The Issue Petitioner's liability for proposed assessment of fuel tax and penalty pursuant to Chapter 206, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Barkett Oil Company, Miami, Florida, is a distributor of motor fuel and a dealer in special fuel licensed by Respondent. During the period 1971 through 1974, it held three licenses for motor fuel and three for special fuel. It owned over 100 fuel service stations during that period. At the time petitioner obtained its licenses, it provided Respondent with a list of its stations' fuel storage tank capacities. However, over the years and prior to 1971, the fuel capacity of 12 stations was increased by the addition of tanks in the total amount of some 57,000 gallons, but Petitioner did not advise Respondent of such changed capacity. (Testimony of Barkett, Respondent's Exhibit 3). In May 1974, D. L. Hunt, Respondent's auditor, conducted an audit of Petitioner's business for the period April 1971 through March 1974. Petitioner made most of its existing records available to the auditor, including purchase and sale invoices, and monthly tax reports which had been timely filed with Respondent during the audit period. Petitioner used Respondent's standard forms for the monthly tax returns which reflected an inventory of fuel at the beginning of the month plus gallons acquired during the month, less nontaxable sales. These computations resulted in net gallonage subject to fuel tax on which the tax was remitted, less a collection fee. Petitioner's standard business practice had been to conduct its monthly inventory in the morning of the last day of the monthly period. However, by this method, sales and deliveries which were made during the remaining portion of the day, and fuel contained in its trucks were reflected in the next month's report. Once the inventory was made, Petitioner recorded the "stick" measurements of fuel on hand at the various stations in its computer and discarded the individual station inventory records. State tax returns were then prepared using the figures derived from the computer "print-out." (Testimony of Hunt, Barkett, Petitioner's Exhibit 1,3). During the course of his audit, Mr. Hunt ascertained that the recorded purchases and sales as reflected on the monthly tax returns were correct. However, he noted that fuel on hand at the end of each month apparently exceeded Petitioner's storage capacity. He therefore asked for inventory records in the form of tank readings, but was informed that they had been destroyed and he was not informed that the readings from the "stick" measurements had been processed by computer and that this stored information was available. Hunt therefore made audit findings that the amount of gallonage on hand at the end of each month over and above Petitioner's storage capacity was taxable, even though there was no showing that the fuel had actually been sold. He also predicated penalties against Petitioner for late payment of tax because sales made during the latter half of the last day of the reporting month were carried over to next month's report. Additionally, he found that certain untaxed sales should have been taxed. In February 1975, a proposed assessment of tax and penalties was issued in the total amount of $375,543.27. A number of informal conferences were held by the parties which resulted in certain adjustments to the proposed assessment, primarily consisting of tax exempt sales. As a result of these conferences, the asserted tax was reduced to $245,652.96, with penalties of $39,405.04, for a total amount of $285,058.00. Thereafter, further reductions were made in the assessment, as reflected in a letter from Respondent's counsel to Petitioner's counsel, dated July 22, 1977. This letter stated that the remaining assessment consisted of tax due in the amount of $27,216.05, with penalties of $63,269.22, for total amount due of $90,485.27. The letter explained that the differences in the penalties consisted of instances where the tax had not been timely paid on fuel which had been sold. For instance, as to license No. 391, the letter showed that although only $2,378.46 in additional tax was due, penalties over the audit period amount to $38,769.19. (Testimony of Hunt, Barkett, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibits 1-2, 5, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). During the course of informal negotiations, Petitioner's counsel, by letter of April 17, 1978, to Respondent's counsel, provided a corrected list of the capacity of twelve of its stations. Respondent's auditor Hunt had checked four of these stations, but was unable to determine the existence of additional tanks at those locations. He also declined to accept the computer printout sheets as a basis for determining inventory because the actual tank reading reports were not available. At the hearing, Petitioner's president, Harry Barkett, established that additional tanks had existed at the four locations during the audit period. (Testimony of Hunt, Barkett, Petitioner's Exhibit 4-8, Respondent's Exhibit 3, 4). A certified public accountant retained by Petitioner testified that he had audited Petitioner's books and had personally reconciled inventory amounts for the fiscal year 1972-73. He further testified that Petitioner's accounting procedures were proper and that even if inventory had been overstated, it had no effect on sales, and that any unreported sales during one monthly period would be overstated in the following month, which would balance out any prior underpayments. He had never found any discrepancy in Petitioner's fuel reports and found no accounting reason for retaining "stick" readings after the information had been placed in the computer. (Testimony of Pfeiffer).
Recommendation That Respondent proceed to collect the amount of $5,707.50 from Petitioner for unpaid fuel tax under Chapter 206, Florida Statutes, but that the remainder of the proposed assessment be withdrawn. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxie Broome, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Milton J. Wallace, Esquire 2138 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137
Findings Of Fact On January 13, 1983, an inspector from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services drew a sample of the gasoline in one of the pumps at the station of K & S Imports, Inc., in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and submitted the sample for laboratory testing. This test determined that the evaporation rate for the sample was too high, having a 10 percent evaporated temperature of 155 degrees, instead of less than the allowable 140 degrees. Based on these test results, the Petitioner issued its stop-sale order to the Respondent on January 14, 1983. The tested sample came from a tank containing Cam 2 racing fuel. This is a special product distributed by Sun Oil Company, and it is not generally available to the public at gasoline stations. Cam 2 racing fuel performs well in engines designed for racing because racing cars often are pushed off in order to start the engines. However, the high evaporation rate of this fuel lessens the starting power of ordinary engines. The racing fuel tested at the Respondent's station came from a pump which was in the same location as the pumps containing other gasolines