Findings Of Fact Respondent Yazgi has an ownership interest in respondent Stop N Shop and is the only individual named on respondent Stop N Shop's license. Respondent Yazgi has a one-third interest in a different store at a different location in Jacksonville, which is also called Stop N Shop. Sometime before noon on October 15, 1976, Mr. Yazgi took one carton of Winston menthol cigarettes and one carton of Silver Thin cigarettes from this second store and transferred them to respondent Stop N Shop where they were offered for resale and where petitioner's agents discovered them, except for one package which was missing. The store from which respondent took the cigarettes is not a licensed cigarette wholesaler.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner impose a civil penalty against respondent in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00) DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Tom Yazgi c/o Stop N Shop 2039 West 12th Street Jacksonville, Florida Mr. J. M. Ogonowski District 3 Department of Business Regulation 1934 Beachway Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Mr. Francis Bayley, Esquire Department of Business Regulation Legal Section Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Petitioner, MB Doral is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 120.595(3), Florida Statutes (2019), and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400; and if so, the amount.
Findings Of Fact On December 21, 2018, MB Doral filed a Petition Challenging Validity of Existing Rule 61A-4.020 and Determination Regarding Unadopted Rule, in DOAH Case No. 18-6768RX. The undersigned bifurcated the unadopted rule challenge and conducted a final hearing on the existing rule challenge on January 24, 2019. On February 21, 2019, the undersigned entered a final order that concluded that rule 61A-4.020 was a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority. MB Doral appealed the final order to the First District Court of Appeal. On April 27, 2020, the First District Court of Appeal issued an Opinion that reversed the Final Order and concluded that rule 61A-4.020 was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. MB Doral, LLC, d/b/a Martinibar v. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Reg., Div. of Alcoholic Bev. & Tobacco, 2020 WL 1987120 (Fla. 1st DCA April 27, 2020). On May 22, 2020, MB Doral filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Motion), seeking an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the existing rule challenge and subsequent appeal, pursuant to section 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400. On June 4, 2020, the Department filed a Notice of Filing Joint Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, which included the Joint Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. The Joint Stipulation states that the Department agrees to the entry of a final order assessing the sum of $24,000.00 for attorneys’ fees and costs in the existing rule challenge and subsequent appeal, which the undersigned bifurcated from the unadopted rule challenge in DOAH Case No. 18-6768RX. The Joint Stipulation further states that the parties agree that the Final Order direct the Department to seek immediate approval for payment within 30 days of the Final Order, and that the undersigned retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Final Order.
The Issue Whether, pursuant to section 210.30, Florida Statutes (2016),2/ Petitioner, Jemco Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Payless Tobacco Source (“Jemco”), owes a tax deficiency in the amount of $5,582.73 for the audit period from July 1, 2016, to October 31, 2016, plus $558.27 in penalties and $144.43 in interest, for a total amount due of $6,285.43.
Findings Of Fact Jemco is a Florida corporation that is a distributor of tobacco products in Florida, pursuant to Wholesale License No. WDE1614464. The Division is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing chapter 210, related to the taxation of tobacco products. It is undisputed that Jemco is a distributor of tobacco products in Florida, and that it engaged in the distribution of tobacco products during the period of July 1, 2016, through October 31, 2016. It also is undisputed that Jemco was engaged in the distribution of tobacco products, on which it paid an applicable excise tax and surcharge, before July 1, 2016. As discussed in greater detail below, pursuant to section 210.30, an excise tax is imposed on all tobacco products and on any person engaged in business as a distributor in Florida at the rate of 25 percent of the wholesale sales price of such tobacco products. This excise tax is due to be paid during the month in which the licensed distributor purchases the tobacco products and brings them in state for sale in Florida. Additionally, pursuant to section 210.276, a surcharge is imposed on all tobacco products and on any person engaged in business as a distributor in Florida at the rate of 60 percent of the wholesale sales price of such tobacco products. This surcharge is due to be paid during the month in