The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, monitoring businesses within the state to ensure that such businesses are providing the requisite workers' compensation insurance coverage for all employees. The Division's headquarters are located in Tallahassee, Florida, but its investigators are spread throughout the state in order to more effectively monitor businesses. Respondent is a construction company that has been operating in excess of 30 years. It is a small company and usually only has a few employees at any given time. The company is located in Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Workers' compensation coverage is required if a business entity has one or more employees and is engaged in the construction industry in Florida. Workers' compensation coverage may be secured via three non-mutually exclusive methods: 1) The purchase of a workers' compensation insurance policy; 2) Arranging for the payment of wages and workers' compensation coverage through an employee leasing company; or 3) Applying for and receiving a certificate of exemption from workers' compensation coverage, if certain statutorily-mandated criteria are met. On January 8, 2009, Ira Bender, investigator for the Division, was doing on-site inspections in Port Charlotte, Florida. Bender stopped at the site on Edgewater Drive where new construction was underway at a YMCA. Bender observed a man (later identified as Thomas Woodall) sweeping the floor. Bender questioned Woodall and was told that Woodall worked for Respondent. When asked about his workers' compensation insurance coverage, Woodall advised that his insurance was maintained through Frank Crum Leasing Company ("Crum"). Bender called Crum and found that although Woodall had been carried as an employee of Respondent in the past, he had been released from coverage. The reason for his release was that his employment had been terminated for lack of business. Bender called Respondent to inquire about workers' compensation coverage. He was told that Respondent did not realize Woodall had been dropped from the Crum insurance coverage and that he would be reinstated immediately. In fact, coverage was restarted on that same day. Based on his finding that an employee had been working without coverage, Bender called his supervisor and provided his findings. The supervisor authorized issuance of a SWO based on the findings. The SWO was served on Respondent via hand- delivery at 11:45 a.m., on January 8, 2009. The SWO was also posted at the work site. The Division then requested business records from Respondent in order to determine whether there were any violations. If there were violations, then the Division would ascertain the amount of penalty to assess. Respondent cooperated and submitted the business records, as requested. After review of the business records, the Division issued its first Amended Order of Penalty Assessment ("Order") on January 14, 2009. The process employed by the Division was to locate all uncovered employees, i.e., those working without workers' compensation insurance for any period of time. The employees were then assigned a class code from the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) publication. Each trade or type of employment is assigned a code which sets the rate to be applied to an individual depending on the type of work he/she is performing. The Division assigned codes to the employees, determined how much the employee had been paid during the period of non-coverage, assigned the rate to the gross pay, and calculated the insurance premium needed to cover the worker for the time in question. A penalty of 1.5 times the premium was then assigned. The Order assessed a total penalty of $21,165.98 against Respondent. Respondent objected to the amount and refused to sign it due to errors contained in the Penalty Worksheet attached to the Order. Signing the Order would have allowed Respondent to return to work, but he refused to sign because he knew it was not correct. Pursuant to discussions between the parties and "additional records received," the Division issued a second Order on January 16, 2009, assessing a penalty of $6,501.27. Respondent believed that the Division was still in error and provided yet additional information--some verbal--to the Division. A third Order was issued on January 21, 2009, reducing the penalty to $3,309.56. However, Respondent still believed the penalty worksheet contained errors. Again, Respondent refused to sign and provided additional information to the Division. The Division issued a fourth Order on January 28, 2009, assessing a penalty of $2,822.24. That Order had an error concerning the spelling of an employee's name, but the penalty amount was correct. Respondent would not sign the fourth Order, because he did not believe he had intentionally violated any statute or rule concerning workers' compensation coverage for his employees. A corrected (fifth amended) Order was ultimately issued on May 19, 2009.1 The fifth Order asserts the amount of penalty now in dispute, which is the same amount appearing in the fourth amended Order. Respondent signed the fifth Order and entered into a payment plan for payment of the penalty, paying a down payment of $1,000 and monthly payments of $30 until paid in full. Respondent takes great offense to the fact that the penalty assessments were not faxed to him more quickly. He maintains that he had every intention to resolve this matter as quickly as possible, but the Division delayed and dragged out the process. The penalty worksheet attached to the fifth Order listed nine "Employee Names" that are subject to the penalty assessment. Each will be discussed below. The first "employee" is listed as "Cash" and is assigned Class Code 5403. This "employee" represents checks found in Respondent's records with the payee listed as "cash- casual labor" totaling $2,178.00 in gross payroll. Code 5403 was assigned because that is the code used by Crum for Respondent's general business. The manual rate for Code 5403 is $24.74. A penalty of $808.26 was assessed for that employee. The second employee is Jacob Prewitt. Prewitt was assigned Class Code 5221, due to the word "driveway" appearing on a check issued to him. Driveway work falls under a lower approved manual rate ($10.37) than general construction. The gross payroll amount was $1,960, and the penalty assigned to Prewitt was $304.88. The third employee is Woodall, assigned a Class Code of 5606, with a manual rate of $3.84. That code is used for supervisors and is, again, not as dangerous an occupation as general construction. The gross payroll for this entry was $1,008, and the penalty assessed for Woodall was $58.07. Cash is the fourth employee and has been covered in the discussion in paragraph 16, above. Barry Lawrence is the fifth employee; he is assigned Class Code 5437 as a cabinet maker/installer with a manual rate of $13.01. Lawrence had a Verification Letter issued by the Division indicating he was exempt from workers' compensation coverage. However, that exemption was limited to cabinet- making. By installing the cabinets, Lawrence performed work outside his exemption status. The gross payroll for his work was $6,200, and the penalty assessed for Lawrence was $1,209.33. Respondent was completely unaware that the exemption letter did not cover installation and had, in fact, always allowed cabinet- makers to install the cabinets as well. Brunderman Builders is listed as the sixth employee. It is assigned Class Code 5403 with a manual rate of $14.39. The gross payroll for this entry was $550, resulting in a penalty assessment of $118.73. The seventh employee is Jorge Gonzolas, assigned Class Code 5403, the general contracting code. Gonzolas was the employee of a contractor who was subcontracting with Respondent. The contractor died unexpectedly, and Gonzolas was left without payment for the work he had performed. Respondent generously decided to pay Gonzolas for his work, thereby, effectively making Gonzolas a de facto employee. The amount paid Gonzolas was $599.00; the penalty assessed for Gonzolas was $129.30. Woodall is again listed as employee number eight, this time with Class Code 5610, reflecting casual labor he did on one date that his insurance was not in place. The payroll amount for this work was $37.50. The penalty assessed for Woodall was $4.02. The ninth employee was Julio Garcia, assigned Class Code 8742 for outside sales, with a manual rate of $.64. The payroll amount for Garcia was $1,300. His penalty assessment amount was $12.48. Garcia was another one of the deceased subcontractor's employees that Respondent volunteered to pay for work Garcia had performed. The total payroll at issue for Respondent was $14,477.50. The total premium for that amount of payroll would have been $1,881.48, and the penalty assessed was $2,822.84. This is a fairly insignificant portion of Respondent's $5.5 million annual payroll. Respondent did not intentionally attempt to avoid the payment of workers' compensation insurance for its employees. There is no pattern of avoidance or indication that non-payment was Respondent's goal. Rather, there are plausible and reasonable explanations about the unpaid premiums. For Woodall, Respondent believed he was still covered through the Crum policy. For Gonzolas and Garcia, Respondent was simply attempting to be a nice guy. For Prewitt, the employee's exemption had unknowingly lapsed. For Lawrence, Respondent relied upon a Verification Letter from the state, but misinterpreted its scope. The Division, on the other hand, only pursued Respondent based on an actual finding of non-coverage. But for Woodall's presence at a work site doing manual labor (sweeping the floor), the Division would not have looked at Respondent's records. There is no indication the Division acted other than in strict accordance to its governing rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, upholding the assessment of a penalty of $2,822.24 against Respondent, Brunderman Building Company, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2009, 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 9th day of October, 2009.
