Findings Of Fact The facts in this case are derived from the exhibits submitted into evidence at the hearing and the testimony of petitioner H.R. Thornton, Jr. The pertinent documents show that a portion of a lot located in the toxin of St. Cloud, Florida, owned by Garold D. Doak, Sr. and Susan E. Doak, his wife, was mortgaged by the Doaks to Peachtree Mortgage Corporation on December 28, 1972, in the amount of $16,850.00. On January 4, 1973, Peachtree Mortgage Corporation assigned the Mortgage to the Hamilton Federal Savings and Loan association of Brooklyn, New York. On February 6, 1976, a lis pendens was filed against the property by the assignee of the mortgage in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Osceola County, Florida, incident to an action to foreclose the mortgage. On March 15, 1976, the Doaks executed quitclaim deeds on the property to Stephene J. Houseman. On April 6, 1976, a final judgement of foreclosure was entered in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in favor of Hamilton Federal Savings and Loan Association of Brooklyn, New York. (Exhibit 1-6) On April 27, 1976, Houseman executed a quitclaim deed on the property to petitioners. On April 30, 1976, the Thorntons conveyed their interest in the property by warranty deed to Jaiies Francis Wiczorek and Shirley Lillian Wiczorek, his wife. The deed recited that it was subject to the outstanding mortgage to Hamilton Federal Savings and Loan Association with a principal balance of sec. 16,224.52 which the grantees agreed to assume and pay. The deed further recited a consideration of $4,000.00 and documentary stamp tax in an appropriate amount was paid based on a consideration which included the cash payment and the mortgage amount. On July 30, 1976, the mortgage in question was satisfied. (Exhibits 8-10) Only minimal documentary stamp tax of thirty cents was paid on the quitclaim deed from Houseman to petitioners. Respondent issued a notice of proposed assessment of additional documentary stamp tax in the amount of $48.60, surtax in the amount of $17.60, penalties in like amounts, and interest thereon, for a total of $158.51, on March 21, 1977. The proposed assessment was based on consideration stated to be the existing mortgage on the property in the amount of $16,224.52. On April 29, 1977, petitioners filed their petition for an administrative hearing, challenging the proposed assessment on the grounds that there was no evidence to show the taxable consideration as found by respondent. By an amended and revised notice of proposed assessment, dated April 29, 1977, the amount for documentary surtax, penalty and interest thereon was deleted leaving only the sums relating to documentary stamp tax, penalty, and interest in the amount of $102.30. (Exhibit 8) Petitioner H.R. Thornton, Jr. took the quitclaim deed in question to cancel a $100.00 debt owed him by Houseman. He had no intent to make the mortgage payments or payments or pay any other consideration for the transfer. (Testimony of Thornton)
Recommendation That petitioners be held liable for payment of documentary stamp tax, penalty and interest under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, as modified herein with respect to the penalty. Done and Entered this 29th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 H. R. Thornton, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 345 St. Cloud, Florida 32769
Findings Of Fact Respondent married Barbara Hannon on October 31, 1970. On November 5, 1975, Barbara G. Reilly, as she was sometimes known during her marriage to respondent, executed a petition for dissolution of marriage and other relief in which she alleged that she "wishe[d] to resume her former surname of HANNON." On January 14, 1976, the marriage between respondent and Barbara Hannon was dissolved. Petitioner's exhibit No. 4. Effective October 1, 1973 through October 4, 1975, inclusive, respondent was registered as a real estate salesman in the employ of King's Point Realty, Inc. From October 5, 1975, to March 31, 1977, respondent was registered as a real estate broker at the same office. By deed dated May 1, 1975, Harry and Evelyn Litwin conveyed "CONDOMINIUM PARCEL NO. 508, KINGS POINT BRITTANY K" to "BARBARA HANNON, a single woman. Petitioner's exhibit No. 14. This deed reflects payment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of $49.50 and of documentary surtax in the amount of $1.65. By deed dated June 20, 1975, "BARBARA HANNON, a single woman" conveyed the same parcel to Robert and Meredith Nisenbaum. This deed reflects payment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of $52.50 and of documentary surtax in the amount of $19.25. Petitioner's exhibit No. 14. By deed dated September 29, 1975, Dorothy I. Fox, an un-remarried widow, conveyed "CONDOMINIUM PARCEL NO. 702, KINGS POINT SAXONY `O'" to "BARBARA HANNON, a single woman. Petitioner's exhibit No. 15. This deed reflects payment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of $34.50 and of documentary surtax in the amount of $2.20. By deed dated November 6, 1975, "BARBARA HANNON, a single woman," conveyed the same parcel to B & M Realty Trust II. This deed reflects payment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of $45.00 and of documentary surtax in the amount of $6.05. Petitioner's exhibit No. 15. By deed dated October 31, 1975, Myron and Sonia Spergel conveyed "Condominium Parcel No. 237 of FLANDERS `E'" to "BARBARA HANNON." Petitioner's exhibit No. 16. This deed reflects payment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of $45.60 and of documentary surtax in the amount of $17.05. By deed dated March 12, 1976, "BARBARA HANNON" conveyed the same parcel to Harry and Evelyn Tuckman. Petitioner's exhibit No. 8. This deed reflects payment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of $57.00 and of documentary surtax in the amount of $4.40. Mr. and Mrs. Tuckman, who still lived in the condominium at the time of the hearing, dealt with respondent when they acquired the property. In conversations with respondent, a price was agreed upon. The Tuckmans did not know who the seller was at the time they agreed to buy. By deed dated June 10, 1976, Ida Ellman, a widow, conveyed "Condominium Parcel No. 202 of Valencia `I' CONDOMINIUM" to "BARBARA HANNON, a single woman." Petitioner's exhibit No. 17. This deed reflects payment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of $57.00 and of documentary surtax in the amount of $8.25. On this deed, the grantee's post office address is stated as "P.O. Box 994, Delray Beach, Fl. 33444." According to post office records, respondent George F. Reilly rented Post Office Box 994 at the Delray Beach Post Office from on or about November 4, 1975, until on or about June 21, 1977. By deed dated August 4, 1976, "BARBARA HANNON, a single woman" conveyed the same property to Natale and June V. Lisi. Petitioner's exhibit No. 9. This deed reflects payment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of $69.00 and of documentary surtax in the amount of $25.30. Respondent represented the seller when Mr. and Mrs. Lisi purchased the condominium. Respondent never disclosed to Mr. and Mrs. Lisi that he and Barbara Hannon had been married. By deed dated September 30, 1976, Sidney and Jean Kessler and Charles and Sandra Bondar conveyed "Parcel No. 159 of TUSCANY `C' Condominium" to "BARBARA HANNON, a single woman. Petitioner's exhibit No. 5. The grantee's address appears on this deed as "P.O. Box 994, Delray Beach, Florida 33444." This deed reflects