which the licensed distributor purchases the tobacco products and brings them in state for sale in Florida. In 2016, the Florida Legislature amended the definition of “wholesale sales price” in chapter 210. This amendment, which went into effect on July 1, 2016, changed the assessment of the excise tax and surcharge on the distribution of tobacco products. At some point——and the evidence does not establish when——the Division posted notice of this statutory amendment to the definition of “wholesale sales price” on its website. However, it did not notify distributors, including Jemco, by regular or electronic mail. Consequently, Jemco was unaware of this change in the law. On or about February 16, 2017, Alicia Cortez, an auditor employed by the Division, conducted a tax audit on Jemco for the audit period between July 1, 2016, and October 31, 2016. In conducting the audit, Cortez reviewed copies of out-of-state supplier invoices for tobacco products sold by the out-of-state suppliers to Jemco. These documents showed the total amount of the sales of tobacco products by out-of-state suppliers to Jemco. She verified these purchases by reviewing Jemco's bank statements. Cortez also reviewed the In-State Tobacco Products Wholesale Dealer's Reports (“Monthly Report”) submitted by Jemco to the Division on a monthly basis. These Monthly Reports, which are submitted in electronic format, show the net taxable purchases, excise tax amount, surcharge amount, and total amount——which consists of the excise tax and surcharge——due for that particular month, as calculated by Jemco. The Monthly Reports also show the amount of excise tax and surcharge paid by Jemco for purchases of tobacco products from out-of-state suppliers for that month. Cortez compared the total amount of taxable purchases of tobacco products, as determined by a review of the out-of- state supplier invoices, with the taxable purchases and excise tax and surcharge paid by Jemco for the particular month, as reported in its Monthly Reports. Here, the audit showed that Jemco did pay some excise tax and surcharge for the period between July 1, 2016, and October 31, 2016, but that it also had a tax deficiency of $5,583.73 for failure to pay the full amount of the excise tax and surcharge due during the audit period. With the imposition of $144.43 in interest and a penalty of $558.27, Jemco was determined to owe a total of $6,285.43. At Jemco's request, an audit conference between the Division and Jemco was conducted on June 19, 2017. The conference did not result in any change to the total amount of excise tax, surcharge, penalty, and interest that Jemco was determined to owe. As more fully discussed below, pursuant to section 120.80(14), which governs taxpayer contest proceedings under chapter 210, the Division has the initial burden in this proceeding to demonstrate the factual and legal grounds for the tax assessment. Once the Division makes that showing, the entity contesting the assessment——here, Jemco——has the burden to show the assessment was incorrect. Jemco contends that it did not intentionally try to evade paying its taxes due for the audit period, and asserts two grounds for disputing the assessed amount of $6,285.43. First, Jemco contends that, in addition to the period between July 1, 2016, and October 31, 2016, the audit also covered the months of May and June 2016. However, all of the documentary evidence admitted into the record of this proceeding, including the supplier invoices, Monthly Records, audit report, and auditor's summary sheet clearly shows that the Division audited only the period consisting of July 1, 2016, through October 31, 2016. The evidence shows that the Division purposely chose to audit only this four-month period, rather than a typical six-month audit period, specifically because the amended definition of “wholesale sales price” went into effect on July 1, 2016, and the Division decided to “have a clean cut off” in conducting audits. The evidence clearly and uniformly refutes Jemco's argument that the audit actually covered a six-month period, from May 1, 2016, to October 31, 2016.3/ Jemco also asserts that it should not be held liable for the tax deficiency for the audit period because it was unaware of the amended definition of “wholesale sales price” that went into effect on July 1, 2016. It characterizes the Division's assessment of tax deficiency, penalties, and interest based on the 2016 amendment to that definition as a “got-you attack.” The undersigned finds the testimony of Solis and Hershewsky credible and sympathetic that Jemco never intended to avoid paying the excise taxes and surcharges that it owed under the law, and that Jemco only found out that it was not paying the correct amount of taxes and surcharge for the audit period when the audit commenced in early 2017. It is understandable that a small business like Jemco could be caught unaware of a change in the law——particularly when it was not directly notified by regular or electronic mail of the changed law. However, as a wholesale distributor licensee subject to chapter 210, Jemco is nonetheless presumed to be