for sale to the public, and there was no obvious identification on the pump notifying purchasers that the product was a racing fuel not generally suitable for use in standard-use cars. Subsequent to the issuance of the stop-sale order, Sun Oil Company delivered another load of product, and added to the subject tank enough gasoline with a lower evaporation temperature to bring the sample at the pump down to an acceptable level. During the two to three month period prior to the issuance of the stop- sale order on January 14, 1983, the Respondent had sold 645 gallons of the Cam 2 racing fuel at a price of $3.50 per gallon. The Respondent contends that it informed the office of Consumer Services when it decided to market the Cam 2 fuel, and was advised that this fuel could be sold if the pump dispensing it was separated from other pumps, and if this pump was clearly marked to show that the fuel therein was sold as racing fuel not generally suitable for use in ordinary engines. However, there is not sufficient credible evidence to support a finding of fact that this instruction was implemented.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the request of K & S Imports, Inc., for a return of the $1,000 bond posted by it to secure the release of the fuel confiscated by the Department, be DENIED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 24 day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 24 day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Klein, President K & S Imports, Inc. 3955 North Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is liable to Respondent for fuel taxes, and, if so, whether Respondent's levy on Petitioner's bank deposits is warranted and proper.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was at all times relevant to this proceeding an active corporation in the State of Florida. Petitioner operated as a motor fuel dealer from its inception in 1984, but in 1996, its application for licensure as a motor fuel dealer was not renewed by Respondent due to the existence of fuel tax delinquencies. Respondent is the state agency responsible for collecting taxes paid by motor fuel dealers. On July 3, 1996, Respondent issued a Notice of Final Assessment and Jeopardy Finding to Petitioner indicating taxes, penalties, and interest due to Respondent in the sum of $74,423.25; a Warrant was issued in that amount and filed with the Pasco County Clerk's Office. On July 3, 1996, Respondent issued another Notice of Final Assessment and Jeopardy Finding to Petitioner indicating taxes, penalties, and interest due to Respondent in the sum of $12,625.64; a Warrant was issued in that amount and filed with the Pasco County Clerk's Office. On July 3, 1996, Respondent issued another Notice of Final Assessment and Jeopardy Finding to Petitioner indicating taxes, penalties, and interest due to Respondent in the sum of $15,245.84; a Warrant was issued in that amount and filed with the Pasco County Clerk's Office. On June 28, 1996, Respondent issued a Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Finding to Petitioner indicating taxes, penalties, and interest due to Respondent in the sum of $90,317.87; a Warrant was issued in that amount and filed with the Pasco County Clerk's Office. On June 28, 1996, Respondent issued another Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Finding to Petitioner indicating taxes, penalties, and interest due to Respondent in the sum of $57,864.24; a Warrant was issued in that amount and filed with the Pasco County Clerk's Office. On November 27, 1996, Respondent issued a Notice of Final Assessment and Jeopardy Finding to Petitioner indicating taxes, penalties, and interest due to Respondent in the sum of $81,094.54; a Warrant was issued in that amount and filed with the Pasco County Clerk's Office. Another Warrant was filed in the Pasco County Clerk's Office on May 24, 1996, reflecting delinquent taxes, penalties, and interest owed Respondent due to failure of an electronic transfer by Petitioner because of insufficient funds. The amount of that Warrant was $9,918.92. (A filing fee of $32.00 was assessed for each of the filed Warrants.) The time for challenging the assessments set forth in the notices and Warrants has passed. No credible evidence was presented at final hearing to suggest the assessed amounts were incorrect. Petitioner made some payments on the assessed amounts from time to time. Payments were applied to the outstanding balance in accordance with governing statutes: Filing fees, then accrued interest, then penalties, and then the tax liabilities. After applying the payments and taking into account accruing interest, Petitioner owes Respondent $377,074.29 as of the date of the final hearing. On September 13, 1996, Petitioner wrote a letter to Respondent asking that all penalties and interest on the outstanding balance be waived. The basis of the request was that only one officer of the corporation had actual knowledge of the unpaid fuel taxes. Once the other two officers were made aware, they immediately paid the current taxes and discontinued operation of the business. All assets of the business were sold, and the proceeds provided to Respondent to apply against the outstanding balance. Some revenue was being held by the corporation to provide for orderly termination of the business and upkeep of the real property owned by the corporation. Respondent denied Petitioner's request for compromise of the outstanding debt by letter dated December 19, 1996. Respondent requested from Petitioner evidence that Petitioner had exercised "ordinary care and prudence" in complying with state revenue laws. No evidence of a response by Petitioner was identified at final hearing. On August 27, 2009, Respondent, in recognition that the Warrants would expire after a period of time, notified Petitioner of the need to satisfy all the Warrants immediately. Upon Petitioner's failure to pay, Respondent issued a Notice of Freeze on October 8, 2009, to Synovus Bank where Petitioner's funds were being held. At that time there was $52,990.21 being held by the bank for Petitioner. On November 3, 2009, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Levy, advising Petitioner of its intent to seize the money being held at Synovus Bank. Petitioner timely filed a contest to the Notice of Intent to Levy. Respondent notified Synovus Bank of the contest. Petitioner was formed by three individuals: Earl Radcliff, president; Robert Spence; and R. Michal Marston. Spence and Marston were merely investors; Radcliff operated and controlled the business. Neither Spence, nor Marston was involved in the payment of fuel taxes during the period the business was operating. That duty was left entirely up to Radcliff. Upon Radcliff's failure to pay the taxes that were due, Respondent began issuing notices. Finally, in 1996, Respondent refused to renew Petitioner's motor fuel dealer's license, effectively terminating the business. Spence and Marston were not immediately made aware of this fact, but upon learning that the license had not been renewed, they began attempting to make the appropriate tax payments. When it became obvious there was not enough money available to pay the tax liabilities, Spence began taking steps to protect the real estate owned by Petitioner so that it could be sold to meet the tax liabilities. The funds held by Synovus Bank are being used solely to protect the existing real property. Neither Spence, nor Marston, was ever repaid for their initial investment to the corporation. The real property has not been sold due to many reasons, including the downturn in the economy, the existence of environmental problems on the site, and general deterioration of the property. The property is in two parcels: one is an empty lot and the other is being used as an automobile dealership.