payment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of $67.50 and of documentary surtax in the amount of $7.70. Respondent asked John W. Hooker, Jr., to handle the transaction from the Kesslers and Bondars to Barbara Hannon. Mr. Hooker received a cashier's check drawn on the Barnett Bank of West Delray Beach in the amount of $6,305.37, petitioner's exhibit No. 6, and closed the transaction by mail. He never met Barbara Hannon and only learned afterwards that she and respondent had been married. Respondent never disclosed to the Kesslers or to the Bondars that he had been married to Barbara Hannon; and he later admitted this to Floyd M. Stevens, an investigator in petitioner's employ. The money used to purchase the cashier's check given to Mr. Hooker, petitioner's exhibit No. 6, came from respondent's savings account at the Barnett Bank of West Delray Beach. Petitioner's exhibit No. 19. By deed dated December 16, 1976, "BARBARA HANNON, A SINGLE WOMAN" conveyed "Parcel No. 169, of TUSCANY `C' CONDOMINIUM" to John L. Schmieder and James A. Schmieder. Petitioner's exhibit No. 10. In anticipation of the conveyance, John Schnieder had placed a deposit with respondent in the form of a money order in the amount of $1,000, payable to "GEORGE REILLY-KING'S POINT REALTY." Petitioner's exhibit No. 21. The seller's closing statement prepared on December 15, 1976, contains the item: "Brokerage Commission Kings Point Realty . . . [$]1,000.00." Petitioner's exhibit No. 11. According to the same closing statement, the balance due seller amounted to $9,200.64. Id. On December 16, 1976, respondent deposited $10,200.64 (1,000.00 + 9,200.64) to his savings account at the Barnett Bank of best Delray Beach. Petitioner's exhibits Nos. 20, 21 and 22. According to the Bank's records, respondent's mailing address was "P.O. Box 994, Delray Beach, Fla. 33444." Respondent never mentioned to the Schmieders that he and Barbara Hannon were in any way related. Respondent deposited the money order he had received from the Schmieders to his own savings account on December 16, 1976; and never earlier deposited the money order to any escrow account. On October 14, 1976, The Keyes Company mailed a check drawn in favor of Kings Point Realty, Inc. (Kings Point) in the amount of $500, to the offices of Kings Point in Delray Beach. This check never reached Kings Point's supervisor of accounts payable and was not processed through Kings Point's ordinary banking channels, although it was paid.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's registration as a real estate broker. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1979 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 George F. Reilly 8671 Sunset Strip Sunrise, Florida 33322 George F. Reilly Post Office Box 4525 Old San Juan Station Puerto Rico 00905
Findings Of Fact The facts in this case are undisputed. On April l6, 1976, petitioner Arthur J. Coyle and his wife Katie Coyle, became the sole shareholders of Sara- Wolf, Inc., a Florida Corporation, whose assets consisted of an apartment building in Miami Beach, Florida. Thereafter, the Coyles decided to transfer the corporate assets to themselves as individuals. They were advised by their attorney that, in view of the 1975 decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Florida Department of Revenue v. DeMaria, 321 So 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) in a similar factual situation, no state documentary stamp tax would be due on the transaction. Therefore, relying upon that judicial decision, petitioner and his wife proceeded to execute a quit claim deed of the corporate real estate to themselves on May 13, 1976, and file the same in the public records of Dade County, Florida, on May 18, 1976, with payment of only nominal documentary stamp tax. The decision of the District Court of Appeal had been stayed by the Supreme Court on December 8, 1975. Subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in the DeMaria case on October 14, 1976, which quashed the lower court's decision, respondent issued a notice of proposed assessment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of $526.50 based on a taxable consideration of $175,500, less 30 cents tax paid, for a total tax due of $526.20 plus a like amount as a penalty, and $42.00 in interest, for a total asserted liability of $1,094.40. (Testimony of petitioner, Exhibits 1-3)
Recommendation That the proposed assessment of $1,094.40 against petitioner Arthur J. Coyle and Katie Coyle is valid and should be enforced. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Glassman, Esquire 903 Biscayne Building 19 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Prior to the hearing the parties jointly moved to consolidate the two (2) above styled cases and stated the stipulation would cover both 76-2197, D.O.A.H., and 77-604, D.O.A.H. The former involved six (6) deeds and the latter three (3) deeds. The following facts were stipulated to by the parties: The Respondent, Department of Revenue, imposed a documentary stamp tax upon six (6) deeds which transferred the title to properties from individual persons to Petitioner Corry. The transfer came about as a result of the following: In each of the six (6) transfers under question, Petitioner Corry sold property to certain individuals. The Petitioner gave to the individuals a deed and took back a purchase money mortgage. The purchasers made essentially no payments on the mortgage to Petitioner Corry and ultimately the purchasers deeded the property back to the Petitioner. The deeds were recorded in the courthouse records. In one of the deeds there is a specific statement that the deed is executed in lieu of foreclosure and that the purchaser is released from all liability. There is no such specific statement in the other deeds. By a Proposed Notice of Assessment dated August 3, 1976, the Respondent, Department of Revenue, sought to impose a documentary stamp tax upon the six (6) deeds. The consideration upon which the tax is based in cases like the instant case is usually the amount of mortgage debt forgiven but in the instant case no such information was provided and the tax was based on the assessed values of the property. Petitioner Corry is contesting the legal liability of Petitioner for the assessment and is not contesting the legal liability of Petitioner for the assessment and is not contesting the mathematical computation of the amount allegedly due. It is Petitioner's contention that the six (6) deeds are not subject to documentary stamp taxation inasmuch as the Petitioner paid nothing for the deeds and were signed by the mortgagors at the request of the Petitioner to clear title of the equitable owner. It is the Respondent Department of Revenue's contention that the six (6) deeds are subject to documentary stamp taxation since they are deeds in lieu of foreclosure or are deeds given when debts are rendered unenforceable. At the time the six (6) deeds were recorded on December 22, 1975, in Taylor County, the Deputy Clerk asked Petitioner how much he paid for the six (6) deeds in question and when he responded that he paid nothing for the deeds the Deputy Clerk advised him that he owed no documentary stamp tax or surtax thereon. Relying on the Deputy Clerk's advice, the deeds were recorded and no taxes were paid, only the recording fees. The Hearing Officer further finds: The deeds in question were secured for the purpose of clearing title to the equitable owner. The Petitioner paid nothing to the mortgagor for the deeds. The stipulation controls both cases No. 76-2197 and 77-604.