aware of, and required to follow, this statute in accurately paying its excise taxes and surcharges. To that point, Florida case law states that “[a]s to notice, publication in the Laws of Florida or the Florida Statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions.” L & L Docs, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Bevs. & Tobacco, 882 So. 2d 512, 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)(quoting State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139, 142 (Fla. 1991)). Thus, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Davis v. Strople, 158 Fla. 614, 29 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1947). Here, after the Legislature amended the definition of “wholesale sales price” in 2016, this amended definition was published as part of chapter 2016-220, Laws of Florida, and also as subsection 210.25(14), in the 2016 version of Florida Statutes, which remains in effect to date.4/ Under Florida law, Jemco, as a regulated licensed wholesale distributor of tobacco products, is responsible for being aware of, and complying with, the applicable law——here, the amended definition of “wholesale sales price” that went into effect on July 1, 2016. Nevertheless, it is noted that had the Division directly——by electronic mail or regular mail——informed wholesale distributors of tobacco products of the changed definition of “wholesale sales price” after it was enacted by the Legislature during the 2016 Legislative Session and before it went into effect on July 1, 2016, Jemco——and, presumably other distributors of wholesale tobacco products, some of which are small businesses——would have been informed of the change, so may not have incurred a tax deficiency, with accompanying penalty and interest. This is mentioned for the Division's consideration in informing licensees of significant future changes in the law that could affect their liability for tax deficiencies, penalties, and interest. Based on the foregoing findings, it is determined that the Division met its burden, pursuant to section 120.80(14)(b), to establish the factual and legal grounds on which the assessment of $6,285.43 was made. It is further determined that Jemco did not meet its burden under section 120.80(14)(b) to show that the assessment was incorrect. The clear and convincing evidence supports the Division's imposition of the proposed penalty and interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, issue a final order imposing an excise tax and surcharge assessment of $6,285.43 on Jemco. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2019.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco (the “Department”), is operating under an unadopted rule in its application of sections 210.276 and 210.30, Florida Statutes, which impose a surcharge and an excise tax, respectively, on tobacco products other than cigarettes or cigars, commonly known as other tobacco products (“OTP”), by calculating “wholesale sales price” as the full invoice price charged by OTP manufacturers to distributors, including any federal excise taxes (“FET”) and shipping charges reflected in the invoice price.
Findings Of Fact Each of the Petitioners is a licensed business in the State of Florida engaged in the business of distributing tobacco products. The Department is the government agency responsible for, inter alia, administering and enforcing chapter 210, Florida Statutes, related to the taxation of tobacco products other than cigarettes and cigars. By way of general background, tobacco products are taxed at both the federal and state levels. The first company to produce or import the tobacco products into the United States must pay the federal government a federal excise tax which is based on weight. 26 U.S.C. § 5702. Similarly, when the tobacco is produced or brought into Florida, Florida OTP tax applies at the rate of 85 percent of the “wholesale sales price.” Technically, Florida OTP tax has two components: an excise tax and surcharge as defined by sections 210.30 and 210.276. Section 210.30 was first enacted in 1985; it imposes a 25-percent tax on OTP. Section 210.276 was enacted in 2009; it levies a 60-percent surcharge on OTP. For convenience, the excise tax and surcharge will be referred to collectively as the OTP tax. The phrase “wholesale sales price” is defined as “the established price for which a manufacturer sells a tobacco product to a distributor, exclusive of any diminution by volume or other discounts.” § 210.25, Fla. Stat. Section 210.25(11) defines "tobacco products" as follows: [L]oose tobacco suitable for smoking; snuff; snuff flour; cavendish; plug and twist tobacco; fine cuts and other chewing tobaccos; shorts; refuse scraps; clippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco, and other kinds and forms of tobacco prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing, but ‘tobacco products’ does not include cigarettes . . . or cigars. In 2012, the Second DCA interpreted “wholesale sales price” to apply to the price at which the manufacturer sells tobacco products to the distributor. Micjo, 78 So. 3d at 127. In that case, in which