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Revenue, upholding the Notice of Intent to Levy issued by Respondent as to property owned by Petitioner, Fuel Mart, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 28th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa Echeverri, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Marshall Stranburg, General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 John Mika, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Robert Spence Fuel Mart, Inc. 250 North Belcher Road, No. 100 Clearwater, Florida 33765-2622
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner William Lineberger, doing business as Jet Oil Company, has, since 1950, continuously used the brand name "Jet" for identifying gasoline sold by him in the State of Florida. At one time, petitioner owned or operated some thirteen stations in various locations in Florida. Since 1980, he has operated only three stations, all located in Pinellas County-- two in St. Petersburg and one in Pinellas Park. Pursuant to Chapter 525, Florida Statutes, the respondent Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services first issued petitioner a liquid fuel brand name registration for the name "JET" in 1973. Pursuant to Chapter 495, Florida Statutes, the Florida Secretary of State issued petitioner mark registration number 922,820 on August 11, 1980, for the mark "JET" as a trademark and a service mark to be used in connection with gasoline and oil product convenience store items. Kayo Oil Company (Kayo) is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Conoco, Inc. Kayo operates a chain of retail gasoline and convenience stores in 22 states. It has approximately 465 locations concentrated mainly in the southeast portion of the country, with 38 locations in Florida, including one in Pinellas Park. Kayo currently has plans for further expansion in Florida. It's fixed asset base in Florida is approximately $10 million. The typical Kayo retail gasoline outlet in Florida has four multiple product dispensers, sells 500 to 600 different convenience items inside an 800 to 1600 square foot building, markets fast food products and employs a color scheme of black on yellow on its signage and building facade. Conoco, Inc. first began using the "JET" trade name in Europe in the 1960's when it acquired a large chain of European retail gasoline outlets selling under that brand name. It currently operates about 2,000 units under the brand name "JET" in Europe. In the United States, Kayo has used various trade names in the operation of its outlets, including "Kayo" and "JET". In the early 1980's, Kayo made the decision to standardize the name it traded under throughout the United States, and selected the name "JET". In most instances, it accomplished the conversion of its stations from "Kayo" to "JET", with the black on yellow color scheme, during the period from the early 1980's through 1984. The intervenor initially sought to obtain from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services the liquid fuel brand name "JET". That request was denied for the reason that "JET" had been previously registered to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Department issued to the intervenor the liquid fuel brand name registration, "JET +" on April 27, 1981. Kayo is required to display the "JET +" liquid fuel brand name on its dispensers or pumps. 1/ With the exception of two of its Florida locations, Kayo uses the word "JET" on its street and building signage. At its Pinellas Park and Clearwater stations, it has retained the name "Kayo". Being an independent brand marketer, Kayo attempts to dedicate the majority of its signage to display the price of gasoline, as opposed to the gasoline brand name. It is Kayo's marketing philosophy that the consumer is more influenced by low prices and location than by the fuel brand name. In 1984, the physical appearance of petitioner's three stations did not resemble the physical appearance of the typical Kayo station in Florida. Subsequent to 1984, petitioner did some remodeling work at its Pinellas Park station which included yellow and black signage and the name "JET" in black block letters on a yellow background, resembling Kayo's style of lettering on both its pump decals and its signage in areas outside Pinellas County. The yellow pages of the St. Petersburg telephone directory lists both Kayo's Pinellas Park station and petitioner's Pinellas Park station under the heading of Jet Oil Company. In February or March of 1987, a local cigarette supplier attempted to deliver and present an invoice for cigarettes ordered by Kayo to one of petitioner's facilities. This occurred again with the same supplier in March of 1987. In January of 1987, a Motor Fuel Marketing Complaint against the "Jet" business at 7091 Park Boulevard was filed with the Division of Consumer Services, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Although this is the address of the Kayo station in Pinellas Park, the Consumer Services Consultant, Division of Consumer Services, forwarded the complaint to "Jet Oil Company" at 7879 - 49th Street North, the petitioner's station, for a response. Petitioner presented evidence that other instances of confusion between its stations and Kayo stations had occurred with respect to bills, bank inquiries, and a newspaper article. Also, on one occasion, petitioner was ordered by the Pinellas Park police to close its stations because a bomb threat had been made against Jet Oil. Petitioner did not produce any evidence that the source of any of the incidents related was attributable to the liquid fuel brand names utilized by it or the intervenor.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's request for a hearing challenging the issuance of the "JET +" registration to the intervenor be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 1987.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent owns and operates the Heart of Florida Truck/Auto Plaza ("Truck-Stop"), on U.S. 27 North, Haines City, Florida. When he purchased the truck-stop in October of 1978, he had no prior experience in the operation of such facilities. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent) During September of 1979, the Respondent's fuel supplier notified him that premium gasoline would no longer be delivered. Respondent decided, therefore, to convert his 6,000 gallon premium gasoline tank into a diesel fuel storage tank. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent) In order to convert the tank to diesel fuel usage, Respondent pumped out all but a residual consisting of approximately 100 gallons of gasoline and 200 gallons of water. Even with the use of an auxiliary electric pump, the Respondent could not succeed in removing the remaining 238 gallons of residual. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent) He, then, sought advice from others on ways to empty the tank, including his jobber, diesel mechanic, truck drivers and trucking firms served by his truck-stop. While no one could suggest a method of removing the residual, they assured Respondent that truckers and diesel mechanics preferred a fuel mixture of 1 gallon of gasoline per 100 gallons of diesel fuel because of improved engine performance. (Testimony of Respondent) Based on such advice, the Respondent filled the tank in question with diesel fuel No. 2 and sold the resulting diesel/gasoline mixture to truckers as diesel fuel No. 2. Because of the presence of gasoline, this diesel fuel had a flash point at 440 F. (Testimony of Respondent, John Whitton, and petitioner's exhibit 3) In mixing the diesel with the gasoline in the tank, Respondent reasonably believed, in good faith, that the resulting mixture would not be hazardous or dangerous to its users. He did not know, and had not been previously notified, that the Department had set standards which strictly regulated the quality of gasoline and diesel fuel sold in Florida. Nor did he know that gasoline and diesel fuel sold in violation of such standards would be subject to confiscation and sale by the Department. (Testimony of Respondent) Although the Department regularly mails freight surcharge information every two weeks to retail gasoline outlets such as Respondent's, it does not periodically disseminate information on its petroleum regulatory program. Copies of the Department's rules, and gasoline standards, are available only on request. (Testimony of Lois W. Thornton and John Whitton) Each month, the Department issues approximately 100 Stop Sale Notices to gasoline retailers in Florida. Approximately 12 percent of these Notices are based on unlawful sale of fuel with flash points below Department standards. In such cases, the Department has consistently followed a practice of allowing the retailer to continue ownership of the fuel (in lieu of Department confiscation) only upon the posting of a bond equal to the value of the substandard fuel. However, notwithstanding the value of the substandard fuel, the Department does not require posting of a bond in excess of $1,000.00. Upon resolution of the administrative enforcement actions in favor of the Department, the bonds are forfeited to the Department, in lieu of confiscation. (Testimony of John Whitton) Since, in this case, the value of the offending fuel far exceeded $1,000.00, the Department allowed, and Respondent willingly posted a $1,000.00 bond with the Department. (Testimony of Respondent and John Whitton, and Petitioner's exhibit 2)
Conclusions Respondent violated the Department's gasoline and oil standards. He should, therefore (in lieu of confiscation) forfeit the cash bond he previously posted.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement for clean up costs associated with the Initial Remedial Action, (IRA), activities of the Abandoned Tank Restoration Program performed at his facility, and if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact At all times the Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, (Department), has been the state agency in Florida responsible for the administration of the state's Abandoned Tanks Restoration Program. Petitioner is the owner and operator of Mohammad's Supermarket, Department facility No. 29-8628197, a food market and gasoline station located at 3320 Hillsborough Avenue in Tampa. Petitioner has owned and operated the facility for approximately the last ten years. The facility in question included three 5,000 gallon gasoline underground storage tanks and one 5,000 diesel underground storage tank. The diesel tank has not been used for the storage of diesel product for the entire time the Petitioner has owned the facility, at least ten years, but the three gasoline tanks were in use after March 1, 1990. Gasoline tanks were reinstalled at the facility and are still in use. In March, 1993, Petitioner removed all four underground storage tanks from the facility and performed initial remedial action. The field and laboratory reports of the soil and groundwater samples taken at the site at the time the tanks were removed showed both gasoline and diesel contamination. In October, 1993, the Petitioner submitted an application for reimbursement of certain costs associated with the IRA program task to the Department. Thereafter, by letter dated August 5, 1994, the Department notified Petitioner that it had completed its review of the reimbursement application and had allowed Petitioner 25% of the total amount eligible for reimbursement. This was because since the Petitioner continued to use the gasoline tanks after March 1, 1990, the Petitioner's ATRP eligibility is limited to clean up of only the diesel contamination. Petitioner's application for reimbursement covered the entire cost of the tank removal, both gasoline and diesel, and did not differentiate between the costs associated with the remediation of the gasoline contamination and those associated with the diesel contamination. The 25% allowance was for the one tank, (diesel fuel), which was eligible for ATRP clean up reimbursement. The Department subtracted from the personnel costs in the amount of $5,996.25, claimed in Section 2A of the claims form, the sum of $45.00 for costs associated with ATRP eligibility status; $497.50 claimed as a cost associated with the preparation of a Tank Closure Report, and $3,508.75 claimed as costs associated with the preparation of a preliminary Contamination Assessment Report, (CAR). These deductions were made because costs associated with ascertaining ATRP eligibility status, the preparation of a Tank Closure report, and the preparation of a preliminary CAR are all costs ineligible for reimbursement. These three ineligible costs total $4,051.25. When this sum is deducted from the amount claimed, the remainder is $1,944.50. The Department then reduced this figure by prorating it at 25% for the diesel tank and 75% for the gasoline tanks, disallowing the gasoline portion. With that, the total reimbursement for Section 2A, personnel, costs is $486.25. Petitioner claimed $1,765.00 for rental costs, (Section 2C), associated with soil removal, from which the Department deducted the sum of $1,550.00 which represents costs associated with the preparation of a preliminary Contamination Assessment Report, (CAR), which is not eligible for reimbursement. The balance of $215.00 was reduced by the 75%, ($161.27), which related to the three gasoline tanks, leaving a balance of $53.75 to be reimbursed for rental costs attributable to the diesel contamination. Petitioner also claimed $12,865.75 for miscellaneous costs associated with soil removal. This is listed under Section 2I of the application. From that figure the Department deducted the sum of $9,455.99 as costs attributable to the three gasoline tanks. In addition, $2,017.43 was disallowed because it related to the preliminary CAR, and $3,151.99 was deducted because the tank was removed after July 1, 1992. The applicable rule requires justification in the Remedial Action Plan, (RAP), for removal of tanks after that date. Such costs, when justified, can be reimbursed as a