Recommendation Hold the assessments as valid assessment. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Caroline C. Mueller, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William W. Corry, Esquire Post Office Box 527 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 1977.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 15, 1979, Mead Timber Company and Scott Timber Company conveyed certain property located in Suwannee County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), to Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch (hereinafter referred to as the "Original Conveyance"). The warranty deed for the Original Conveyance was recorded on August 15, 1979, at Official Records Book 187, page 444, of the Public Records of Suwannee County, Florida. In connection with said Original Conveyance the closing statement therefor showed a purchase price of Two Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,400,000.00), said amount being the actual amount of the purchase and sale. In connection with the deed for said Original Conveyance, the closing statement indicated that Seven Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($7,200.00) of documentary stamp taxes were paid based upon Thirty Cents ($.30) per One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) of consideration, and said Seven Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($7,200.00) for documentary stamps was in fact paid. In connection with said Original Conveyance, a first mortgage and security agreement was given by Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch, to the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, said mortgage dated and filed August 15, 1979, at Official Records Book 187, page 451, of the Public Records of Suwannee County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as "First Mortgage"). The mortgage secured a note with a face amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) dated August 15, 1979. The First Mortgage showed a face amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00). In connection with the First Mortgage, pursuant to the loan commitment dated April 13, 1979, only One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000.00) was disbursed thereunder. The parties thereto anticipated that an additional One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000.00) would be disbursed at some future date, subject to conditions precedent that (a) the Borrowers place all of the Property encumbered thereby into cultivation, after having first cleared and prepared same for cultivation, and (b) that the Borrowers install twenty (20) 12-inch irrigation wells which would be appropriately drilled and equipped, and (c) that the Borrowers install twenty (20) automatic center-pivot irrigation systems thereon. The aforementioned conditions precedent have not been accomplished to date. The time period during which the conditions precedent set forth in paragraph seven (7) above could be completed, and during which time period the Borrowers could require the First Mortgage lender to make the additional disbursement under the First Mortgage, has expired, and the Borrowers have no further legal right to require any additional disbursements under the First Mortgage. The Petitioner has waived any right to seek or obtain the additional One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000.00) from the holder of the First Mortgage. In connection with the First Mortgage for the Original Conveyance, the Borrowers paid Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500.00) as documentary stamp taxes on the promissory note secured by the First Mortgage, and paid Six Thousand ($6,000.00) in intangible taxes. In connection with the Original Conveyance, a second mortgage was given by Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd and Alvin C. Futch to Mead Timber Company and Scott Timber Company in the original principal sum of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00), said mortgage dated and filed August 15, 1979, at Official Records Book 187, page 461, of the Public Records of Suwannee County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Mortgage"). On or about October 1, 1980, Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch conveyed a portion of the Property to Timber River, Inc., a Florida corporation, by warranty deed which instrument was filed October 2, 1980, at Official Records Book 203, page 790, of the Public Records of Suwannee County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Conveyance"). In connection with the deed for said Second Conveyance, only minimum documentary stamps in the amount of Forty Cents ($.40) were attached and affixed thereto. The Respondent herein has alleged that, since the Second Conveyance was subject to both the First Mortgage and the Second Mortgage, the taxable consideration should be Three Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,300,000.00)(the face amount of the two [2] mortgages combined), and therefore the documentary stamps which should have been affixed to the deed would be Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($13,200.00), leaving an additional tax due in the amount of Thirteen Thousand One Hundred Ninety-nine and Sixty One-hundredths Dollars ($13,199.60). Timber River, Inc., the grantee of the Second Conveyance, is a corporation which was wholly owned by Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch in equal proportions at the time of the Second Conveyance. Timber River, Inc., in consideration of Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch conveying to said corporation the property described in the deed of the Second Conveyance, issued its common stock to said individuals in equal proportions. Timber River, Inc., took the Property subject to the First Mortgage and second Mortgage, and did not assume or agree to assume either the First Mortgage or the second Mortgage. Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch, individually, have at all times been or are presently liable to the mortgagee, Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, and are personally responsible for making all payments under said mortgage. All payments under said mortgage both prior to and subsequent to the Second Conveyance have been made by Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch, individually.
Findings Of Fact The parties in the person of their counsel have stipulated to the evidential facts which shall serve as the basis for the determination of the matters in dispute. The stipulation of facts and its attendant exhibits are attached to this Recommended Order and made a part thereof. As can be seen in the examination of the stipulated facts and supporting exhibits, the amount of $940.80 tax due and $940.80 for penalty is the total amount pertaining to certain notes, including notes in the names of Newth and Smith, copies of which notes appear as Exhibits C and D to the stipulated facts. A review of the total audit, Exhibit A in the stipulated facts, reveals that the amount in issue on the notes of Newth and Smith totals $885.75 alleged tax due and $885.75 alleged penalty due. The balance of the $940.80 documentary stamp tax and $940.80 in penalty pertaining to notes of other named individuals have been conceded by the Petitioner as due and owing and are not in controversy through this hearing process. The original notes on the accounts of Newth and Smith were issued in 1969. The Newth note was drawn on September 17, 1969, and the Smith note on April 14, 1969. At the time the notes were issued, national banks were immune from state and local taxes whose categories were not within the purview of Section 5219 of the Revised Statutes (12 USCA Sec. 548). Documentary stamp taxes were not one of the classes of taxes enumerated in Section 5219. Consequently, no documentary stamp taxes could be imposed against the notes drawn on accounts in the First National Hank of Pompano Beach because in 1969 it was a national bank, a status which it has continued to hold through the time of these proceedings. The prohibition against documentary stamp taxes being imposed by a state government on transactions between a national bank and its customers existed until December, 1969, at which point Public Law 91-156 was enacted, on December 12, 1969, and it amended Section 5219 of the Revised Statutes (12 USCA Sec. 548) and subsequent to that amendment, Title 12 USCA Sec. 3548 allowed state governments to tax national banks. In particular, the language of that latter provision provided: For the purpose of any tax law enacted under the authority of the United States or any State, a national bank shall be treated as a bank organized and existing under the laws of the State or other jurisdiction within which its principal office is located. This meant that transactions between the customers of a national bank and that bank with took place subsequent to the implementation of Title 12 USCA Sec. 3548 could be taxed pursuant to Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, by the process of a documentary stamp tax being levied. (The exhibits attached to the statement of facts show that Newth renewed his note with the Petitioner on April 20, 1971, and again on December 31, 1975. Smith renewed his note on June 12, 1973, and on December 31, 1975. Through the renewal process, documentary steep taxes were not paid on $683,000.00 involving the note of Newth and on $15,500.00 involving the note of Smith.) The Petitioner claims that it need not pay the documentary stamp tax and penalty on the Newth and Smith notes, because it is except from the payment of such tax. While the Petitioner agrees with the Respondent that Subsection 201.08(1), Florida Statutes, calls for the payment of documentary taxes on promissory notes and the renewal of those promissory notes, Petitioner believes that Section 201.09, Florida Statutes, exempts it from the necessity to pay documentary stamp taxes and related penalties in the matter of the renewal of the Newth and Smith notes which took place on December 31, 1975. The provision of Section 201.09, Florida Statutes, states: 201.09 Renewal of existing promissory note; exemption.