,301.40 Blinds 5,145.02 Dining Room Furniture 3,167.70 Lobby Furniture 2,500.00 Bedspreads 3,404.78 Valances 3,472.05 Cubicle Curtains, Tracks 9,579.51 Activity Furniture 1,000.00 Property Costs Bldg. Imp. Depreciation 16,356.00 HRS denied in part and granted in part, Golfcrest's interim rate request by letter dated June 15, 1992, as revised by letter dated July 1, 1992. HRS granted the patient care costs for the 57 Hi-Lo beds and for the cubicle curtain and tracks and the property costs for the building improvement depreciation. In its proposed recommended order, Golfcrest withdrew its request for costs of the boiler leak, the lobby furniture, folding table for the laundry, and structural repairs. Golfcrest incurred the costs for which the interim rate is requested. Golfcrest requested that the purchase of office furniture be accepted as an allowable cost. Golfcrest did not specify what office furniture was purchased nor did it adequately relate such a purchase to a cited deficiency in either the 1990 or the 1991 survey. Additionally, Golfcrest did not establish that the cost of the office furniture was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for office furniture. In the 1990 survey report, Golfcrest was cited for having linen stored on dressers in residents' rooms. There was insufficient space to store the linen in the laundry area so Golfcrest purchased three laundry carts to store the linens in the hallways. The purchase of the laundry carts was necessary to correct the deficiency cited in the 1990 survey. However, no evidence was presented to establish that the amount paid for the laundry carts was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for the item. In the 1991 survey, Golfcrest was cited for having exit doors with screens missing and broken jalousie slats; therefore, it did not meet the requirement that the facility must provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain an orderly and comfortable interior. Golfcrest relies on this cited deficiency to support its claim for the cost of replacing a new office door. Golfcrest's reliance is misplaced. The deficiency is the failure to perform ordinary maintenance services. The replacement of the office door is not necessary to comply with the cited licensure requirements. Golfcrest stated in its plan of correction that it would repair the cited doors by replacing the screens. Additionally, Golfcrest did not establish that the cost of the door was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for the door. Rule 10D-29.121(7)(d), Florida Administrative Code, required that renovations to restore a nonconforming building to its condition previous to deterioration must minimally meet standards for a new facility. The unrebutted testimony was that termites had damaged the wall studs and the walls had to be torn out and replaced. In order to meet the required NFPA standards and building code requirements for lumens and wiring, it was necessary to replace 42 overbed lights and 14 light fixtures for 3-bed wards. The purchase of this lighting was necessary to correct deficiencies that would result if the old lighting were retained after the renovations. However, no evidence was presented that would establish that the cost of the lighting fixtures was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for the lighting. In the 1990 survey report, Golfcrest was cited for having broken venetian blinds in rooms 6 and 33. Golfcrest stated in its plan of correction that "broken blinds are repaired/replaced as needed." Golfcrest requested that in its interim rate request that $5,145.02 be considered an allowable cost for the replacement of blinds. Although there was a deficiency noted concerning broken venetian blinds, Golfcrest did not establish that the cost for the blinds was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for the blinds. In the 1991 survey, Golfcrest was cited for not being adequately furnished in the dining areas and not having sufficient space to accommodate all activities. In order to provide more space in the dining areas, Golfcrest purchased ten collapsible dining tables which could be easily removed to provide more space for large group activities in the dining room. The purchase of the dining tables was necessary to correct the deficiency of inadequate space, however, Golfcrest did not establish that the cost of the dining tables did not exceed the level of what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for dining tables. Golfcrest purchased 67 dining room chairs. However, Golfcrest did not establish how the purchase of the dining room chairs corrected the cited deficiency and did not establish that the cost of the dining room chairs was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for dining room chairs. In the 1991 survey report, Golfcrest was cited for not providing clean beds. As an example of this deficiency, the survey listed torn blankets, threadbare sheets, pillow cases and towels and sunrotted sheets. Golfcrest purchased 104 bedspreads to replace all the bedspreads in the facility and to maintain an inventory of bedspreads to be used while bedspreads was being laundered. The purchase of the bedspreads were related to a cited deficiency, but Golfcrest did not establish that the cost of the bedspreads was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for the bedspreads. Golfcrest requested that the purchase of valances be considered an allowable cost in its interim rate request. In its proposed recommended order, Golfcrest relied on the deficiencies cited in the 1991 survey report relating to the life safety survey dealing with privacy curtains which did not have netting at the top for support of its request for the valances. Golfcrest did not establish that the valances purchased were part of the cited privacy curtains. Given the fact that Golfcrest's request for replacement of cubicle curtains and tracks, was a separate request from the valances, it is reasonable to infer that the valances did not relate to the licensure requirement relied upon by Golfcrest. Additionally, Golfcrest did not establish that the cost of the valances was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for valances. Golfcrest requested that the purchase of furniture for the activities area be considered an allowable cost in the calculation of its interim rate. Golfcrest did not establish what furniture was purchased for the activity area; thus, it did not establish how the purchase of the furniture was necessary to correct the deficiency that Golfcrest did not provide sufficient space and equipment and did not adequately furnish recreation and program areas to enable staff to provide residents with needed services as required. Additionally, Golfcrest did not establish that the cost of the furnishings for the activity room was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for the furnishings. In its January 6, 1992 letter requesting an interim rate request, Golfcrest used 22,676 patient days to calculate the per diem rate for property costs. This number was taken from the July 31, 1990 cost report. HRS used 23,010 patient days to calculate the per diem rate. This number was taken from the last cost report dated July 31, 1991 and is the appropriate number to use in calculating the interim rate. The total per diem reimbursement rate for Golfcrest which was in effect at the time of the interim rate request was $71.2565. The per diem reimbursement for the property component is not one percent or more of Golfcrest's total per diem reimbursement rate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Agency for Health Care Administration as successor in interest for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services determining the interim rate for Golfcrest to be $1.2551. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 3rd day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-847 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1-6: Accepted. Paragraph 7-9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 11-16: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 17-19: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 20: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 21: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Paragraph 22: Accepted in substance. HRS had allowed the cost of the Hi-Lo beds, thus, those costs were not in dispute. Paragraph 23: Accepted in substance as to the blinds but not as to the shades and shower curtains. The shades and shower curtains were not part of the interim rate request, thus whether they were necessary to correct a deficiency is not addressed in this Recommended Order. Paragraph 24: Accepted in substance as it relates to the dining tables but not as to the dining chairs. Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 26: Accepted in substance as it relates to the cubicle curtains and tracks but not as it relates to the valances. The cubicle curtains and tracks were allowed by HRS as a cost and thus was not in dispute. Paragraphs 27-28: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 29: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 30: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 31: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 32 and 33: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 34: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The third, fifth, sixth and seventh sentences are rejected as constituting conclusions of law. The fourth sentence is accepted. Paragraphs 35-36: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 37: The first sentence is accepted. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 38: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 39: With exception of the last sentence the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary detail. The last sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 2-9: Accepted. Paragraph 10-11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12-22: Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraphs 23-28: Accepted in substance except in paragraph 24 the reference to floor coverings should be to light fixtures. Paragraph 29: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 30: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 31-33: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 34: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 35: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 36-39: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karel Baarslag, Esquire HRS Medicaid Office 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building Six, Room 233 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has made unauthorized payments to Superior Insurance Group, its corporate parent, and whether Respondent has properly disclosed these payments on its financial reports filed with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a domestic stock insurance company operating under a certificate of authority to transact in Florida the business of property and casualty insurance. As a nonstandard automobile insurer, Respondent primarily deals with policyholders whose driving records and accident histories preclude their coverage by standard automobile insurers. Superior Insurance Group, Inc. (formerly GGS Management, Inc. (GGS)) owns Respondent; Symons International Group, Inc. (Symons) owns Superior Insurance Group, Inc. (Superior Group); and Goran Capital, Inc. (Goran) owns 73 percent of Symons. Although publicly traded, Goran was founded, and probably is still controlled, by the Symons family. Superior Group serves as Respondent’s managing general agent. GGS changed its name to Superior Group in early 2000; where appropriate, this Recommended Order refers to this entity as GGS/Superior Group. Respondent owns Superior American Insurance Company (Superior American) and Superior Guaranty Insurance Company (Superior Guaranty), which are both domestic stock insurance companies authorized to conduct in Florida the business of property and casualty insurance. Also engaged in the nonstandard automobile insurance business, Superior American and Superior Guaranty transfer all of their premiums and losses to Respondent under a reinsurance agreement. All financial information concerning Superior American and Superior Guaranty, which, for the purpose of this case, are mere conduits to Respondent, are included in the financial information of Respondent. On or about April 30, 1996, GGS acquired the stock of Respondent, as well as other assets, from an unrelated corporation, Fortis, Inc. or one of its subsidiaries. From the regulatory perspective, the acquisition started when, as required by law, on or about February 5, 1996, GGS filed with Petitioner a Form A application for Petitioner’s approval of the acquisition of Respondent. This was an extensive document, consisting of more than 1000 pages. One of the purposes of the application process, as described in Section 628.461, Florida Statutes, is to assure the adequacy of the funds used by the entity acquiring the insurer. The proposed acquisition is described by the Statement Regarding the Acquisition of More Than Five Percent of the Outstanding Voting Securities of Superior Insurance Company . . . by GGS Management, Inc., dated February 5, 1996 (Acquisition Statement). The Acquisition Statement states that GGS Management Holdings, Inc. owned GGS. (The distinction between GGS and GGS Management Holdings, Inc. is irrelevant to this case, so “GGS,” as used in this Recommended Order, shall also refer to GGS Management Holdings, Inc.) According to the Acquisition Statement, Symons owned 52 percent of GGS; GS Capital Partners II, L.P., owned 30 percent of GGS; GS Capital Partners II Offshore, L.P., owned 12 percent of GGS; and three mutual funds (probably all affiliates of Goldman Sachs) owned the remaining 6 percent of GGS. GS Capital Partners II, L.P., was owned by 100 investors, including The Goldman Sachs Group, L.P. (16.54 percent), “wealthy individuals and trusts, corporate pension funds, foundations and endowments, family trusts/corporations and one state pension fund.” The ownership of GS Capital Partners II Offshore, L.P., resembled the ownership of GS Capital Partners II, L.P. The Acquisition Statement states that GGS “will be the manager of all insurance operations for [Respondent] and will act as the holding company for [Respondent] and [an Indiana nonstandard automobile insurer known as Pafco whose stock Symons was contributing to GGS].” The Acquisition Statement projects the stock-purchase price, which was expressed as a formula, to be about $60 million. Citing the $2 billion in capital of the two Goldman Sachs limited partnerships and the $50 million in capital of Goran, the Acquisition Statement assures that “GGS has tremendous wherewithal to fund the growth needs of [Respondent] . . ..” Alluding to Goran’s 20 years’ experience in managing nonstandard automobile insurance companies, the Acquisition Statement represents that the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships and Goran “possess the capital and leadership resources to support the proposed activities of [Respondent].” According to the Acquisition Statement, the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships and Goran “anticipate that the acquisition of [Respondent] is but the first step in an effort to build a significant non-standard auto insurance company.” The Acquisition Statement describes the respective contributions of the two owners of GGS: Symons will contribute Pafco, which then had a current GAAP book value of $14 million, and the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships will contribute $20 million in cash. With the backing of Symons and the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships and secured by all of the stock of Respondent and GGS, GGS will execute a six-year promissory note with The Chase Manhattan Bank (Chase) for $44 million. Drawing $40 million from this credit extension and using the $20 million cash contribution of the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships, GGS will fund the anticipated cash purchase price of $60 million. The Acquisition Statement represents that GGS will be able to service the debt. Due to the cash contribution of the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships, the Chase debt represents only two-thirds of the purchase price. Due to the cash contribution of the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships and the stock contribution by Symons, the Chase debt represents only about one-half of the initial capital of GGS. The Acquisition Statement states that GGS will service the Chase debt in part by “the combination of the management activities of both Pafco and [Respondent] within GGS, billing fees, other non-insurance company activities and anticipated insurance company operating economies which will result from the combination of these two operations [Pafco and Respondent].” The equity contributions of cash and stock “contribute significantly to the financial stability of GGS, allowing GGS to service the debt using operating cash flows only, including, if necessary, normal dividends from earned surplus as a secondary source of debt service funds. GGS does not anticipate using dividends from either Pafco or [Respondent] as a primary source of debt service funds.” The Chase Credit Agreement, which is dated April 30, 1996, requires GGS to use its best efforts to cause Respondent to pay "cash dividends or other distributions or payments in cash including . . . the payment of Billing Fees and Management Fees" in sufficient amounts to pay all principal and interest due under the financing instrument. The Chase Credit Agreement defines "Billing Fees" as: "fees with respect to the payment of premiums on an installment basis that are received by an Insurance Subsidiary from policyholders and in turn paid to [GGS] or received directly by [GGS] . . .." The Chase Credit Agreement defines "Management Fees" as: "all fees paid by an Insurance Subsidiary to [GGS] that are calculated on the basis of gross written premiums." With respect to the "Management Fees" described in the Chase Credit Agreement, the Acquisition Statement describes a five-year management agreement to be entered into by GGS with Pafco and Respondent (Management Agreement). The Management Agreement, which GGS and Respondent executed on April 30, 1996, provides that GGS “will provide management services to both Pafco and [Respondent] and will receive from [Respondent] as compensation 17% of [Respondent’s] gross written premium” and a slightly lower percentage of premiums from Pafco (Management Fee). Under the Management Agreement, Respondent “will continue to pay premium taxes, boards and bureaus costs, legal and audit fees and certain computer costs.” The Acquisition Statement states that Respondent’s “operating costs" were about 21%, so the 