part of a RAP application. A further sum of $1,759.66 was deducted from the 2I cost reimbursement since the applicant got that much as a discount on what it paid. Together the deductions amounted to $16,385.07, and when that amount is deducted from the amount claimed, a negative balance results. Section 3 of the application deals with soil treatment. Subsection 3I pertains to such miscellaneous items as loading, transport and treatment of soil. The total amount claimed by Petitioner in this category was $13,973.44. Of that amount, $10,480.00 was deducted because it related to the three gasoline tanks. The amount allowed was $3,493.44, which represents 25% of the total claimed. Category 7 on the application form deals with tank removal and replacement. Section 7A relates to personnel costs and Petitioner claimed $4,187.00 for these costs. Of this, $3,140.25 was deducted as relating to the three gasoline tanks and amounted to 75% of the claimed cost. In addition, $1,046.75 was deducted because the diesel tank was removed after July 1, 1992 and there was no justification given for the removal at that time. This cost might be reimbursed through another program, however. In summary, all personnel costs were denied, but so much thereof as relates to the diesel tank may be reimbursed under another program. Section 7C of the application form relates to rental costs for such items as loaders, trucks and saws. The total claimed was $2,176.00. Of this amount, $1,632.00 was deducted as relating to the three gasoline tanks, and an additional $544.00 was deducted as being associated with the non-justified removal of the diesel tank after July 1, 1992. As a result, all costs claimed in this section were denied. In Section 7D, relating to mileage, a total of $12.80 was approved, and for 7G, relating to permits, a total of $28.60 was approved. In each case, the approved amount constituted 25% of the amount claimed with the 75% disallowed relating to the three gasoline tanks. Section 7I deals with miscellaneous expenses relating to tank removal and replacement. The total claimed in this section was $2,262.30. A deduction of $1,697.11 was taken as relating to the three gasoline tanks, and $565.69 was deducted because the removal after July 1, 1992 was not justified in the application. This cost may be reimbursed under a separate program, but in this instant action, the total claim under this section was denied. Petitioner asserts that the Department's allocation of 75` of the claimed costs to the ineligible gasoline tanks is unjustified and inappropriate. It claims the majority of the costs where incurred to remove the eligible diesel fuel contamination and the incidental removal of overlapping gasoline related contamination does not justify denial of the costs to address the diesel contamination. To be sure, diesel contamination was detected throughout the site and beyond the extend of the IRA excavation. The soil removed to make room for the new tanks was contaminated and could not be put back in the ground. It had to be removed. The groundwater analysis shows both gasoline and diesel contamination at the north end of the property furthest from the site. The sample taken at that point, however, contains much more gasoline contaminant than diesel. Petitioner contends that the costs denied by the Department as relating to gasoline contamination were required in order to remove the diesel contamination and Petitioner should be reimbursed beyond 25%. It contends that the diesel contamination could not have been removed without removing all four tanks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner request for additional reimbursement of $27,653.82 and affirming the award of $6,629.07. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 25th day of September, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Francisco J. Amram, P.E. Qualified Representative 9942 Currie Davis Drive, Suite H Tampa, Florida 33619 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issues in these cases are (1) whether four tax warrants issued by Petitioner against Respondent, Frances Bowers, a/k/a Francis Bowers, d/b/a Shannon Oil Company and Shannon Service Stations, were properly issued; (2) whether two Notices of Freeze and two Notices of Intent to Levy on Respondent were properly issued; (3) whether the allegations of an Administrative Complaint entered March 1, 1995 by Petitioner against Respondent are correct; and (4) whether an Emergency Order of Suspension issued by Petitioner on or about March 3, 1995 was warranted.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Frances Bowers, a/k/a Francis Bowers, held a Special Fuel Dealers License #10-011382, a Motor Fuel Jobbers License #09-001450 and Retail Dealer License #’s 77- 000320 and 40-001175. The motor fuel and special fuel licenses were held at Highway 90 East, Caryville, Florida 32427. The retail dealer licenses were held at 1007 North Waukesh Street, Bonifay, Florida 32425 and Highway 279 South, Caryville, Florida 32427. Ms. Bowers operated under the business names of Shannon Oil Company or Shannon Service Station. Ms. Bowers has been engaged in the sale of fuel at various retail locations since 1986. She has engaged in the sale of special fuels (diesel) since May 10, 1985. She has operated as a motor fuel jobber (gasoline) since January 18, 1989. From April 1994 through December 1994, Ms. Bowers purchased special fuel from Murphy Oil Co. From May 1994 through July 1994, Ms. Bowers purchased special fuel from Beards Oil Co. For the period July 1993 through December 1994 Ms. Bowers delivered unsigned, no-remit tax returns to Petitioner, the Department of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”). Those returns were delivered by Ms. Bowers to Kathy Jones, a Department Revenue Specialist, at the Department’s Marianna offices. Returns for some months were not remitted. Ms. Bowers subsequently returned to the Department’s Marianna offices and signed the no-remit returns she had filed in the presence of Ms. Jones. The no-remit returns filed by Ms. Bowers indicate that she owed taxes pursuant to Chapters 206, 212, Part II and 336, Florida Statutes. No part of the tax Ms. Bowers indicated was owed was remitted by Ms. Bowers to the Department. For months for which no return was filed, the Department estimated the amount of tax owed. The Department issued Notices of Assessment and Jeopardy Finding to Ms. Bowers in January 1995. These Notices informed Ms. Bowers of the Department’s intent to cause tax warrants for the outstanding taxes owed by Ms. Bowers to be filed with the Clerk of Court. Based upon the no-remit returns, the Department filed four tax warrants. The warrants were for total taxes of $218,801,56. Additionally, penalties, filing fees and interest was included in the tax warrants. The total amount for the four warrants, without the filing fees, was $187,167.18 attributable to Shannon Service Stations and $183,548.97 attributable to Shannon Oil Company. Included in the no-remit returns filed by Ms. Bowers were Special and Alternative Fuel Tax Returns. These returns indicated that Ms. Bowers had purchased “tax-paid” special fuel, meaning that she had paid the tax at the time she purchased the fuel. The tax was allegedly paid to Murphy Oil Co. or Beard’s Oil Co. Based upon