the Second DCA described the dispute as “not complicated,” the Court determined that OTP tax applies only to the charge for tobacco and not to other charges to bring the tobacco to market, such as FET and shipping charges. Id. at 126-127. There are no relevant adopted rules in which the Department has interpreted “wholesale sales price.” State agencies are required to follow the Courts’ interpretations of statutes. See Costarell v. Fla. Unemplmt. App. Comm’n, 916 So. 2d 778, 782 (Fla. 2005). Subsequent to the ruling in Micjo, the Department followed the ruling set forth by the Second DCA and stopped imposing a tax on distributors based upon on FET or shipping charges. Beginning in 2013, the Department commenced enforcing a new “policy” interpreting Micjo to exclude FET and shipping charges only when such charges were separately stated. As a result of this policy, the Department paid some refunds and did not assess OTP tax if the FET and shipping charges were separately stated. The Department began relying upon a new policy in mid- 2013 to the effect that if the domestic manufacturer of the tobacco paid FET when it produced the product, Micjo did not apply and the phrase “wholesale sales price” included non- tobacco charges, such as FET and shipping charges. This was due to the fact that the manufacturer would pass down the cost of the FET and shipping charges to the distributor as part of the “wholesale sales price.” As for foreign manufacturers who did not pay FET, Micjo operated to exclude FET and shipping charges from the taxable base. That is because the distributor who purchased the tobacco products would be responsible for paying the FET separately; it would not be part of the “wholesale sales price.” In other words, the Department’s policy was that “wholesale sales price,” as interpreted by Micjo, applies differently depending on whether the tobacco is manufactured foreign or domestically. The Petitioners seek to invalidate this non-rule policy. The Department confuses wholesale sales price (i.e., “the established price for which a manufacturer sells a tobacco product to a distributor”) with the invoice amount, which may or may not include something other than the price for the tobacco product. The Micjo decision clearly delineates the cost of the tobacco from “the various other distributor invoice costs for reimbursement of FET, shipping costs, and other charges [which are] not part of tobacco.” Micjo, 78 So. 3d at 127. After the Micjo ruling, the Department determined that it would not include FET and shipping charges in its determination of “wholesale sales price” for purposes of calculating OTP taxes. It did not promulgate a rule to that effect, but began nonetheless using the policy uniformly. In early October 2013, when the Department decided to rescind its policy in favor of a new statement of general applicability, it again failed to promulgate the policy as a rule. Instead, it unilaterally began to impose the new policy on all distributors of OTP in the state. It is clear from the record that the current policy is applicable to all distributors and that the policy delineates which distributors must pay taxes based on total invoice amounts, including FET and shipping charges, and which distributors do not have to pay taxes based on those items. It is not clear from the record how the domestic versus foreign manufacturer dynamic was argued to the Micjo Court or in the case from which the appeal arose. Micjo specifically addressed the domestic distributors, but did not make a distinction between domestic and foreign manufacturers. To the extent the Department’s position in the instant case seeks to revise the facts of Micjo, that argument is rejected.
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Action dated June 22, 2004, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is the state agency charged with administering Florida's alcoholic beverage and tobacco law. § 561.02, Fla. Stat. (2004). The Food Mart holds a Series 2-APS license, numbered 16-13705. On June 2, 2004, the Division conducted an inspection of the premises of the Food Mart. The inspector found six bottles filled with a cream-colored liquid. One bottle was on the counter, next to the cash register, and the other five bottles were inside a cabinet behind the cash register, wrapped in newspaper. The bottles contained a homemade Haitian beverage called cremasse. A friend made the beverage for Mr. Cebatien Dierestil, who intended to serve the beverage at a party at his home. The person who made the beverage took the six bottles to the Food Mart to give it to Mr. Dierestil, but Mr. Dierestil was not in the store at the time. A Food Mart employee placed the bottle of cremasse on the counter, even though it was for Mr. Dierestil's personal use. Cremasse contains a small amount of alcohol, but Mr. Dierestil did not know the exact amount. During the inspection of Food Mart on June 2, 2004, the Division found 97 packages of cigarettes offered for sale that did not carry the stamps indicating that the applicable taxes had been paid on the cigarettes. Some of the 79 unstamped packages of Newport cigarettes and of the 18 unstamped packages of Marlboro cigarettes were commingled with other packages of cigarettes displayed over the cash register, and others were in full cartons placed in the area where the extra inventory of cigarettes was kept. The cigarettes were purchased from a person that came by the Food Mart, and the invoice for the cigarettes was not among the invoices Mr. Dierestil provided to the Division's inspectors. Mr. Dierestil was not aware that the cigarette packages were supposed to carry tax stamps. The Division failed to present evidence establishing the alcoholic content of the liquid inside the bottles found at the Food Mart.