17% cap “will allow [Respondent] to see a significant and immediate improvement in its overall financial performance”-- over $1 million in 1994, which was the last year for which financial information was then available. The Management Agreement gives GGS the exclusive right and nondelegable and nonassignable obligation to perform a broad range of business actions on Respondent’s behalf. These actions include accepting contracts, issuing policies, appointing adjustors, and adjusting claims. The Management Agreement requires GGS to "pay [Respondent’s] office rent and occupancy operating expenses from the amounts that it receives pursuant to this Agreement.” In return, the Management Agreement requires Respondent to pay GGS “fees for the business placed with [Respondent as follows:] Agents commission plus 17% not to exceed 32% in total.” The scope of the services undertaken by GGS in the Management Agreement is similarly described in the Plan of Operation, which GGS filed with Petitioner as part of the application. The Plan of Operation provides that, in exchange for the 17 percent “management commission,” GGS assumes the responsibility for all aspects of the operating expenses of the book including underwriting, claims handling and administration. The only expenses which remain the responsibility of [Respondent] directly are those expenses directly related to the insurance book, such as premium taxes, boards and bureaus, license fees, guaranty fund assessments and miscellaneous expenses such as legal and audit expenses and certain computer costs associated directly with [Respondent]. In response to a request for additional information, Goran’s general counsel, by letter dated March 13, 1996, to Petitioner’s application coordinator, added another document, Document 26. The new document was a pro forma financial projection for 1996-2002 (Proforma) showing the sources of funds for GGS to service the Chase debt. The seven-year Proforma contains only two significant sources of income for GGS: “management fee income” and “finance & service fee income" (Finance and Service Fees). By year, starting with 1996, these respective figures are $28.6 million and $7.0 million, $34.2 million and $8.6 million, $38.1 million and $9.9 million, $42.6 million and $11.0 million, $47.5 million and $12.3 million, $53.0 million and $13.7 million, and $59.3 million and $15.3 million. Accounting for the principal and interest payments over the six-year repayment term of the Chase Credit Agreement, the Proforma shows ending cash balances, during each of the covered years, culminating in a final cash balance, in 2002, of $43.9 million. By letter dated March 29, 1996, Goran’s general counsel informed Petitioner that an increase in Respondent’s book value had triggered an increase in the purchase price from $60 million to $66 million. Also, the book value of Pafco had increased from $14 million to $15.3 million, and the cash required of the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships had increased from $20 million to $21.2 million. Additionally, the letter states that Chase had increased its commitment from $44 million to $48 million. A revised Document 26 accompanied the March 29 letter and showed the same income projections. Reflecting increased debt-service projections, the revised Proforma projected lower cash balances, culminating with $39.8 million in 2002. During a meeting in March 1996, Mr. Alan Symons, president and chief executive officer of Goran and a director of Superior Group and Respondent, met with three of Petitioner's representatives, including Mary Mostoller, Petitioner's employee primarily responsible for the substantive examination of the GGS application. During that meeting, Mr. Symons informed Petitioner that GGS would receive Finance and Service Fees from Respondent's policyholders who paid their premiums by installments. Ms. Mostoller did not testify, and the sole representative of Petitioner who attended the meeting and testified candidly admitted that he could not recall whether they discussed this matter. In response to another request for additional information, Respondent’s present counsel, by letter dated April 12, 1996, informed Petitioner that the “finance and service fee income” line of the Proforma “is composed primarily of billing fees assessed to policyholders that choose to make payments on a monthly basis,” using the same rate that Respondent had long used. The letter explains that the projected increase in these fees is attributable solely to a projected increase in business and not to a projected increase in the rate historically charged policyholders for this service. In an internal memorandum dated April 18, 1996, Ms. Mostoller noted that GGS would pay the Chase Credit Agreement through a “combination of the management fees and other billing fees of both Pafco and [Respondent].” Later in the April 18 memorandum, though, Ms. Mostoller suggested, among other things, that Petitioner condition its approval of the acquisition on the right of Petitioner to reevaluate annually the reasonableness of the “management fee and agent’s commission”--omitting any mention of the "other billing fees." On April 30, 1996, Petitioner entered a Consent Order Approving Acquisition of Stock Pursuant to Section 628.461, Florida Statutes (Consent Order). Incorporating all of Ms. Mostoller's recommendations, the Consent Order is signed by Respondent and GGS, which "agree to and consent to all of the above cited terms and conditions . . .." The Consent Order does not incorporate by reference the application and related documents, nor does the Consent Order contain an integration clause, which, if present, would merge all prior written and unwritten agreements into the Consent Order so as to preclude the implementation of such agreements in conjunction with the Consent Order. Among other things, the Consent Order mandates the following: [Respondent] shall give advance notice to [Petitioner] of any proposed changes in the [Management Agreement] and shall receive written approval from [Petitioner] prior to implementing those changes. In addition, for a period of three (3) years, [Petitioner] shall reevaluate at the end of each calendar year the reasonableness of the fees as reflected on Addendum A of the [Management] Agreement[.] Furthermore, [Petitioner] may at its sole discretion, and after consideration of the performance and operating percentages of [Respondent] and any other pertinent data, require [Respondent] to make adjustments in the [M]anagement [F]ee and agent's commission. GGS . . . shall file each year an audited financial statement with [Petitioner] . . .. In addition to the above, for a period of 4 years from the date of execution of this Consent Order . . .: [Respondent] shall not pay or authorize any stockholder dividends to shareholders without prior written approval of [Petitioner]. Any direct or indirect contracts, agreements or transactions of any type or nature including but not limited to the sale or exchange of assets among or between [Respondent] and any member of the Goran . . . holding company system shall receive prior written approval of [Petitioner]. That failure to adhere to one or more of the above terms and conditions shall result WITHOUT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS in the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner DENYING the above acquisition, or the REVOCATION of the insurers' certification of authority if such failure to adhere occurs after the issuance of the Consent Order approving the above acquisition. The Consent Order addresses the Management Fees and the commissions payable to the independent agents who sell Respondent's insurance policies. However, the Consent Order omits any explicit mention of the Finance and Service Fees, even though GGS and Respondent had clearly and unambiguously disclosed these fees to Petitioner on several occasions prior to the issuance of the Consent Order. On its face, the Consent Order requires prior approval for the payment of Finance and Service Fees, which arise due to a contract or agreement between Respondent and GGS/Superior Group. The Consent Order prohibits "direct or indirect contracts, agreements or transactions of any type or nature including . . . the sale or exchange of assets among or between [Respondent] and any member of the Goran . . . holding company system," without Petitioner's prior written approval. The exact nature of these Finance and Service Fees facilitates the determination of their proper treatment under the Consent Order and the facts of this case. Ostensibly, the Finance and Service Fees pertain to items not covered by the Management Fees, which cover a wide range of items. In fact, the Finance and Service Fees arise only when a policyholder elects to pay his premium in installments; if no policyholder were to pay his premium by installments, no Finance and Service Fees would be due. The testimony in the record suggests that the Finance and Service Fees pertain to services that necessarily must be performed when policyholders pay their premiums by installments. This suggestion is true, as far as it goes. Installment payments require an insurer to incur administrative and information-management costs in billing and collecting installment payments. Other costs arise if late installment payments necessitate the cancellations and if reinstatements follow cancellations. Installment-payment transactions are undeniably more