the Special Fuel Tax Returns of Murphy Oil Co. and Beard’s Oil Co. no tax was paid by Ms. Bowers on purchases of special fuel purchased by Ms. Bowers. Copies of these returns were accepted into evidence without objection from Ms. Bowers. Ms. Bowers has admitted during her deposition testimony that she owes the outstanding taxes at issue in this proceeding. See Department’s exhibit 14. On or about February 28, 1995, the Department issued two Notices of Freeze and two Notices of Intent to Levy on Frances Bowers, a/k/a Francis Bowers, d/b/a Shannon Oil Company and Shannon Service Stations. Pursuant to the Notices, the Department notified Ms. Bowers that it intended to levy against her assets, consisting of deposits at the Bank of Bonifay, for outstanding taxes. The Department indicated that it was taking this action for nonpayment of taxes, penalty and interest in the sum of $183,548.97 attributable to Shannon Oil Company and in the sum of $187,267.18 attributable to Shannon Service Stations. On or about March 20, 1995, Ms. Bowers filed a Request for Administrative Hearing with the Department. Ms. Bowers contested the proposed levy and alleged that she had not failed to pay any taxes owed. On or about March 1, 1995, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Ms. Bowers. Pursuant to the Administrative Complaint, the Department informed Ms. Bowers that Special Fuel Dealers License #10-011382, Motor Fuel Jobbers License #09-001450 and Retail Dealer License #’s 77-000320 and 40-001175 were being revoked. This action was premised upon allegations that Ms. Bowers “failed to file or pay fuel taxes collected for the period of July, 1993 through December, 1994”. The Department also issued an Emergency Order of Suspension on or about March 3, 1995. Pursuant to this Order, the Department suspended the licenses held by Ms. Bowers which the Department sought to revoke in the Administrative Complaint. On or about March 22, 1995, Ms. Bowers sent a Petition for Administrative hearing to the Department in response tot he Administrative Complaint. Ms. Bowers disputed in the Petition whether she had failed to remit outstanding taxes or that she owed such taxes as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. All of the exhibits and the facts of this matter were stipulated to by Ms. Bowers. Ms. Bowers also stipulated to the revocation of her licenses, the emergency suspension order issued by the Department, the issuance of the tax warrants and the Notices of Freeze and Notices of Intent to Levy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered upholding the Emergency Order of Suspension, the Department’s Administrative Complaint, the four tax warrants issued by the Department against Respondent and the Notices of Intent to Freeze and Notices of Intent to Levy. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of February 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Albert J. Wollermann John N. Upchurch Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Owen N. Powell, Esquire Post Office Box 789 Bonifay, Florida 32425
Findings Of Fact Silver Sand is in the aggregate business. A major portion of this business involves the trucking of sand, rock, and shell. Diesel fuel, a special fuel, is used in these trucking operations. Approximately fifteen percent of the trucking takes place off of highways and roads. Fuel utilized for off-road operations is not subject to the Florida excise tax on special fuel. To facilitate its trucking operations, Silver Sand purchases diesel fuel in bulk, and uses it in its own trucks and sells it to lease operators who are under contract to Silver Sand. Silver Sand holds a Florida Department of Revenue license which entitles it to purchase diesel fuel in bulk without paying the excise tax. The assessment period involved in this case is April, 1973 through December, 1973. During that period the United States was in the middle of a fuel crisis, and motor fuels, including diesel fuel, was difficult to obtain. During the relevant period Jeremiah J. Kelly, Jr., was Silver Sand's lease operations manager. He was responsible for obtaining diesel fuel. In April, 1973, a Mr. Carruthers, representing Handy Haul-It, approached Kelly and told him that Handy Haul-It could provide Silver Sand with diesel fuel. Kelly had the authority to negotiate diesel fuel purchases on behalf of Silver Sand. Kelly did not know where Carruthers or Handy Haul-It could get diesel fuel, and he assumed that Handy Haul-It was a fuel distributor. Carruthers told Kelly that he would need to have a "Purchaser's Blanket Resale and Exemption Certificate" issued by Silver Sand in order to obtain the fuel. Carruthers presented Kelly with such a certificate. The certificate was addressed to Radiant Oil. Kelly went to his superior, Kenneth Surbaugh, and asked whether he should issue the certificate. Surbaugh authorized Kelly to sign the certificate. Kelly signed the certificate that day, and left it on his desk. When he returned the following day the certificate was gone. Kelly did not write the name "Silver Sand Company" on the certificate, and did not date it. The name "Silver Sand Company" and the date were placed on the certificate after Kelly signed it. The certificate came into Carruthers' possession. The evidence did not reveal whether the certificate was delivered to Carruthers by anyone at Silver Sand, but Kelly did intend to deliver the certificate to Carruthers. A copy of the certificate was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. The name Silver Sand Company is inserted as the purchaser, and it is dated January 1, 1973. The document was predated. It was actually signed during April, 1973. NCJ is in the business of distributing motor fuels, including diesel fuel. Joseph Capitano is the President and Chief Executive Officer of NCJ. During April through December, 1973, NCJ had a relative abundance of diesel fuel. In April, 1973, Bill Simms, a friend of Capitano who is also in the fuel distribution business, told Capitano that he had a customer who desired to purchase substantial quantities of diesel fuel. This customer was Carruthers. Simms introduced Carruthers to Capitano. Capitano told Carruthers that he would need a Purchaser's Blanket Resale and Exemption Certificate in order to sell him diesel fuel. Capitano gave Carruthers a certificate to be executed which would fulfill this function. This is the certificate that was signed by Kelly, and received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. Carruthers ultimately returned the form to Capitano. The form is addressed to Radiant Oil, not to NCJ. NCJ and Radiant Oil are separate entities. NCJ and Radiant Oil are separately registered with the Department of Revenue as motor fuel dealers. The corporations are somewhat related. Joseph Capitano's father owns Radiant Oil. NCJ leases office space from Radiant Oil, and the two corporations share clerical help. The companies use common gas tanks. The companies also utilize many of the same business forms. NCJ had on occasion utilized Radiant Oil's "Purchaser's Blanket Resale and Exemption Certificate" form for its use. NCJ was a new company, and did not have its own forms. Respondent's Exhibit 3 is a compilation of such forms which were used by NCJ during the relevant period. Some of these were