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order Dismissing Count 1 of the Administrative Action against Cebatien and Marc Dierestil; Finding that Cebatien and Marc Dierestil violated Sections 210.18(1) and 210.15(1)(h), Florida Statutes; Finding that, because of these statutory violations, the Division is authorized to impose administrative penalties on Cebatien and Marc Dierestil pursuant to Section 561.29(1) and (3), Florida Statutes; Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 and ordering payment of the excise tax owing on the unstamped packages of cigarettes for the violation of Section 210.18(1), Florida Statutes; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 for the violation of Section 210.15(1)(h), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 27th day of January, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to pay tax surcharges, penalties, and interest owed on the sale of cigarettes, and, if so, the amount that is currently due and owing.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for monitoring the sale of tobacco products and for assuring that all businesses selling such products pay the requisite surcharges on each pack of cigarettes sold. Respondent is a convenience store which is licensed to sell tobacco products. The store also sells alcoholic beverages, food items, and miscellaneous other products. The sales tax associated with the sale of tobacco products (only) is at issue in this proceeding. The 2009 Florida Legislature enacted legislation imposing a $1.00 per pack surcharge on each pack of cigarettes sold in this state beginning July 1, 2009. Retailers having a cigarette inventory and, as of that date, would be required to pay a "floor tax" of $1.00 per pack in their inventory. In February 2010, the Department received a letter from an anonymous source (who identified himself as "A Good Civilian (Business Owner) (Who always pays tax)[sic]." The letter had a flyer attached to it which had been distributed by Respondent. The flyer identified a number of products for which buyers could realize "[t]he lowest prices in Polk County." Included in the list of products were various tobacco items, including cigarettes. The anonymous source's letter suggested that anyone who could sell the tobacco products at those prices must be doing something illegal. Based on the allegations in the anonymous letter, the Department decided to investigate. A team was sent to one of Respondent's stores (hereinafter referred to as "Store 1") on February 18, 2010. The team did an inventory of tobacco products at Store 1. There were 2,855 packs of cigarettes at Store 1. Some of the cigarettes were in individual packs; some were still in cartons (which contain ten packs each). The cigarette packs had the requisite state stamp on them. However, most of the packs had a stamp which had been in existence prior to the change in law on July 1, 2009. The fact that most of Store 1's cigarette packs had the old stamp meant that the cigarettes had been around for a while. The inventory eventually formed the basis for an audit performed on Respondent's other store ("Store 2"). Store 2 had just recently opened and was stocked with cigarettes brought over from Store 1. There were, therefore, no invoices available at Store 2 as to the purchase of the cigarettes it had on hand. The audit process involved a determination of distributors from which Respondent purchased its cigarettes. The two primary distributors were Sam's Club and Dosal. The Department ascertained from those distributors how many packs of cigarettes Respondent had purchased over a given span of time. Sam's Club provided records seeming to indicate the purchase of 37,770 packs between February 1 and June 29, 2009; another 9,090 packs were purchased between July 4, 2009, and January 29, 2010. Dosal said 65,490 packs had been purchased between March 3 and June 23, 2009; another 17,800 were purchased between July and December 2009. An audit investigation was commenced at Store 2 on March 17, 2010. The auditors did not ascertain the actual number of packs of cigarettes on hand at the store on that date. The auditors talked with the owners of the stores (Salah Rabi and his brother, Mohammed Rabi) about their sales history. Pursuant to requests of the auditors, the owners also sent in some additional records reflecting their sale of cigarettes. In order to calculate the number of cigarette packs sold by Store 2 during a