expensive to the insurer than single-payment transactions. The record as to these installment-payment costs, which are more in the nature of a service charge, is well- developed. However, the Finance and Service Fees also pertain to the cost of the loss of the use of money when policyholders pay their premiums by installments. Installment-payment transactions cause the insurer to lose the use of the deferred portion of the premium for the period of the deferral. The record as to these costs, which are more in the nature of a finance charge or interest, is relatively undeveloped. At the hearing, Mr. Symons testified that an insurer does not lose the use of the deferred portion of the premium for an established book of business. Mr. Symons illustrated his point by analyzing over a twelve-month period the development of a hypothetical book of business consisting of twelve insureds. If an insurer added its first insured in the first month, added a second in the third, and so forth, until it added its twelfth insured in the twelfth month, and each insured chose to pay a hypothetical $120 annual premium in twelve installments of $10 each, the cash flow in the twelfth and each succeeding month (assuming no changes in the number of insureds) would be $120-- the same that it would have been if each of the insureds chose to pay his premium in full, rather than by installment. Thus, Mr. Symons' point was that, after the first eleven months, installment payments do not result in the loss of the use of money by the insurer. Mr. Symons' illustration assumes a constant book of business after the twelfth month. However, while the insurer is adding installment-paying insureds, the insurer loses the use of the portion of the first-year premium that is deferred, as is evident in the first eleven months of Mr. Symons' illustration. Also, if the constant book of business is due to a constant replacement of nonrenewing insureds with new insureds--a distinct possibility in the nonstandard automobile market--then the insurer will again suffer the loss of the use of money over the first eleven months. Either way, Mr. Symons' illustration does not eliminate the insurer's loss of the use of money when its insureds pay by installments; the illustration only demonstrates that the extent of the loss of the use of the money may not be as great as one would casually assume. The Finance and Service Fee is sufficiently broad to encompass all of the terms used in this record to describe it: "installment fee," "billing fee," "service charge," "premium fee," and even "premium finance fee." However, only "installment fee" is sufficiently broad as to capture both types of costs covered by the Finance and Service Fee. The dual components of the Finance and Service Fee are suggested by the statute authorizing its imposition. Section 627.902, Florida Statutes, authorizes an insurer or affiliate of the insurer to "finance" premiums at the "service charge or rate of interest" specified in Section 627.901, Florida Statutes, without qualifying as a premium finance company under Chapter 627, Part XV, Florida Statutes. If the insurer or affiliate exceeds these maximum impositions, then it must qualify as a premium finance company. The "service charge or rate of interest" authorized in Section 627.901, Florida Statutes, is either $1 per installment (subject to limitations irrelevant to this case) or 18 percent simple interest on the unpaid balance. The charge per installment, which is imposed without regard to the amount deferred, suggests a service charge, and the interest charge, which is imposed without regard to the number of installments, suggests a finance charge. The determination of the proper treatment of the Finance and Service Fees under the Consent Order is also facilitated by consideration of the process by which these fees were transferred to GGS/Superior Group. As anticipated by the parties, after the acquisition of Respondent by GGS, Respondent retained no employees, and GGS/Superior Group employees performed all of the services required by Respondent. The process by which Respondent transferred the Finance and Service Fees to GGS/Superior Group began with Respondent issuing a single invoice to the policyholder showing the premium and the Finance and Service Fee, if the policyholder elected to pay by installments. As Mr. Symons testified, Respondent calculated the Finance and Service Fee on the basis of the 1.5 percent per month on the unpaid balance, rather than the specified fee per installment. The installment-paying policyholder then wrote a check for the invoiced amount, payable to Respondent, and mailed it to Respondent at the address shown on the invoice. Employees of GGS/Superior Group collected the checks and deposited them in Respondent's bank account. From these funds, the employees of GGS/Superior Group then paid the commissions to the independent agents, the Management Fee (calculated without regard to the Finance and Service Fee) to GGS/Superior Group, and the Finance and Service Fee to GGS/Superior Group. Respondent retained the remainder. Finance and Service Fees can be considerable in the nonstandard automobile insurance business. Many policyholders in this market lack the financial ability to pay premiums in total when due, so they commonly pay their premiums in installments. At the time of the 1996 acquisition, for instance, about 90 percent of Respondent's policyholders paid their premiums by installments. For 1996, on gross premiums of $156.4 million, Respondent earned net income (after taxes) of $1.978 million, as compared to gross premiums of $97.6 million and net income of $5.177 million in 1995. At the end of 1996, Respondent's surplus was $57.1 million, as compared to $49.3 million at the end of the prior year. "Surplus" or "policyholder surplus" for insurance companies is like net worth for other corporations. In 1996, Respondent received $2.154 million in Finance and Service Fees, as compared to $1.987 million in the prior year. However, Respondent did not pay any Finance and Service Fees to GGS in 1996. For related-party transactions in 1996, Respondent's financial statements disclose the payment of $155,500 to GGS and Fortis for "management fees," assumed reinsurance premiums and losses, and a capital contribution of $5.558 million from GGS, of which $4.8 million was in the form of a note. These related-party disclosures for 1996 were adequate. In August 1997, Symons bought out Goldman Sachs' interest in GGS for $61 million. Following the 1996 acquisition, Goldman Sachs had invested another $3-4 million, but, with a total investment of about $25 million, Goldman Sachs enjoyed a handsome return in a little over one year. Mr. Symons attributed the relatively high price to then-current valuations, which were 100 percent of annual gross premiums. More colorfully, Mr. Symons' brother, also a principal in the Goran family of corporations, attributed the purchase price to Goldman Sachs' "greed. " At the same time that Symons bought out Goldman Sachs, Symons enabled GGS to retire the Chase acquisition debt. The elimination of Goldman Sachs and Chase may be related by more than the need for $61 million to buy out Goldman Sachs. The 1996 Annual Statement that Respondent filed with Petitioner reports "total adjusted capital" of $57.1 million and "authorized control level risk-based capital" of $20.7 million, for a ratio of less than 3:1. Section 8.10 of the Chase Credit Agreement states that GGS "will not, on any date, permit the Risk Based Capital Ratio . . . of [Respondent] to be less than 3 to 1." Section 1 of the Chase Credit Agreement defines the ”Risk-Based Capital Ratio" as the ratio of Respondent's "Total Adjusted Capital" to its "Authorized Control Level Risk-Based Capital." In August 1997, Symons raised $135 million in a public offering of securities that probably more closely resemble debt than equity. After paying $61 million to Goldman Sachs and the $45-48 million then due Chase under the Credit Agreement (due to additional advances), Symons applied the remaining loan proceeds to various affiliates, as additional capital contributions, and possibly itself, for cash-flow purposes. The $135 million debt instrument, which remains in place, requires payments over a 30- year term, provides for no repayment of principal until the end of the term, and allows for the deferral of the semi-annual dividend/interest payments for up to five years. Symons exercised its right to defer dividend/interest payments for an undetermined period of time in 2000. The payments that are the subject of this case took place from 1997 through 1999. During this period, on a gross basis, Respondent paid GGS $35.2 million in Finance and Service Fees. In fact, $1.395 million paid in 1999 were not Finance and Service Fees, but were SR-22 policy fees, which presumably are charges attributable to the preparation and issuance by GGS of certificates of financial responsibility. Because Respondent's financial statements did not separate any SR-22 fees from Finance and Service Fees for 1997 or 1998, it is impossible to identify what, if any, portion of the Finance and Service Fees in those years were actually SR-22 fees. Even though SR-22 fees represent a service charge without an interest component, they are included in Finance and Service Fees for purposes of this Recommended Order. For 1997, on gross premiums of $188.3 million, Respondent earned net income of $379,000. For 1998, on gross premiums