Radiant Oil's forms. In utilizing Radiant Oil's forms, the name Radiant Oil Company was marked off and NCJ Investment Company was inserted. That was not done on the form signed by Kelly on behalf of Silver Sand. After Carruthers delivered the exemption certificate to Capitano Handy Haul-It proceeded to purchase fuel from NCJ and resell it to Silver Sand. The fuel was generally picked up at NCJ's tanks by Handy Haul-It's truck. Occasionally Handy Haul-It hired trucks from another common carrier to pick up the fuel. Handy Haul-It paid for the fuel by check made out on the account of Handy Haul-It. NCJ invoices reflected, however, that the purchaser was Silver Sand. Copies of these invoices were not mailed to Silver Sand, and never came into the possession of Silver Sand. No one at Silver Sand was aware of the existence of NCJ. Handy Haul-It purchased 1,753,027 gallons of special fuel from NCJ in this manner. Handy Haul-It did not pay the special fuel tax on any of the purchases. While NCJ was selling tax free based upon the Purchaser's Blanket Resale Exemption Certificate (Respondent's Exhibit 1) it did not place Silver Sand's dealer or distributor license number on many of the invoices. NCJ never made any inquiry of anyone at Silver Sand as to Carruthers' or Handy Haul-It's authority to purchase fuel on Silver Sand's behalf. 882,264 gallons of the special fuel purchased by Handy Haul-It from NCJ was delivered to Silver Sand. This fuel was delivered either in Handy Haul-It's own truck, or in a truck hired by Handy Haul-It. Silver Sand paid Handy Haul-It directly by check when it received each of the deliveries. Handy Haul-It delivered invoices to Silver Sand. The invoices do not reflect a separate itemization showing that motor fuel taxes were paid. The price paid for the fuel would indicate that the price included the tax. Carruthers represented to officials at Silver Sand that the price included the tax, and that he would pay the taxes. In its monthly reports to the Department of Revenue, Silver Sand did not report the purchases because it believed that it was not required to report purchases upon which taxes had been paid. The evidence at the hearing was insufficient to establish the ultimate destination of the fuel which Handy Haul- It purchased from NCJ but did not sell to Silver Sand. Handy Haul-It did make sales to several other trucking companies, including Keystone Trucking Company, Montgomery Trucking, Montgomery Hauling, Keys of the Coast, Florida Bulk Transport, Dirt Haulers, Inc., and Mid Florida Hauling. Handy Haul-It had purchased some fuel from sources other than NCJ, and it cannot be gleaned from the evidence whether the fuel purchased from NCJ was ultimately delivered to these other companies. It is clear from the evidence that the remaining fuel was not delivered to Silver Sand, and that Silver Sand was not aware that Handy Haul-It had purchased such additional quantities from NCJ in Silver Sand's name. Handy Haul-It was not licensed as a distributor or dealer of motor fuels by the Florida Department of Revenue. By agreeing to purchase diesel fuel from Handy Haul-It, Silver Sand authorized Handy Haul-It to obtain diesel fuel on behalf of Silver Sand. Handy Haul-It was therefore Silver Sand's agent for the purpose of obtaining fuel for Silver Sand. When Kelly signed the Purchaser's Blanket Resale and Exemption Certificate, he authorized Handy Haul-It to use Silver Sand's special fuel dealer's license to obtain diesel fuel tax free from Radiant Oil Company of Tampa, the addressee on the certificate. Silver Sand thus clothed Handy Haul-It and Carruthers with the apparent authority to purchase diesel fuel tax free utilizing Silver Sand's special fuel dealer license number from Radiant Oil Company of Tampa. NCJ knew, or should have known, that in making sales to Carruthers and Handy Haul-It, it was not dealing directly with Silver Sand. Although the exemption certificate had the name Silver Sand on it, and NCJ chose to address its invoices to Silver Sand, all of the purchases were made by Handy Haul-It and Carruthers. There was no evidence that Carruthers ever represented to NCJ that he had authority to speak for Silver Sand. NCJ took no action to inform itself as to Carruthers' authority to act on Silver Sand's behalf, other than to obtain the exemption certificate. The exemption certificate, however, was not made out to NCJ. The only authority of Handy Haul-It to act on Silver Sand's behalf that NCJ was entitled to rely upon was the authority to purchase fuel from Radiant Oil Company of Tampa. The authorization is very specific in this regard, and although it may be that Silver" Sand would gladly have executed an exemption certificate addressed to NCJ, it did not do that. The fact that the certificate was back-dated, and was issued to the wrong entity, should have caused NCJ to take action to contact Silver Sand. If NCJ had done that, Handy Haul-It would never have been in a position to purchase fuel from NCJ and to deliver it to someone other than Silver Sand. Indeed, it is possible that Handy Haul-It would never have been placed in the position of buying fuel under Silver Sand's license number at all. Knowing that it was dealing with an agent, NCJ should have sent copies of the invoices to the principal, Silver Sand. If NCJ had done that, Silver Sand would have been on notice that Handy Haul-It was purchasing considerable fuel in its name, and delivering it elsewhere. Silver Sand did not give Handy Haul-It the authority to obtain fuel for any purpose except delivery to Silver Sand. When Handy Haul-It utilized the exemption certificate to purchase fuel for purposes other than delivery to Silver Sand, it exceeded the scope of its authority. NCJ did not obtain special fuel taxes from Handy Haul-It on the sales which NCJ made to Handy Haul-It. NCJ did report the sales to the Department of Revenue. Silver Sand believed that it was paying special fuel taxes to Handy Haul-It. The fact that the price which Silver Sand paid to Handy Haul-It included the tax was not, however, placed on the invoices. Handy Haul-It did not pay any special fuel taxes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED: That the assessment for Special Fuel Tax in the amount of $154,644.50 imposed against Silver Sand Company of Leesburg, Inc., by the Department of Revenue be upheld. CERTIFICATION I certify that the foregoing is the Final Order of the Department of Revenue adopted by the Governor and Cabinet on the 19th day of April, 1977. Harry L. Coe, Jr., Executive Director State of Florida, Department of Revenue Room 102, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dated this 20th day of April, 1977.