four-month period, the auditors determined how much business the store had done in all products (including non-tobacco products) for that period. Respondent gave the Department a list of daily sales on all products sold and the taxes paid on those products for the period February 2009 through January 2010. The average monthly sales amount for the store during the audit period was $25,000. However, the Department found the information provided by Respondent to be incomplete and, thus, unreliable. The auditors then assumed that 80 percent of the store's sales were for cigarettes1/ and that the average price per pack was $4.50. Using this formula, the auditors found that approximately 4,444 packs of cigarettes were sold each month, which the auditors rounded up to 4,500. Thus, for the audit period, the auditors estimated that 18,000 packs of cigarettes were sold. Neither of the auditors testified at final hearing as to the reasonableness of the formula or as to their alleged conversations with the owners. Based on their findings, the auditors concluded that Respondents owe a balance of $77,798.23. That figure was derived as follows: Total packs purchased 3/09 - 6/09 from Dosal 65,490 from Sam's 37,770 Total purchases prior to 7/1/09 103,260 Estimated monthly sales at 4,500 packs per month for four months 18,000 Total estimated inventory on 7/1/09 85,260 Floor tax due on estimated inventory $85,260 Floor tax paid $ 4,963,09 Unpaid floor tax $80,296.91 Overpayment on other tobacco product $(2,498.54) Total cigarette floor tax due $77,798.37 Missing from the evidence presented was any statement by the Department as to whether, on March 17, 2010, or any other date, there were 80,000-plus packs of cigarettes visible at the store. It seems plausible that so many packs, even if in cartons of 10 packs apiece, would be easy to identify. Respondent refutes the basic premise of the auditor's findings. Using cash register receipts (called Z Tapes) from March and May 2009 (two of the four months at issue), Respondent was able to establish a more accurate percentage of cigarette sales versus all products sold. The Z Tapes are printed out each day by way of turning a key on the cash register. The tapes print out a receipt showing the date, the number of packs of cigarettes sold, the number of food items sold, and the number of taxable items sold. According to the Z Tapes, close to 90 percent2/ of Store 2's total sales for those months were cigarette sales, i.e., a much higher percentage than used by the auditors. The evidence presented by the owners is credible and persuasive. Respondent also provided a calculation of its price per pack of cigarettes. The price depends, in part, on how much they pay the distributors for each pack or carton of cigarettes. Of its four best selling cigarettes, the following costs were determined for the period March through June 2009: Brand Cost Markup Markup% Price 305's 2.93 .06 2 2.99 Marlboro 4.66 .08 1.7 4.74 Romy 2.75 .21 7.0 2.96 Newport 4.45 .34 7.6 4.79 Then, using the inventory of products on hand, a weighted average markup percentage was calculated as follows: Brand Weighted Number Weighted Cost Weighted Price Markup 305's 5,900 17,287 $17,641 Marlboro 1,957 9,394 9,276 Romy 1,611 4,430 4,769 Newport 108 454 517 TOTAL 31,565 $32,203 2.02% Based on the foregoing calculation, the owners estimated an average price per pack of $3.00, i.e., much less than the $4.50 per pack figure utilized by the auditors. The unrefuted testimony of the owners is credible and seems reasonable based upon the facts. Inasmuch as neither of the auditors was available to provide further justification for their price-per-pack estimation, the owners' calculation is accepted for use in this proceeding. Respondent purchased 91,520 packs of cigarettes during the period of March 2009 through June 2009. Respondent sold 55,634 packs of cigarettes during that same period. The average price per pack sold was $3.00 (three dollars). Based on the foregoing, Respondent had a floor inventory of 35,886 packs of cigarettes on July 1, 2009. Respondent paid a cigarette surcharge floor tax of $4,963.09 on July 15, 2009. Respondent also overpaid its floor tax for other tobacco products by $2,948.54 for a total of $7,815.83 in payments to the Department. That amount should be credited against any tax liability determined in this proceeding. The Department provided bank statements for Store 1 and Store 2 showing much larger monthly transactions than evidenced by the stores' sale of products. That fact raised a red flag justifying further investigation into Respondent's business. However, the discrepancy was explained by the fact that Respondent does a large amount of check-cashing business at its stores. The large bank transactions are not relevant to the issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, imposing a cigarette surcharge in the amount of $35,886 (thirty-five thousand, eight hundred and eighty-six dollars) against Respondent, Discount Zone, Inc., d/b/a Lakeland Discount Beverage, Inc., minus $7,815.83 already paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 2011.