of $179.8 million, Respondent suffered a net loss of $8.122 million. For 1999, on gross premiums of $170.5 million, Respondent suffered a net loss of $19.232 million. Respondent's surplus decreased from $65.1 million at the end of 1997, to $57.6 million at the end of 1998, to $34.2 million at the end of 1999. In its Quarterly Statement filed as of September 30, 2000, Respondent disclosed, for the first nine months of 2000, a net loss of $5.89 million and a decline in surplus to $24.0 million. By the end of 2000, Respondent's surplus decreased to $21.6 million. However, at all times, Respondent's surplus exceeded the statutory minimum. For 1999, for example, Respondent's surplus of $34.2 million doubled the statutory minimum. Respondent also satisfied the statutory premium-to-surplus ratio, although possibly not the statutory risk-based capital ratio. As of the final hearing, Petitioner had required Respondent to file a risk-based capital plan, Respondent had done so, Petitioner had required amendments to the plan, Respondent had declined to adopt the amendments, and Petitioner had not yet taken further action. From 1997-1999, Respondent's annual statements, quarterly statements, and financial statements inadequately disclosed the payments that Respondent made to GGS. The annual statements disclose "Service Fee on Ceded Business," which is a write-in item described in language chosen by Respondent. Petitioner's contention that this item appears to be a reinsurance transaction in which Respondent is ceding risk and premiums to a third-party is rebutted by the fact that the Schedule F, Part 5, on each annual statement discloses relatively minor reinsurance transactions whose ceded premiums would not approach those reported as "Service Fee on Ceded Business." Notwithstanding the unconvincing nature of Petitioner's contention as to the precise confusion caused by Respondent's reporting of the payment of Finance and Service Fees, Respondent's reporting was clearly inadequate and even misleading. The real problem in the annual statements, quarterly statements, and financial statements is their failure to disclose Respondent's payments to a related party, GGS. Respondent unconvincingly attempts to explain this omission by an imaginative recharacterization of the Finance and Service Fee transactions as pass-through transactions. These were not pass-through transactions in 1996 when Respondent retained the Finance and Service Fees. These were not pass- through transactions in 1997-1999 when Respondent properly accounted for these payments from policyholders as income and payments to GGS as expenses. The proper characterization of these transactions involving the Finance and Service Fees does not depend on the form that Respondent and GGS/Superior Group selected for them-- in which policyholders pay Respondent and Respondent pays GGS/Superior Group--although this form does not serve particularly well Respondent's present contention. Even if Respondent had changed the form so that the policyholders paid the Finance and Service Fees directly to GGS/Superior Group, the economic reality of the transactions would remain the same. Even if policyholders paid their installments to Respondent, GGS/Superior Group, or any other party, the Finance and Service Fees would initially vest in Respondent, which, under an agreement, would then owe them to GGS/Superior Group. The inadequacy of the disclosure of the Finance and Service Fees is a relatively minor issue, in itself, in this case. In its proposed recommended order, Respondent invites direction as to how Petitioner would like Respondent to report these payments in the future. The major impact of Respondent's nondisclosure of these payments is that none of the statements filed after the 1996 acquisition notified Petitioner of the existence of these payments. It is thus impossible to infer an agreement or even acquiescence on the part of Petitioner regarding Respondent's payment of Finance and Service Fees to GGS/Superior Group. The major issue in this case is whether the Consent Order authorizes Respondent to pay $35 million in Finance and Service Fees after the 1996 acquisition or, if not, whether Petitioner has approved of such payments by any other means. As already noted, the Consent Order authorizes the payment of agents' commissions and Management Fees, but not Finance and Service Fees. To the contrary, the Consent Order prohibits the payment of Finance and Service Fees for four years, at least without Petitioner's approval, because of the provision otherwise prohibiting agreements, contracts, and the transfer of assets involving Respondent and its affiliates. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, the absence of an integration clause invites consideration of oral agreements that may have preceded the execution of the Consent Order. The Consent Order is somewhat of a hybrid: Petitioner orders and Respondent consents. However, the Consent Order is sufficiently an agreement to be subject to interpretation under normal principles governing the interpretation of contracts. Respondent contends that such agreements encompassed the payment of Finance and Service Fees because Respondent disclosed such payments several times to Petitioner prior to the issuance of the Consent Order. (Any testimonial assertion of an explicit agreement by Petitioner to the payment of the Finance and Service Fees is discredited.) Respondent repeated disclosures to Petitioner of the Finance and Service Fees began with the Acquisition Statement at the start of the application process. The parties discussed these fees in March 1996. The Proformas disclose two main revenue sources from which GGS/Superior Group could service its acquisition debt: Management Fees and Finance and Service Fees. And the Proformas project almost exactly the amount that Respondent paid GGS in Finance and Service Fees from 1997-99. Although the ratio of Management Fees to Finance and Service Fees was 4:1 in the Proformas, this ratio does not minimize the role of the Finance and Service Fees. Based on gross revenues, this ratio is no indication of the relative profitability of these two sources of revenue. In fact, in 1999, the expenses covered by the Management Agreement exceeded the Management Fees by $3 million. The Finance and Service Fees are thus an important component of the revenue on which GGS intended to rely in servicing the acquisition debt. However, neither the clear disclosure of the Finance and Service Fees nor Petitioner's recognition of the importance of these fees in servicing the acquisition debt necessarily means that Petitioner agreed to their payment. By a preponderance of, although less than clear and convincing, evidence, the record precludes the possibility that Petitioner agreed in preclosing discussions or the Consent Order to preapprove the Finance and Service Fees. In this respect, Petitioner treated the Finance and Service Fees differently from the Management Fees, which Petitioner agreed to preapprove, subject to annual reevaluation for the first three years. At the level of a preponderance of the evidence, it is possible to harmonize this construction of the Consent Order with Respondent's repeated disclosures of the Finance and Service Fees. The Acquisition Statement mentions dividends as a revenue source--although a "secondary" source--and the Consent Order clearly did not impliedly preapprove the payment of dividends. Aware of the reliance of GGS upon the Finance and Service Fees to service the Chase acquisition debt, Petitioner may have chosen, for the first four years, to consider Respondent's requests for approval of the Finance and Service Fees, based on the circumstances in existence at the time of the requests. This interpretation is consistent with the testimony of Petitioner's employee that he believed that Petitioner would be able to restrict Respondent's payment of Finance and Service Fees to GGS/Superior Group because Petitioner's approval was required for the payment of dividends. The payments are pursuant to a contract or agreement for services and, as such, are not dividends, but the Consent Order requires Petitioner's approval for all contracts and agreements during the first four years. The common point is that Petitioner understood that its approval would be required for Finance and Service Fees, which had not been preapproved like Management Fees. During the application process, GGS may not have been concerned by Petitioner's failure to preapprove the Finance and Service Fees. At the time of the 1996 acquisition, as contrasted to the period after the 1997 refinancing, GGS enjoyed a relatively light debt load due to Goldman Sachs' equity investment and the "tremendous wherewithal" of its 48 percent co-owner. Another practical distinction between the Finance and Service Fees and the Management Fees militates against finding that the Consent Order impliedly approves the Finance and Service Fees and militates in favor of a finding that GGS viewed these fees as more contingent and less likely to be needed than the Management Fees. At the start of the application process, GGS submitted to Petitioner a form Management Agreement. At no time did GGS ever submit to Petitioner a form Finance and Service Agreement. The contingent nature of the Finance and Service Fees, relative to the Management Fees, is reinforced by the fact that, in 1996, Respondent retained the Finance and Service Fees. Respondent's contention that