The Issue Whether Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc. (Respondent or Royal Roofing), failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Petitioner or Department), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, that Florida employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on July 28, 2015, and engaged in the business of roofing and storm damage restoration. The company was formed, and initially conducted business, in Tallahassee, Florida, but expanded to the Panama City area in 2016. Traci Fisher is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent, with a mailing address of 1004 Kenilworth, Tallahassee, Florida 32312. DOAH Case No. 17-0879 On May 4, 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Jesse Holman, conducted a routine workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 374 Brown Place in Crestview, Florida. Mr. Holman observed four men removing shingles from the roof of a residential structure at that address. Mr. Holman first interviewed a worker who identified himself as Dustin Hansel and reported that he and the other three workers on site were a new crew for Respondent, the permit for the job had not yet been pulled, and the workers were not aware of the rate of pay for the job. Mr. Hansel telephoned Respondent’s sales manager, Dillon Robinson, who then spoke directly with Mr. Holman via telephone. Mr. Robinson informed Mr. Holman that Respondent obtained workers’ compensation coverage through Payroll Management Inc. (PMI), an employee-leasing company. Mr. Holman identified the three remaining workers at the jobsite as Milton Trice, Winston Perrotta, and Kerrigan Ireland. Mr. Holman contacted PMI and secured a copy of Respondent’s then-active employee roster. None of the workers at the jobsite, including Mr. Hansel, were included on Respondent’s employee roster. Upon inquiry, Mr. Holman was informed that PMI had no pending employee applications for Respondent. Mr. Holman consulted the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and found Respondent had no workers’ compensation insurance policy and no active exemptions. During Mr. Holman’s onsite investigation, the workers left the jobsite. Mr. Holman could not immediately reach Ms. Fisher, but did speak with her husband, Tim Fisher. Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Holman that the crew was on their way to the PMI Fort Walton office to be enrolled on Respondent’s employee roster. On May 5, 2016, based on his investigation, and after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Holman issued Respondent Stop-Work Order (SWO) 16-148-1A, along with a Business Records Request (BRR) for records covering the audit period of July 27, 2015 through May 4, 2016. Later that day, Mr. Holman spoke to Ms. Fisher, who informed him the crew did not have permission to begin the work on that date, as she had not yet pulled the permit for the reroof. Ms. Fisher further explained that the crewmembers had been instructed to complete applications with PMI prior to departing Tallahassee for Crestview. Ms. Fisher confirmed the crewmembers were completing applications at PMI Fort Walton that same day. Mr. Holman met with Ms. Fisher the following day and personally served SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Fisher delivered to Mr. Holman an updated employee roster from PMI which included Mr. Hansel, Mr. Perrotta, and Mr. Ireland; a letter documenting Mr. Trice was not employed by Respondent; and a $1000 check as downpayment on the penalty. Respondent initially submitted business records in response to the BRR on May 23 and 25, 2017. DOAH Case No. 17-1558 On June 8, 2016, Mr. Holman conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 532 Rising Star Drive in Crestview. The single-family home at that address was undergoing renovations and Mr. Holman observed three men on the roof removing shingles. None of the men on the roof spoke English, but a fourth man, who identified himself as Jose Manuel Mejia, appeared and stated he worked for Respondent, and that all the workers onsite were paid through PMI at a rate of $10.00 per hour. Mr. Mejia admitted that one of the worker’s onsite, Emelio Lopez, was not enrolled with PMI and explained that Mr. Mejia brought him to the worksite that day because he knew Mr. Lopez to be a good worker. The remaining workers onsite were identified as Juan Mencho and Ramon Gonzalez, both from Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Mejia produced some PMI paystubs for himself and Mr. Mencho. Mr. Mejia stated that he and his crews also received reimbursement checks directly from Respondent for gas, rentals, materials, and the like. Mr. Holman contacted PMI, who produced Respondent’s then-active employee roster. Mr. Mejia and Mr. Mencho were on the roster, but neither Mr. Gonzalez nor Mr. Lopez was included. Mr. Holman next contacted Ms. Fisher, who identified Mr. Mejia as a subcontractor, but was not familiar with any of the other men Mr. Holman encountered at the worksite. Mr. Holman consulted via telephone with his supervisor, who instructed him to issue an SWO to Respondent for failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Mr. Holman issued SWO 16-198-1A by posting the worksite on June 8, 2016. Department Facilitator Don Hurst, personally served Ms. Fisher with SWO 16-198-1A in Tallahassee that same day. SWO 16-148-1A Penalty Calculation1/ Department Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalties associated with the SWOs issued to Respondent. On