--Then any promissory note is given in renewal of any existing promissory note, which said renewal note only extends or continues the identical contractual obligations of the original promissory note and evidences part or all of the original indebtedness evidenced thereby, not including any accumulated interest thereon and without enlargement in any way of said original contract and obligation, such renewal note shall not be subject to taxation under this chapter if such renewal note has attached to it the original promissory note with canceled stamps of fixed thereon showing full payment of the tax due thereon. Petitioner reads this provision to mean that the prohibition against the State of Florida levying taxes on the transactions that took place on the Newth and Smith notes in 1969, under the protection afforded by Section 5219 of the Revised Statutes (12 USCA Sec. 548); was tantamount to a declaration that full payment of the tax due thereon had been rendered and when the State attempted to impose the documentary stamp tax on the renewals which took place on December 31, 1975, Section 201.09, Florida Statutes, exempted the Petitioner from the payment of that tax. Under this theory, it was only necessary to attach the original promissory note issued in the Newth and Smith matters in 1969 to the renewal notes of December 31, 1975, and even though canceled stamps were not affixed to the 1969 notes, this could be analogous to attaching promissory notes with canceled stamps to renewal note documents. The analogy is supported in the mind of the Petitioner because both in the instance of the latter promissory notes with documentary stamp taxes attached and in the cases of Newth and Smith where original promissory notes were attached without canceled stamps attached; the key point was that under the hypothetical situation of documentary stamp taxes affixed to the original notes or the actual situation in the Newth and Smith cases, both had the real effect or effect in law of providing full payment of taxes due thereon. The perception of the Petitioner does not comport with the basis for the exemption created by Section 201.09, Florida Statutes. That exemption only applies when tax has actually been paid on the original promissory note, which did not occur here, and that failure to pay tax on the original promissory notes precludes any claim for exemption when the notes were renewed. There exists one further possibility open to the Petitioner in its efforts to resist the payment of the documentary stamp tax rate penalty on the notes of Newth and Smith. That possibility resides in the idea that the prohibition against taxing the notes when they were drafted in 1969, such prohibition appearing in the guise of Section 5219 of the Revised Statutes (12 USCA Sec. 548); it would continue to exist for the life of the note making all renewals exempt from taxation. That interpretation does not pass muster when viewed in the light of Title 12 USCA Sec. 3548, which removed future transactions from their exempt status and made them subject to tax by the Respondent. This change in position allowed Subsection 201.08(1), Florida Statutes, to be imposed on the renewals to the promissory notes, which occurred on December 31, 1975. In summary, Petitioner having failed to demonstrate its entitlement to the exemption set out in Section 201.09, Florida Statutes, it is liable in the lull amount claimed for the payment of documentary stamp taxes and penalties in a like amount in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, on all transactions addressed in the audit, which is Exhibit A to the statement of facts.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, First National Bank of Pompano Beach, be required to pay documentary stamp taxes in the amount of $940.80 and penalties in the amount of $940.80 related to the transactions on these promissory notes set out in the stipulation of facts offered by the parties. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 15th day of June, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Culpepper, Esquire 716 Barnett Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barbara Staros Harmon, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral argument of the parties and the evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the pleadings, the following pertinent facts are found: On June 30, 1973, an agreement for purchase and sale was executed between Bayshore 21, Inc., as purchaser, and Arthree, Inc., as seller, for the purchase and sale of real estate commonly known as the Carriage House. This agreement was executed by Bayshore 21, Inc. in its corporate name, and not as a trustee or other representative capacity. The provisions of this agreement were individually guaranteed by Marvin Glick, the president and sole stockholder of Bayshore 21, Inc. The purchase and sale agreement discloses that the total purchase price of the property is $19,500,000, payable by taking subject to a first mortgage held by the Prudential Insurance Company with the remainder, subject to certain prorations, to be paid in cash. An earnest money deposit in the amount of $500,000.00 was placed in escrow by Bayshore at the time of execution of the purchase and sale agreement. Bayshore 21, Inc. represented and warranted in said agreement that it was a corporation duly organized and in good standing with full capacity to make and execute the agreement and to consummate the transaction embodied therein. Further, Bayshore warranted that there was no provision in its charter or bylaws, nor was it a party to any agreement, which would limit or prevent its consummation of the agreement. Also, Bayshore reserved the right to assign it's interests to any other party upon the assignee's assumptions of Bayshore's obligations or to direct Arthree, Inc. that the deed or other closing instruments would run in favor of a designated grantee other than Bayshore. Pursuant to the agreement for purchase and sale described above, Arthree, Inc. conveyed the Carriage House to Bayshore 21, Inc. by warranty deed dated August 17, 1973. There was evidence that the transaction was not closed until August 23, 1973. Bayshore 21, Inc. took title in its own corporate name, and not as a trustee or in a representative capacity. Proper documentary stamps were attached to this document. On either August 22 or 23, 1973, Bayshore 21, Inc. executed a $1,300,000.00 note and mortgage to Commercial Trading Company, Inc. and a $5,000,000.00 note and mortgage to Security Mortgage Investors. These notes and mortgages were in the corporate name of Bayshore 21, Inc. but were guaranteed by the petitioner and Marvin Glick. These guarantees contain language that the mortgagee may proceed directly against the guarantors in the event of default. There was evidence that utilization of Bayshore 21, Inc. to effectuate the loans from Commercial Trading Company and Security Mortgage Investors was required by said mortgagees because of the fact that the then prevailing interest rate levels were in excess of the noncorporate statutory interest limit. On August 23, 1973, a joint venture agreement was entered into between petitioner and Marvin Glick. This joint venture agreement provided that "The parties acknowledge that BAYSHORE 21, INC. has taken title to certain property as trustee for ZUCKERMAN-VERNON CORP. and MARVIN GLICK and, upon completion of the financing arrangements, will convey the property to ZUCKERMAN-VERNON CORP. and MARVIN GLICK, a fifty (50 percent) percent interest being conveyed to each party. The property that is the subject of this joint venture is the CARRIAGE HOUSE, located at 54th Street and Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, each party to this agreement having a fifty (50 percent) percent interest in said property." On August 27, 1973, title to the Carriage House was conveyed by quitclaim deed from Bayshore 21, Inc. to Marvin Glick and petitioner, each to have an undivided fifty percent interest. Minimal stamps were affixed to this document, which bore the notation "No documentary stamps are required on this Deed inasmuch as the Grantor took title solely as Trustee for the Grantees herein." Thereafter, the respondent Department of Revenue assessed the parties to this August 27, 1973 deed for the documentary stamp taxes due, based upon the $18,550,000.00 existing mortgages on the property at the time of the conveyance ($12,250,000.00 to Prudential, $5,000,000.00 to Commercial Trading Company and $5,000,000.00 to Security Mortgage Investors). The delinquent documentary stamp taxes were assessed in the amount of $55,649.70, and a penalty was assessed in a like amount, making the total amount due $111,299.40.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that petitioner be assessed the taxes and penalties set forth In the proposed Notice of Assessment of Tax and Penalty under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, dated April 23, 1975. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ed Straughn Executive Director Department of Revenue Room 102, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Paul R. Lipton, Esquire 17071 West Dixie Highway North Miami Beach, Florida Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund of nearly $500 thousand on an alleged overpayment of the stamp tax, where Petitioner paid the tax based on the entire undifferentiated consideration it had received, as a lump-sum payment, from the sale of an operating hotel business comprising real estate, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property.