the Finance and Service Fees were a component of the agreement between it and Petitioner is not without its appeal. The contention is sufficient to preclude a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the agreement between the parties did not include a preapproval of Finance and Service Fees. Unlike the Management Fees, the maximum amount of the Finance and Service Fees is set by statute. Two consequences follow. First, Petitioner might not have found it necessary to incorporate these fees in a written agreement, as long as the maximum amount were acceptable to Petitioner, because the law establishes a ceiling on the fees and identifies the services for which they are compensation. Second, Petitioner might not have found it necessary provide for annual reevaluation of the fees, again due to the applicable statutory maximum. In one respect, the relatively contingent quality of the Finance and Service Fees inures to Respondent's benefit, at least in theory. If no policyholder paid by installments, there would be no Finance and Service Fees; however, as a practical matter, the Finance and Service Fees are almost as pervasive as the Management Fees. More importantly, though, the Finance and Service Fees, especially when imposed as a percentage of the unpaid balance, contain a significant interest component. Paying these fees to GGS/Superior Group, Respondent denies itself the investment income attributable to this forbearance. Alternatively, to the extent that the Finance and Service Fees defray services, as they do to some unknown extent, the greater weight of the evidence, although not clear and convincing evidence, establishes that these services are among the services that GGS/Superior Group undertook in the Management Agreement. These factors militate strongly against treating the Finance and Service Fees as an implied exception to the provision of the Consent Order requiring approval of all contracts or agreements with affiliates during the first four years. For these reasons, Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence, although not clear and convincing evidence, that GGS/Superior Group and Respondent needed Petitioner's approval for all payments of Finance and Service Fees prior to April 30, 2000. To the extent that, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner withholds such approval, the next issue is to determine the amount of Finance and Service Fees that GGS/Superior Group must return to Respondent. The determination of the amount of the repayment is substantially affected by two facts. First, Petitioner's approval is not required for any Finance and Service Fees that Respondent paid GGS/Superior Group after April 30, 2000. The Consent Order did not require Petitioner's approval for such payments, which were not dividends, for which approval would always be required, if inadequate surplus existed. Second, GGS/Superior Group is entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit, against any liability for improperly received Finance and Service Fees, for about $20 million that it directly or indirectly transferred to Respondent since the 1996 acquisition. Half of the $20 million credit arises from Management Fees that GGS did not collect from Respondent in 1996 and 1998. As Petitioner notes, there is little, if any, documentation concerning these uncollected fees. Mr. Symons persuasively testified that the proper characterization of these amounts is dependent upon the outcome of Petitioner's effort to disallow the Finance and Service Fees already paid by Respondent. Petitioner must credit to GGS/Superior Group these $10 million in fees as an offset to the $35.2 million (or such lesser amount remaining after any retroactive approvals from Petitioner) that Respondent improperly paid GGS/Superior Group in Finance and Service Fees. Also, in 1997, GGS contributed about $10 million to Respondent's capital. As was the case with the uncollected Management Fees in 1996 and 1998, the record contains little, if any, documentation concerning the transfer, including any conditions that may have attached to it. Petitioner should credit GGS/Superior Group with this sum as an offset against the $35.2 million (or such lesser amount remaining after any retroactive approvals from Petitioner) that Respondent improperly paid GGS/Superior Group in Finance and Service Fees. As for the remaining $15 million in Finance and Service Fees that Respondent improperly paid to GGS through 1999 and any additional amounts through April 30, 2000, the impropriety arises because Respondent failed first to obtain Petitioner's approval--not because any transaction was otherwise necessarily improper. Concerning the remaining $15 million, then, Petitioner should give Respondent and GGS/Superior Group an opportunity to request retroactive approval for the payment of all or part of this sum, without regard to the lateness of the request. Applying any and all factors that Petitioner would ordinarily apply in considering such requests, Petitioner can then reach an informed determination as to the propriety of this $15 million in Finance and Service Fees. If Petitioner determines that Respondent must obtain from GGS/Superior Group repayment of any Finance and Service Fees, then Petitioner may consider the issue of the timing of the repayment. As Petitioner mentions in its proposed recommended order, an evidentiary hearing might be useful for this purpose. Obvious sources would be setoffs against Management Fees and Finance and Service Fees that Respondent is presently paying Superior Group.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final cease and desist order: Determining that, without the prior written consent of the Department, Superior Insurance Company paid Finance and Service Fees to GGS/Superior Group in the net amount of approximately $15 million, plus all such amounts paid after the period covered by this case through April 30, 2000. Requiring that Superior Insurance Company immediately file all necessary documentation with the Department to seek the retroactive approval of all or part of the sum set forth in the preceding paragraph. If any sum remains improperly paid after implementing the procedure set forth in the preceding paragraph, establishing a reasonable repayment schedule for Respondent to impose upon Superior Group--if necessary, in the form of setoffs of Management Fees and Finance and Service Fees due at the time of, and after, the Final Order. Determining that Superior Insurance Company inadequately disclosed related-party transactions and ordering that Superior Insurance Company comply with specific guidelines for the reporting of these transactions in the future. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 1st day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 S. Marc Herskovitz Luke S. Brown Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street, Sixth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Clyde W. Galloway, Jr. Austin B. Neal Foley & Lardner 106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue There is little controversy as to the facts in this cause. The issue is essentially a legal issue and is stated as follows: When parties act in reliance and in conformity to a prior construction by an agency of a statute or rule, should the rights gained and positions taken by said parties be impaired by a different construction of said statute by the agency? Both parties submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders filed March 17 and 18, 1983. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based on the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Vanguard Investment Company, is a Florida corporation with its principal offices at 440 Northeast 92nd Street, Miami Shores, Florida 33138. On or about March 3, 1981, Vanguard purchased an aircraft described as a Turbo Commander, serial number N9RN, from Thunderbird Aviation, Inc., for a purchase price of $120,000 plus $4,800 in sales tax. The sale price plus the sales tax was paid by Vanguard to Thunderbird, which remitted the $4,800 in sales tax to the Department of Revenue (DOR) less a three percent discount as authorized by law. On February 27, 1981, Vanguard had executed a lease of said aircraft to General Development Corporation for a term of two years commencing on March 1, 1981, contingent upon Vanguard's purchase of said aircraft from Thunderbird. Prior to March 1, 1981, General Development had leased said aircraft from Thunderbird, and the least terminated on February 28, 1981. Vanguard purchased said aircraft for the sole purpose and in anticipation of continuing its lease to General Development. Vanguard never took possession or control of said aircraft, which remained in General Development's possession at Opa-locka Airport in Dade County, Florida. No controversy exists that all sales tax payable under General Development's lease of the aircraft, both with Thunderbird and subsequently with Vanguard, had been remitted to DOR with no break in continuity of the lease as a result of the change in ownership of the aircraft on or about March 1, 1981. At the time Vanguard purchased the aircraft from Thunderbird, Vanguard had not applied for or received a sales and use tax registration number pursuant to Rule 12A-1.38, Florida Administrative Code. Vanguard applied for said sales and use tax registration number on or about April 2, 1981, approximately 30 days after the purchase of said aircraft. The sales and