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Auto/Truck Plaza Specialists, Inc., a Florida Corporation, (formerly GHM, Inc. of Baldwin) operates a "truck stop" in Baldwin, Florida, which sells special fuel and motor fuel under a dealer's license issued by the respondent. The firm leases the buildings under an agreement with the Union Oil Company of California. Part of the rental for the leased premises consists of one cent per gallon on sales of special fuels based on monthly reports that reflect fuel inventory at the beginning of the month, gallons acquired during the month, and the amount sold during the month based on manual measurement of the storage tanks. In like manner, the required state monthly tax return is based upon gallons to be accounted for" and consists of basically the same method as used in accounting to Union Oil Company. However, in preparing bimonthly excise tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service, it is unnecessary to show the number of gallons sold, but just the dollar amount of sales. Petitioner used pump meter readings to arrive at federal tax figures computed from daily reports of station personnel who read the pump meters at the beginning and end of each of three eight-hour shifts. The daily reports are recapitulated by petitioner's bookkeepers into monthly reports that take certain adjustments into account, such as fuel that is pumped by mistake into trucks and then replaced in the tanks. The daily reports are subject to mathematical mistakes by station attendants and the meters themselves periodically become defective, thus necessitating repair or replacement. This type of report is used by petitioner also as a comparison of months to see how the business is progressing and to attempt to detect theft by employees. (Testimony of Hires, Morris, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-5) Although petitioner normally purchases all of its special fuel from Union Oil Company, there was a period from June, 1973, through February, 1974, when, due to a shortage of fuel, purchases of some 500,000 gallons were made from five other distributors. Petitioner was under the impression that it paid tax on these purchases because none of the firms asked for its license number and the price charged for the fuel appeared to be an amount sufficient to include the state tax. No taxes were separately stated on the invoices from these firms, but petitioner's license number appeared on some of them. All such purchases were made by checks drawn on petitioner's bank account. The state tax due on later resales of this special fuel was not collected or paid to the state by petitioner. Nevertheless, it is found that petitioner's explanation that it was unaware that tax had not been previously paid to distributors is credible and that there was no intent to purposely evade payment of state taxes. (Testimony of Hires) In the summer of 1976, respondent's tax examiner Heyward R. Steinhauser, learned that sales of special fuels had been made to petitioner without the payment of tax and had not been reported to his agency. Petitioner explained the situation concerning outside purchases to Steinhauser, and the latter thereafter conducted an audit of the firm's books covering the period June, 1973, through June, 1976. He examined petitioner's check register to determine how much excise tax had been paid to the federal government and determined that this amount corresponded substantially with the number of gallons sold as reflected on the monthly meter reading reports. During this audit, Steinhauser found no evidence of outside purchases except that reflected by checks issued by petitioner to the five firms during the latter half of 1973 and 1974. However, Steinhauser made no effort to verify the totals set forth on the monthly meter reports as far as accuracy of computation. Petitioner made all of its records available for the audit and offered the daily reports to Steinhauser which he declined to use due to their bulk. (Testimony of Hires, Steinhauser). An informal meeting was held between petitioner and representatives of respondent on September 28, 1976, based on a proposed assessment resulting from the audit. At this meeting, certain credits were allowed to petitioner. The meeting was followed by a formal Notice of Proposed Assessment, dated November 22, 1976, wherein respondent claimed tax due in the amount of $48,016.22, interest in the amount of $15,248.30, and penalties of $6,196.76, for a total of $69,461.01. After deducting a $10,000 payment made by petitioner on September 28, 1976, the total amount due as stated in the assessment letter was $60,316.07. This was followed by a subsequent meeting on February 2, 1977, whereby petitioner sought further adjustment of the proposed assessment. A letter of February 15, 1977, from respondent's audit supervisor of the Motor Fuel Tax Bureau reasserted the original assessment, plus additional interest making the total allegedly due, as of February 10, 1977, $61,582.00. In that letter, petitioner was advised that since the daily pump readings or reports had not been made available to reconcile any discrepancies in the monthly reports, no adjustment could be made as to the proposed assessment. The reason for the unavailability of the daily records was that they had been inadvertently destroyed by an employee of the petitioner several months after the audit. Another meeting was held on March 29, 1977, which apparently was unsuccessful because a further letter of respondent, dated March 31, 1977, again asserted the previous amount of tax due, plus additional interest, making a total due of $62,198.07. Thereafter, on April 28, 1977, petitioner filed its petition for an administrative hearing. (Testimony of Steinhauser, Hires, Morris, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 9-10) At the hearing, petitioner submitted its own audit based on fuel purchases, its check register, and invoices from Union Oil Company and outside suppliers. After computing exempt purchases, collection fees, and taxes already paid to the state, petitioner admitted that taxes had been due in the total amount of $42,342, based on sales of 541,825 gallons of fuel. The state's figures had based tax due on 592,587 gallons sold. After deductions of the $10,000 payment made on September 28, 1976, and a further payment of $30,000 on August 11, 1977, plus penalties and interest, petitioner admits that a sum of $11,390 is still due and owing. A further audit presented by respondent at the hearing reflects a total due at the end of September, 1977, of $47,699.44. Petitioner pointed out at the hearing that various mistakes in addition had been made in the monthly meter reports utilized by respondent in arriving at its assessment. However, neither petitioner nor respondent had verified the accuracy of these figures. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer requested that this be accomplished subsequent to hearing and that a report be furnished as a late- filed exhibit. Petitioner submitted such a report on November 15, 1977, which shows that mathematical mistakes in the reports were made to the extent that they reflected 56,595.5 more gallons sold during the audit period than was actually the case. This figure corresponds favorably with petitioner's contention based on its audit that it had sold some 51,000 gallons less than that asserted by respondent. Respondent has not contested the late-filed exhibit of petitioner and it is found that the figures reflected therein are correct. (Testimony of Morris, Petitioner's Exhibits 6, 7, 11, Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2)
Recommendation That petitioner be held liable for special fuels tax, penalty and interest in the amount of $11,390. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Linder Smith, Jr. Esquire 1320 Atlantic Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capital Tallahassee, Florida 32304