Findings Of Fact On February 23, 2015, Petitioner 1701 Collins (Miami) Owner, LLC ("Taxpayer"), a Delaware limited liability company, entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Agreement") to sell a going concern, namely a hotel and conference center doing business in Miami Beach, Florida, as the SLS Hotel South Beach (the "Hotel Business"), to 1701 Miami (Owner), LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Purchaser"). Purchaser paid Taxpayer $125 million for the Hotel Business. The Hotel Business comprised two categories of property, i.e., real estate ("RE") and personal property ("PP"). The PP, in turn, consisted of two subcategories of property, tangible personal property ("TPP") and intangible personal property ("ITPP"). It is undisputed that the property transferred pursuant to the Agreement included RE, TPP, and ITPP. The sale closed on June 5, 2015, and a special warranty deed was recorded on June 8, 2015, which showed nominal consideration of $10. Pursuant to the Agreement, Taxpayer was responsible for remitting the documentary stamp tax and the discretionary surtax (collectively, "stamp tax"). Stamp tax is due on instruments transferring RE; the amount of the tax, payable per instrument recorded, is based upon the consideration paid for RE. Stamp tax is not assessed on consideration given in exchange for PP. The Agreement contains a provision obligating the parties to agree, before closing, upon a reasonable allocation of the lump-sum purchase price between the three types of property comprising the Hotel Business. For reasons unknown, this allocation, which was to be made "for federal, state and local tax purposes," never occurred. The failure of the parties to agree upon an allocation, if indeed they even attempted to negotiate this point, did not prevent the sale from occurring. Neither party declared the other to be in breach of the Agreement as a result of their nonallocation of the consideration. The upshot is that, as between Taxpayer and the Purchaser, the $125 million purchase price was treated as undifferentiated consideration for the whole enterprise. Taxpayer paid stamp tax in the amount of approximately $1.3 million based on the full $125 million of undifferentiated consideration. Taxpayer paid the correct amount of stamp tax if the entire consideration were given in exchange for the RE transferred to Purchaser pursuant the Agreement——if, in other words, the Purchaser paid nothing for the elements of the Hotel Business consisting of PP. On February 6, 2018, Taxpayer timely filed an Application for Refund with Respondent Department of Revenue (the "Department"), which is the agency responsible for the administration of the state's tax laws. Relying on a report dated February 1, 2018 (the "Deal Pricing Analysis" or "DPA"), which had been prepared for Taxpayer by Bernice T. Dowell of Cynsur, LLC, Taxpayer sought a refund in the amount of $495,013.05. As grounds therefor, Taxpayer stated that it had "paid Documentary Stamp Tax on personal property in addition to real property." Taxpayer's position, at the time of the refund application and throughout this proceeding, is that its stamp tax liability should be based, not on the total undifferentiated consideration of $125 million given in the exchange for the Hotel Business, but on $77.8 million, which, according to the DPA, is the "implied value" of——i.e., the pro-rata share of the lump-sum purchase price that may be fairly allocated exclusively to——the RE transferred pursuant to the Agreement. Taxpayer claims that, to the extent it paid stamp tax on the "implied values" (as determined in the DPA) of the TPP ($7 million) and ITPP ($40.2 million) included in the transfer of the Hotel Business, it mistakenly overpaid the tax.1/ On February 23, 2018, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Make Refund Claim Changes, which informed Taxpayer that the Department planned to "change" the refund amount requested, from roughly $500 thousand, to $0——to deny the refund, in other words. In explanation for this proposed decision, the Department wrote: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the [special warranty deed] was recorded. Please provide supporting information regarding allocation of purchase price on or around the time of the sale." This was followed, on April 2, 2018, by the Department's issuance of a Notice of Proposed Refund Denial, whose title tells its purpose. The grounds were the same as before: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the document was recorded." Taxpayer timely filed a protest to challenge the proposed refund denial, on May 31, 2018. Taxpayer argued that the $125 million consideration, which Purchaser paid for the Hotel Business operation, necessarily bought the RE, TPP, and ITPP constituting the going concern; and, therefore, because stamp tax is due only on the consideration exchanged for RE, and because there is no requirement under Florida law that the undifferentiated consideration exchanged for a going concern be allocated, at any specific time, to the categories or subcategories of property transferred in the sale, Taxpayer, having paid stamp tax on consideration given for TPP and ITPP, is owed a refund. The Department's tax conferee determined that the proposed denial of Taxpayer's refund request should be upheld because, as he explained in a memorandum prepared on or around December 27, 2018, "[t]he taxpayer [had failed to] establish that an allocation of consideration between Florida real property, tangible personal property, and intangible property was made prior to the transfer of the property such that tax would be based only on the consideration allocated to the real property." The Department issued its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial on January 9, 2019. In the "Law & Discussion" section of the decision, the Department wrote: When real and personal property are sold together, and there is no itemization of the personal property, then the sales price is deemed to be the consideration paid for the real property. [2] Likewise, when the personal property is itemized, then only the amount of the sales price allocated for the real property is consideration for the real property and subject to the documentary stamp tax. The first of these propositions will be referred to as the "Default Allocation Presumption." The second will be called "Consensual-Allocation Deference." The Department cited no law in support of either principle. In its intended decision, the Department found, as a matter of fact, that Taxpayer and Purchaser had not "established an allocation between all properties prior to the transfer" of the Hotel Business. Thus, the Department concluded that Taxpayer was not entitled to Consensual-Allocation Deference, but rather was subject to the Default Allocation Presumption, pursuant to which the full undifferentiated consideration of $125 million would be "deemed to be the consideration paid for the" RE. Taxpayer timely requested an administrative hearing to determine its substantial interests with regard to the refund request that the Department proposes to deny. After initiating the instant proceeding, Taxpayer filed a Petition to Determine Invalidity of Agency Statement, which was docketed under DOAH Case No. 19-3639RU (the "Rule Challenge"). In its section 120.56(4) petition, Taxpayer alleges that the Department has taken a position of disputed scope or effect ("PDSE"), which meets the definition of a "rule" under section 120.52(16) and has not been adopted pursuant to the rulemaking procedure prescribed in section 120.54. The Department's alleged PDSE, as described in Taxpayer's petition, is as follows: In the administration of documentary stamp tax and surtax, tax is due on the total consideration paid for real property, tangible property and intangible property, unless an allocation of consideration paid for each type of property sold has been made by the taxpayer on or before the date the transfer of the property or recording of the deed. If the alleged PDSE is an unadopted rule, as Taxpayer further alleges, then the Department is in violation of section 120.54(1)(a). Although the Rule Challenge will be decided in a separate Final Order, the questions of whether the alleged agency PDSE exists, and, if so, whether the PDSE is an unadopted rule, are relevant here, as well, because neither the Department nor the undersigned may "base agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule." § 120.57(1)(e)1., Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the Rule Challenge was consolidated with this case for hearing. The Department, in fact, has taken a PDSE, which is substantially the same as Taxpayer described