use tax registration number was granted by DOR on or about April 23, 1981. Shortly thereafter, Vanguard inquired of DOR concerning a refund of the $4,800 in sales tax paid on the aircraft plus the three percent discount taken by Thunderbird. In lieu of Vanguard's providing Thunderbird a resale certificate and having Thunderbird apply for the sales tax refund, it was suggested that Vanguard obtain an assignment of rights from Thunderbird and apply directly for the refund because Thunderbird had been dissolved immediately after the sale of the aircraft to Vanguard. Acquisition of the assignment of rights from Thunderbird by Vanguard was delayed by the dissolution of Thunderbird and the death of Thunderbird's principal officer. Vanguard received the assignment of rights from Thunderbird on or about July 1, 1982, and immediately applied for a refund of the sales tax. Said application for refund was well within the three years permitted by Florida law to apply for a sales tax refund. On November 22, 1982, the Office of Comptroller (OOC) notified Vanguard of its intent to deny Vanguard's application for the sales tax refund because Vanguard had failed to obtain a sales and use tax registration number prior to purchasing the aircraft from Thunderbird. At the time of the purchase, it was the policy of DOR to permit individuals to apply late for a sales and use tax registration number and not to deny refunds on the basis that the applicant did not have the sales and use tax registration number at the time of the taxable purchase. On or about July 1, 1982, this policy of DOR was altered to conform with the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in State Department of Revenue v. Robert N. Anderson, 403 So.2d 297 (Fla. 1981). Vanguard was aware of the DOR policy at the time of the sale, relied on that policy, and conformed to that policy. It was clearly stated that had Vanguard applied for its refund even a month earlier, in June of 1982, the refund would have been approved under the then-existing policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the application of Vanguard Investment Company for refund of sales tax be approved, and that said refund be paid by the Office of Comptroller. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 25th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward S. Kaplan, Esquire 907 DuPont Plaza Center Miami, Florida 33131 William G. Capko, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 203 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas L. Barnhart, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Office of Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Carl R. Glass, d/b/a Osceola Forge located at 2749 North Orange Blossom Trail, Kissimmee, Florida 34744. Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and fabricating burglar bars, steel gates, decorative plastic ornamental castings and injection moldings. Petitioner built and erected one double sided billboard on his business property at 2749 North Orange Blossom Trail, Kissimmee, Florida. It is anchored by its owns supports into the ground as a permanent improvement to Petitioner's real property. The size of the billboard is approximately 12' x 38', plus an apron that runs along the length of the bottom of the billboard. Petitioner leases the face and apron of each side of billboard to customers who are generally required to supply their own labor and material to create an advertising message. The billboard was built to provide double-sided advertising for lanes of traffic going northbound or southbound past Petitioner's place of business. Petitioner has rented the billboard to various lessees for a monthly rental fee over the relevant period. Petitioner did not charge or collect sales and use taxes on the rental fee. Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner's entire business, for the period May 1, 1986 through April 30, 1991. There was only one item assessed as a result of the audit which was on the lease of the billboard located on Petitioner's business property. Petitioner was assessed sales and use taxes, interest and penalties totalling $6,142.38, including taxes ($4,017.76) with a per diem interest rate of $1.32 to be computed from 10/3/91 to the present. Additional interest due, as of July 1, 1993, was calculated to equal $842.16 (638 days x $1.32). The sales tax assessment was based on invoices and other information provided by the Petitioner and followed the Department of Revenue routine procedures required for all audits. From January 1987 through February 1991, Petitioner, or his secretary, made five telephone calls from Osceola Forge to the Taxpayer Assistance Number of the Department of Revenue's regional office located in Maitland, Florida, requesting assistance. On each occasion, the Department's employee advised Petitioner or his employee that they could call the Department's Tallahassee 800 taxpayer assistance number. On at least one occasion, Petitioner's secretary or Petitioner was advised that the transaction was tax exempt, and need not be collected. Petitioner was aware of the 800 taxpayer assistance number in Tallahassee and tried to call the number. However, he was unable to get through, and called the local office only. On April 9, 1992, Petitioner personally telephoned the Titusville office of the Department of Revenue. On each occasion, Petitioner inquired whether or not sales or use taxes should be collected on the rental of the billboard. A free, updated Sales and Use Tax Rules Book is available to any tax payer upon request. In addition, a taxpayer could personally appear and bring documentation relating to any questions relating to the sales and use tax at any regional office. Petitioner did not obtain an updated rules book or personally appear at a regional office. On April 30, 1992, Petitioner filed a Protest Letter with Respondent challenging the abovementioned tax assessment. Respondent issued to Petitioner a Notice of Decision dated December 1, 1992. On January 8, 1993, Petitioner filed a Request for a Formal Administrative Hearing with Respondent. To date, Petitioner has not paid any of the contested taxes, interest, and penalties to Respondent. Petitioner relied on information provided by his secretary, his accountant, and brief phone conferences with the DOR's Maitland office to determine that the rental fees were tax exempt, and did not collect the sales tax from his customers. The DOR Audit Supervisor testified that there is a clear distinction between the taxable rental of a billboard and the nontaxable services of placing an advertising message on the billboard. The rental of the face of the billboard is a taxable transaction. On the other hand, if a person rents or leases a billboard, then hires a third party to place an advertising message on the billboard, this advertising service is tax exempt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order upholding its sales and use tax assessment, waive penalties and interest accrued prior to October 2, 1991, and assess a tax of $4,017.76, plus interst from the date due. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 14th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent are accepted except as noted below. Those proposed findings neither noted below nor included in the Hearing Officer's findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Rejected as argument: paragraphs 37, 38, 39 COPIES FURNISHED: Carl R. Glass 2749 North Orange Blossom Trail Kissimmee, Florida 34741 James McAuley, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Respondent DeBellonia is president of Respondent CGFS, Inc. At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondents were business consultants who assisted their clients with the preparation and presentation of information for private lenders who were interested in making business loans. Their business offices were located at North Rocky Point Drive, Suite 800, Tampa, Florida. In late July or early August 1989, Constance J. Jones responded by telephone to an advertisement placed by Respondents in the Tampa Tribune newspaper. The ad communicated to her that the Respondent CGFS, Inc. was interested in providing business financing to new and established businesses. Upon receipt of the telephone call, a secretary at CGFS, Inc. scheduled an appointment for Mrs. Jones with Respondent DeBellonia for August 7, 1989. Mrs. Jones was excited about the appointment because the seller of commercial real property purchased by her and her husband had recently filed a foreclosure action to recover the property. The suit occurred because she and her husband had been unable to make the final balloon payment on the property. The seller had agreed to forebear the possibility of such a suit the year before when Mrs. Jones gave him twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) and the promise that she would obtain financing within a year's time and pay the outstanding balance in full. At the close of the year, Mrs. Jones had not been successful in her attempts to acquire the money to pay for the property. This appointment renewed her hopes that she could minimize her losses, settle the suit, and preserve her interest in the property. Prior to arranging her appointment with Respondent DeBellonia, Mrs. Jones had made applications for a loan at several banks. Her requests had been turned down because the banks had determined that the present value of the property was insufficient to