it. The undersigned rephrases and refines the agency's PDSE, to conform to the evidence presented at hearing, as follows: In determining the amount stamp tax due on an instrument arising from the lump-sum purchase of assets comprising both RE and PP, then, absent an agreement by the contracting parties to apportion the consideration between the categories or subcategories of property conveyed, made not later than the date of recordation (the "Deadline"), it is conclusively presumed that 100% of the undifferentiated consideration paid for the RE and PP combined is attributable to the RE alone. According to the PDSE, the parties to a lump-sum purchase of different classes of property (a "Lump—Sum Mixed Sale" or "LSMS") possess the power to control the amount of stamp tax by agreeing upon a distribution of the consideration between RE and PP, or not, before the Deadline.2/ If they timely make such an agreement, then, in accordance with Consensual-Allocation Deference, which is absolute, the stamp tax will be based upon whatever amount the parties attribute to the RE. If they do not, then, under the Default Allocation Presumption, which is irrebuttable, the stamp tax will be based upon the undifferentiated consideration. Simultaneously with the issuance of this Recommended Order, the undersigned is rendering a Final Order in the Rule Challenge, which determines that the PDSE at issue is an unadopted rule. This determination precludes the undersigned, and the Department, from applying the PDSE as an authoritative rule of decision in determining Taxpayer's substantial interests. The undersigned concludes further, for reasons set forth below, that the PDSE does not reflect a persuasive or correct interpretation of the applicable law. Rather, because the stamp tax is assessed only against the consideration given in exchange for RE, the law requires that, in determining the amount of stamp tax due on an instrument arising from an LSMS, a pro-rata share of the undifferentiated consideration must be allocated to the RE. The amount of the undifferentiated consideration that is reasonably attributable to the RE conveyed in an LSMS is a question of fact. To prove its allegation that only $77.8 million of the consideration received from Purchaser for the Hotel Business, and not the entire $125 million, is attributable to the RE conveyed in the LSMS, Taxpayer relies upon the DPA and the testimony of Ms. Dowell, who authored that report. The Department did not present any expert testimony to rebut the opinions of Ms. Dowell concerning the allocation of the undifferentiated consideration. Rather, the Department argues that Ms. Dowell's opinions are unreliable as a matter of law and should be disregarded, if not excluded as inadmissible——a position that depends heavily upon the Daubert standard for screening expert testimony, which does not apply in administrative proceedings, for reasons that will be explained in the Conclusions of Law. Alternatively, the Department asserts, based on Taxpayer's 2015 federal income tax return, that the amount paid for the RE component of the Hotel Business was actually $122 million. Although this argument is inconsistent with the Department's main position, because it concedes that the allocation is a disputable issue of material fact, rather than a legal conclusion driven by the Default Allocation Presumption or Consensual-Allocation Deference, as applicable, the Department is correct that the tax return can be viewed as evidence in conflict with Ms. Dowell's testimony; the undersigned will resolve the evidential conflict in favor of Ms. Dowell's testimony, in findings below. Primarily, though, the Department eschews evidence bearing on the pro-rata allocation of the consideration on the grounds that the Default Allocation Presumption conclusively establishes the taxable amount as a matter of law. In other words, the Department considers Ms. Dowell's opinions to be irrelevant, regardless of her credibility as an expert witness—— or lack thereof. In this respect, the Department has made a strategic error because the Default Allocation Presumption, besides being extralegal, is both irrational and arbitrary. It is irrational to assume that the seller in an arm's length transaction would simply give away valuable PP for nothing of value in return. It is arbitrary automatically to assign all of the undifferentiated consideration paid in an LSMS to one category of property transferred, i.e., RE, to the exclusion of the other property types exchanged. Systematically allocating the entire purchase price to any other involved property class, e.g., TPP, would be equally (un)justifiable. Put another way, there is no rational answer to the question: Why not deem the entire purchase price allocable to the personal property? Why not a 50/50 split instead? Or 60/40? The Default Allocation Presumption, in short, is not even a reasonable inference. Without the Default Allocation Presumption to trump the DPA, the Department is left with the representations of value in the Form 4797 attached to Taxpayer's 2015 federal income tax return as its best, indeed only, rebuttal evidence. The form is used to report gain or loss from sales of business property, such as, in this instance, the Hotel Business. In its return, Taxpayer reported gross sales prices of $20 million for the hotel land, $102 million for the hotel building, and $3 million for the hotel's furniture, fixtures, and equipment. In other words, Taxpayer represented to the Internal Revenue Service that $122 million of the undifferentiated consideration for the Hotel Business was attributable to RE, with the balance going towards TPP. Notably, Taxpayer did not list, much less assign value to, any "section 197 intangible" property, such as goodwill, going concern value, workforce in place, business records, operating systems, permits, licenses, trade names, etc. See 26 U.S.C § 197(d). Taxpayer's Form 4797 statements regarding the cumulative sales price of the RE are admissions that, arguably at least, conflict with Ms. Dowell's opinions as expressed in the DPA. See § 90.803(18), Fla. Stat. What is to be made of these admissions? They are not binding, of course. Taxpayer is free to disavow or distinguish the statements in its Form 4797, which is essentially what it has done. Different taxes, different rules, different reasons—— in these general terms, Taxpayer strives to deflect attention from, and dismiss as irrelevant any serious consideration of, its federal income tax filing. Taxpayer's position is not without merit because, in fact, the stamp tax is fundamentally different from the federal income tax, as are the laws governing these noncomparable revenue raising measures. On the other hand, Taxpayer did declare the gross sales prices of the land, building, and TPP to be as described above, and these statements of apparent historical fact would seem to be true regardless of the specific tax purposes that prompted their making. There is more to this evidence than Taxpayer would have it. Ultimately, however, the undersigned finds the Form 4797 evidence to be less persuasive than the DPA, for several reasons. First, it is undisputed that ITPP was conveyed in the LSMS of the Hotel Business, and this ITPP included section 197 intangibles. But: Was Taxpayer required to segregate, and report separately, the gross sales price of these section 197 intangibles on its Form 4797? The undersigned does not know. Or, was Taxpayer allowed (or even obligated) to put the value of the section 197 intangibles onto, say, the building? Again, the undersigned does not know. To evaluate the persuasive force of the Form 4797 admissions, however, one needs to know these things. If Taxpayer were not required, for example, to report separately the value of the section 197 intangibles, and if, further, there were tax advantages in not doing so, then the admissions at issue would not be very probative. There is no evidence in the record regarding how, from May 2012, when Taxpayer acquired the Hotel Business, Taxpayer valued the attendant section 197 intangibles, for federal income tax purposes. It is possible that, for reasons undisclosed in this proceeding, Taxpayer never segregated the cost of the section 197 intangibles but instead allowed the value of the ITPP to be taxed as part of the value of the building. In any event, topics such as the proper classification of business property under the Internal Revenue Code; the different amortization periods applicable to various types of property; the tax planning strategies an owner might cautiously, aggressively, or even illegally employ to minimize its liability; and the common mistakes made, or advantages overlooked, by tax