provide the collateral needed for the secured loan she was seeking. When Mrs. Jones attended her meeting with Respondent DeBellonia, she voluntarily presented him with a copy of her agreement for deed, a property appraisal, and her owner's title insurance policy. Having submitted herself to a number of loan requests at various banks prior to this appointment, she assumed he would want to see the same documents that had been requested during those loan reviews. Respondent DeBellonia allowed Mrs. Jones to present her situation and her documentation to him in her own manner. He made copies of all of the papers offered to him and returned the originals. At the close of Mrs. Jones' presentation, Respondent DeBellonia agreed to be her business consultant and to assist her in her search for funding. Although Mrs. Jones originally stated that she needed to acquire $94,000.00, this amount was reduced to $20,000.00 when she was informed that the Respondents charge a professional service fee of ten percent of the loan amount ultimately accepted by the clients. To begin work on the funding project, the Respondents requested a non-refundable professional service fee of $1,900.00. Although Mrs. Jones did sign the business consultant agreement, she did not have the money with her to pay the non-refundable fee. When she informed Respondent DeBellonia that she did not have the money, he told her he needed the money as soon as possible so that he could go ahead and work on the transaction. He indicated that he could accomplish a fast transaction for the $20,000.00 in about three days time. According to Mrs. Jones, the seller of the commercial property was willing to forebear on the foreclosure for a while if she could give him $20,000.00 now and if she was actively pursuing a loan which would pay off the balance due. This proposal was another reason she changed her request from $94,000.00 to the $20,000.00 amount. Later that evening, Mrs. Jones telephoned Respondent DeBellonia and told him she needed a new document so that her husband could be on the agreement as well. When the second document was sent, the secretary mistakenly sent out the original agreement with a funding goal of $94,000.00 instead of the reduced request for $20,000.00. Mr. Jones' name had been placed on the document in order to obtain his signature. Both agreements given to Mrs. Jones clearly state that Respondent CGFS, Inc. is not a mortgage broker. Before Mrs. Jones returned a fully executed agreement to the Respondents with the non-refundable fee, she decided to call the Comptroller's Office in Tallahassee to get a business rating to see if this was a good-rated business for her own protection. Although nothing negative was stated by the Comptroller's Office, Mrs. Jones did not get the assurances she was seeking. After that, she decided not to retain the Respondents to provide their business consultant services. Without Mrs. Jones' presumption that the Respondents would eventually seek a mortgage on the real property she intended to purchase, there is no reliable circumstantial evidence which demonstrates that the Respondents were seeking to act as a mortgage broker under the set of facts presented at hearing. Even if the circumstantial evidence and ill-conceived presumptions were considered reliable, the evidence is outweighed by the clear statement within the consultant agreement that Respondent CGFS, Inc. is not a mortgage broker. In addition, if the Respondents had intended to see a mortgage for Mrs. Jones, they would have required her to have her husband sign the agreement because she was an equitable owner of the property in a tenancy by the entirety. Instead, it was Mrs. Jones who later requested that her husband's name be included on the agreement. Respondent DeBellonia clearly manufactured Respondents' Exhibit number E. If this proceeding had turned on his credibility versus the credibility of others, he would not have prevailed in the factual determination. Based upon the facts presented at hearing, the Department initially had reason to believe that the Respondents were violating or about to violate the law by acting as a mortgage broker and mortgage broker business without a license. However, the formal hearing process revealed that Mrs. Jones' impressions of what occurred during her meeting with Respondent DeBellonia were faulty. Documentary evidence prepared during the interview and Mrs. Jones' admissions during the cross-examination resolved the case in Respondent's favor. The actions taken by the Department in filing the Cease and Desist Order were proper, and were not harassment of the Respondents.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: That the cease and desist order issued by the Department on February 20, 1990, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 21st day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED IN CASE NO. 90-1720 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO number 1. Accepted. Reject the date of the interview. The rest is accepted. See HO number 2-number 6. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 5. Accepted. See HO number 9 and number 10. Accept the first two sentences. See HO number 9. Reject the third sentence. Contrary to fact. Reject the fourth sentence. Irrelevant. 8. Accepted. See HO number 11 and number 12. 9. Accepted. See HO number 15 and number 18. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen M. Christian, Esquire Office of the Comptroller Regional Service Center 1313 North Tampa Street, Ste. 615 Tampa, Florida 33602-3394 Michael C. Mone, Esquire 111 Eighth Street Belleair Beach, Florida 33535 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact The American Health and Rehabilitation Center, Inc., is a nursing home located in Plantation, Florida. The subject administrative hearing was requested by Petitioner in order to settle a dispute as to $17,356 disallowed by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, under Medicaid guidelines. The disputed disallowed costs were as follows: $6,855 - Lawn Maintenance; $1,975 - Telephone Advertising and long distance calls; $6,470 - Owner/Administrator auto rental; and $2,056 - Auto Expense for the year ending June 30, 1976. (a) Yellow Pages Advertising Petitioner contends: that the yellow pages advertising had never been disallowed before and having been paid under HIM 15 should now be paid. Respondent contends: that only a telephone listing in the yellow pages is allowable; that a display advertisement is not compensable, and that even though such display advertising might have been paid in the past, it should not have been paid and should not be allowed as a result of this hearing. Lawn/Landscape Maintenance Petitioner contends: that there was a "bookkeeping error" in the amount of $2,853 charged for additional trees and plants and agrees that amount should not have been charged to "maintenance" expense; that the maintenance service that was utilized was less expensive for the services they required and gave better protection against loss of trees and other lawn and landscaping materials; that the equipment needed to service the lawn would not be supplied by the men they could hire. Respondent contends: that a fee of $12,000 for lawn and landscape maintenance is not supportable and that the occupancy of the home had always been full and therefore did not improve with the tripling of annual landscaping expenses; that there is a poor cost-benefit ratio with such charges and that a full time maintenance man could have been employed at near minimum wage to care for the lawn. Undocumented Use of Automobile Petitioner contends: that they had been previously allowed such costs and were audited each year and they had no way of knowing that they would be disallowed for the subject cost period; that they had some staff who used the cars for errands; that automobile expense is an acceptable business expense. Respondent contends: that transportation of Medicaid patients to physicians was arranged by direct payment to third party transportation providers or by having the physicians see the patients at the nursing home; that because of the lack of documentation by Petitioner there was no way to determine the business and non-business endeavors which included the use of the automobile and therefore the full amount should have been disallowed.. The yellow page display was designed primarily to advertise the nursing home to those seeking nursing home care. Evidence presented showed that Petitioner was charged a sum of $700 per month or $8,400 per year. Whereon Petitioner claimed $12,000. The lawn covers approximately 1-1/2 acres. No documentation was presented or testimony established as to the portion of the disallowed automobile use attributable to business use, the Mercedes used by the Petitioner and the complete lack of documentation as to its business use was not substantiated.
Recommendation Allow telephone listing expense only and $700 per month for lawn maintenance. Disallow the undocumented automobile use. Unwarranted payments for advertisements, excessive lawn care and undocumented automobile expenses that have been made in the past is no reason that such undue payments should be continued. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: James Mahorner, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Miss Patricia E. Hintz Administrator American Health and Rehabilitation Center 7751 West Broward Boulevard Plantation, Florida 33324