preparers, are complex and beyond the scope of the current record.3/ As a result, the statements regarding asset prices in Taxpayer's 2015 federal income tax return, which sit in the record practically devoid of meaningful context, are consistent with too many alternative possibilities to be credited as persuasive admissions about the respective values of the land and building in question.4/ Second, as mentioned, Taxpayer did not state, on the Form 4797, that ITPP was sold for a price of $0, in which case one might expect Taxpayer also to have reported a loss on the sale of section 197 intangible property. Rather, Taxpayer did not disclose the sale of any ITPP in the LSMS at issue. This is important, from a weight-of-the-evidence standpoint, because it is an undisputed historical fact that valuable ITPP was conveyed to Purchaser in the subject transaction, which makes it unreasonable to infer a gross sales price of $0 for the ITPP. Imagine, however, the probative force the Form would have had if Taxpayer had listed a gross sales price of, say, $1 million for the ITPP, together with corresponding reductions in the prices of the RE and TPP; in such a hypothetical situation, the Form 4797 admissions would have been much more persuasive as an apportionment of the undifferentiated consideration. As it stands, however, the reasonably inferable likelihood is that Taxpayer did not report the sales price of the ITPP because it did not report the sale of ITPP——not because there was no sale (for there was) or because the sales price was $0 (which is unlikely), but for other reasons, unknowable on the instant record. Third, for purposes of levying Taxpayer's 2015 real estate property taxes, the Miami-Dade Tax Collector appraised the RE at $39 million. (This figure is the higher of two contemporaneous assessments by the local taxing authority.) This is less than one-third of $122 million——but, in contrast, constitutes 50% of Ms. Dowell's pro-rata allocation of consideration to the RE. There is no evidence in the record regarding the reliability of the local tax collector's appraisals of hotel property, or specifically the percentage of fair market value such assessments are reasonably likely to reflect. Therefore, the undersigned does not place too much weight on the 2015 ad-valorem tax assessments. Still, one cannot help but notice that Ms. Dowell's opinions on the RE's implied value are much closer to the Miami-Dade County Tax Collector's appraisal than the Form 4797 admissions.5/ Having found that the Form 4797 admissions possess some, but not much, probative value regarding the allocation of the undifferentiated consideration, the DPA emerges largely unscathed. As fact-finder, the undersigned has the discretion, nevertheless, to reject, as not credible, the expert testimony of Ms. Dowell. But he credits her opinions, both because Ms. Dowell is a qualified authority on the subject matter, and because the opinions she has expressed are objectively reasonable and logically supported. As for Ms. Dowell's credentials, she has a bachelor of science degree and a master of science degree, both in finance. She has worked in the field of property valuation for around 30 years. Working for major hotel companies, Ms. Dowell routinely performed the sort of allocation of value between asset classes that she has conducted in this case. In 2007, Ms. Dowell formed Cynsur, Inc., which performs value allocations for hospitality industry clients, predominately for taxation purposes, as here. Ms. Dowell has conducted approximately 1,000 deal pricing analyses for clients around the country. In the niche of implied value allocations between the categories of property transferred in LSMS transactions involving hotel operations, Ms. Dowell is clearly an experienced, knowledgeable, and credible expert. The DPA that Ms. Dowell prepared is not an independent appraisal of the hotel property per se, but an allocation of the undifferentiated consideration, which uses estimates of value as the basis for dividing the lump-sum purchase price into three shares, each representing an amount reasonably attributable to a type of property conveyed in the LSMS. The estimates of value that provide the grounds for determining the implied price-per- category are a kind of appraisal, but the DPA is not designed or expected to produce a total valuation that might exceed, or fall short of, the $125 million lump-sum purchase price that is being apportioned. Again, to be clear, the goal of the DPA is to divide the $125 million into asset classes, not to verify whether $125 million was the fair market value of the Hotel Business in 2015, because the stamp tax applies, not to fair market value as such, but to that portion of the undifferentiated consideration fairly attributable to the RE conveyed. Ms. Dowell's approach to apportionment is to determine the "implied values" of the RE and TPP by analyzing the income an owner would expect to receive on a separate investment in the RE or TPP, as the case may be, apart from the Hotel Business as a whole. She starts with a discounted cash flow analysis of the Hotel Business as a going concern, using the Purchaser's pro forma projections as developed at the time of the LSMS. In this instance, Purchaser had presented a five-year projection of cash flow to analyze the investment, which assumed that the Hotel Business would be sold at the end of year five. Using Purchaser's assumptions, Ms. Dowell determined that the hotel acquisition would yield an implied rate of return on (and of) investment of 11.99%. With this in mind, Ms. Dowell sought to quantify the present value of the income that an owner would expect to receive on an investment in the hotel RE alone, based on a hypothetical or proxy rent for this asset in isolation. To determine the hypothetical rent, Ms. Dowell needed to make certain assumptions, which are set forth in the DPA. She determined, ultimately, that 12% of gross operating revenue represents a reasonable approximation of the proxy rent for the RE assets in question. Of course, the assumptions underlying this determination are not necessarily, or even probably, the only reasonable assumptions that could have been made. The Department, however, did not offer any expert opinion evidence that challenged Ms. Dowell's assumptions, nor did it present alternative rental scenarios. Ms. Dowell discounted the projected, five-year RE income stream at 10%, reflecting the more conservative nature of a pure RE investment as compared to an investment in the Hotel Business as a going concern. The Department did not offer any expert opinion testimony disputing this discount factor. Ms. Dowell concluded that the net present value of the RE at issue was $77,803,500 ($77.8 million when rounded), which represents about 62% of the undifferentiated consideration for the Hotel Business. The undersigned credits this opinion and finds that $77.8 million is a reasonable allocation of consideration to the RE component of the Hotel Business. Ms. Dowell performed a similar analysis of a hypothetical standalone investment in the hotel TPP and calculated a net present value of $7 million, using a discount rate of 11%. This left the remainder of $40,196,500 to be allocated to ITPP. For present purposes, the breakdown between TPP and ITPP is relatively unimportant because the stamp tax is not payable on consideration given for PP of any stripe. Indeed, the ultimate factual determination that $77.8 million of the undifferentiated consideration is reasonably attributable to RE is the material finding; from that, it follows mathematically that the remaining balance of $47.2 million reflects consideration for the PP, however that figure might be allocated between TPP and ITPP. Thus, having found that $77.8 million is a reasonable allocation of consideration to the RE component of the Hotel Business, the undersigned is bound to determine that $47.2 million is a reasonable allocation of consideration to the PP. Because Taxpayer paid stamp tax on $125 million instead of $77.8 million, it overpaid the tax and is due a refund. It is undisputed that the amount of the stamp tax that Taxpayer paid on the excess consideration above $77.8 million is $495,013.05.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order approving Taxpayer's claim and authorizing payment of $495,013.05 to Taxpayer as a refund of overpayment of the stamp tax, plus statutory interest if and to the extent section 213.255, Florida Statutes, requires such additional compensation. (If a dispute of material fact arises in connection with the payment of interest, the Department should return the matter to DOAH for a hearing.) DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 2019.
Findings Of Fact Stewart executed a mortgage note dated February 3, 1972 in the amount of $2,943,400 payable to City National Bank of Miami. This note was secured by a mortgage executed by Stewart as mortgagor to City National Bank of Miami as mortgagee of same date. This mortgage was recorded on February 8, 1972 at which time documentary stamp tax and intangible taxes were paid. The note was designated a mortgage note in the face amount of $2,943,400 and taxes paid were predicated on this sum. The mortgage provided, inter alia, in item 24 thereof: "That the funds to be advanced herein are to be used in the construction of certain improvements on the land herein described, in accordance with a building loan agreement between the mortgagor and the mortgagee dated February 8, 1972, which building loan agreement (except such part or parts thereof as may be inconsistent herewith) is incorporated herein by reference to the same extent and effect as if fully set forth and made a part of this mortgage; if the construction of the improvements to be made pursuant to said building loan agreement shall not be carried on with reasonable diligence, or shall be discontinued at any time for any reason other than strikes or lockouts, the mortgagee, after due notice to the mortgagor or any subsequent owner, is hereby invested with full and complete authority to enter upon said premises, employ watchmen to protect such improvement from depredation or injury, and to preserve and protect the personal property therein, and to continue any and all outstanding contracts for the erection and completion of said building or buildings, to make and enter into any contracts and obligation wherever necessary, either in its own name or in the name of the mortgagor, and to pay and discharge all debts, obligations, and liabilities incurred thereby. All such sums so advanced by the mortgagee (exclusive of advances of the principal of the indebtedness secured hereby) shall be added to the principal of the indebtedness secured hereby and shall be secured by this mortgage and shall be due and payable on demand with interest at the rate of the same rate as provided in the note secured hereby, but no such advances shall be insured unless same are specifically approved by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development acting by and through the Federal Housing Commissioner prior to the making thereof. The principal sum and other charges provided for herein shall, at the option of the mortgagee or holder of this mortgage and the note secured hereby, become due and payable on the failure of the mortgagor to keep and perform any of the covenants, conditions, and agreements of said building loan agreement. This covenant shall be terminated upon the completion of the improvements to the satisfaction of the mortgagee and the making of the final advance as provided in said building loan agreement;" Prior to the completion of the project for which the note and mortgage were executed and before the full amount stated in the note had been advanced Stewart went into receivership. No advances were made under the note and mortgage subsequent to December, 1974, and only $1,935,378 had been disbursed to Stewart prior to foreclosure. On March 17, 1976 Stewart requested a refund in the amount of $1512 for documentary stamp taxes and $2016 for intangible taxes paid on the difference between $2,943,400 and $1,935,378.29. By letters dated June 16 and 17, 1976, each of the refund requests was denied by the Comptroller on the ground advanced by Department of Revenue that the claims were barred as not being timely filed. Vanguard executed a note in the amount of $2,000,000 payable to the Chase Manhattan Bank secured by a building loan mortgage from Vanguard as mortgagor to Chase as mortgagee. This mortgage was recorded and documentary stamp taxes and intangible taxes were paid on April 19, 1973. Other than the amount of the note and the total advanced prior to Vanguard going into receivership, the basic facts were the same as in Stewart. At the time of the last payment in May, 1975 Vanguard had received $1,388,008 of the $2,000,000 evidenced by the note. Vanguard's application for refund of $1224 for intangible taxes paid was denied by the Comptroller for the same reason Stewarts was denied. Here the application dated April 19, 1976 was postmarked in Miami on April 20, 1976 and received by Respondent on April 22, 1976. Worthington executed a building loan note dated October 25, 1972 in the amount of $2,750,000 payable to Trustees of C. I. Mortgage Group which was secured by a mortgage loan of same date. Worthington also went into receivership in December, 1974 after $1,962,750 had been advanced. Application for refund of documentary stamp taxes in the amount of $1180.80 and intangible taxes in the amount of $1574.50 filed March 17, 1976 was denied by the Comptroller on the grounds that the application was not timely filed. All of the above loans, for which the mortgages were recorded, were construction loans and provided for periodic payments to the mortgagor as the construction progressed. Provided the mortgagor complied with the terms of the building agreement the mortgagee was legally required to advance funds when due. In determining valuation for the purpose of computing the intangible taxes due clerks of the circuit court follow 199.122(7) F.S. which provides that obligations for payment of money secured by a mortgage shall be valued at the principal amount of indebtedness evidenced by such transactions. Accordingly in the cases at hand the clerks would have refused to record the mortgages unless the intangible taxes and documentary stamp taxes computed using the principal amount of the obligation were paid. An application for refund of the intangible tax representing the difference between the face amount of the mortgage to secure future advances, and the amount advanced, will be disapproved by the Department of Revenue so long as advances on the face amount of the loan are still being made.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is in the land development business. Petitioner sold residential lots to various purchasers and contracted through a sister corporation to construct homes on the lots. At the time the lots were conveyed no improvements had been made. Petitioner placed documentary tax stamps and documentary surtax stamps upon the deeds reflecting the consideration for the deeds as the price of the lots. Respondent contends that stamps should have been placed on the deeds reflecting the consideration as the price of the lots plus improvements. Accordingly Respondent is proposing to assess additional stamp taxes, surtaxes, penalties and interest upon the Petitioner in the total amount of $13,002.10. The pleadings, answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for admissions establish that unless Rule 12A-4.13(22), Florida Administrative Code is invalid, Petitioner is liable for the taxes Respondent proposes to assess. The transactions which form the basis of the proposed assessment are package deals within the meaning of the Rule.