June 8, 2016, Ms. Jackson began calculating the penalty associated with SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Jackson reviewed the documents submitted by Respondent in response to the BRR. The documents included Respondent’s Wells Fargo bank statements, check images, and PMI payroll register for the audit period.2/ Based on a review of the records, Ms. Jackson identified the following individuals as Respondent’s employees because they received direct payment from Respondent at times during the audit period: David Rosinsky, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Tommy Miller, and David Shields. Ms. Jackson determined periods of non-compliance for these employees based on the dates they received payments from Respondent and were not covered for workers’ compensation via PMI employment roster, separate policy, or corporate officer exemption. Ms. Jackson deemed payments to each of the individuals as gross payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. Based upon Ms. Fisher’s deposition testimony, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code 5551, Roofing, to Mr. Miller; NCCI class code 5474, Painting, to Mr. Rosinsky; NCCI class code 8742, Sales, to Mr. Bell and Mr. Robinson; and NCCI class code 8810, clerical office employee, to Mr. Shields. Utilizing the statutory formula for penalty calculation, Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $191.28 associated with these five “employees.” Ms. Jackson next calculated the penalty for Dustin Hansel, Kerrigan Ireland, Milton Trice, and Winston Perrotta, the workers identified at the jobsite as employees on May 4, 2016. The Department maintains that the business records submitted by Respondent were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll to these “employees,” thus, Ms. Jackson used the statutory formula to impute payroll to these workers. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of $14,970.12 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of these four “employees” during the audit period. The total penalty associated with these four “employees” is $59,880.48. Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $60,072.96 to be imposed against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A. Business Records In compliance with the Department’s BRR, Respondent submitted additional business records on several occasions-- March 21, May 3 and 31, June 7, and August 15 and 24, 2017--in order to establish its complete payroll for the audit period. While the Department admits that the final documents submitted do establish Respondent’s complete payroll, the Department did not issue amended penalty assessment based on those records in either case. The Department maintains Respondent did not timely submit records, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), which allows an employer 20 business days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment to submit sufficient records to establish payroll. All business records submitted by Respondent were admitted in evidence and included as part of the record. The undersigned is not limited to the record before the Department at the time the amended penalty assessments were imposed, but must determine a recommendation in a de novo proceeding. The undersigned has relied upon the complete record in arriving at the decision in this case. Penalty Calculation for Ireland, Trice, and Perrotta For purposes of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, an “employee” is “any person who receives remuneration from an employer” for work or services performed under a contract. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent did not issue a single check to Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta are not included on any PMI leasing roster included in the record for the audit period. The uncontroverted evidence, including the credible and unrefuted testimony of each person with knowledge, established that Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta were newly hired for the job in Crestview on May 4, 2016, and began working that day prior to submitting applications at PMI, despite Ms. Fisher’s directions otherwise. Petitioner did not prove that either Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta was Respondent’s employee at any time during the audit period. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $44,911.26 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Penalty Calculation for Hansel Ms. Fisher testified that Mr. Hansel has owned several businesses with which Respondent has conducted business over the years. Originally, Mr. Hansel owned a dumpster rental business, now owned by his father. Mr. Hansel also owned an independent landscaping company with which Respondent occasionally transacted business. When Respondent expanded business into the Panama City area, Ms. Fisher hired Mr. Hansel as a crew chief to supervise new crews in the area. The job on May 4, 2016, was his first roofing job. A review of Respondent’s records reveals Respondent issued the following checks to Mr. Hansel during the audit period: December 4, 2015, in the amount of $360, $300 of which was for “dumpster rental” and the remaining $60 for “sod”; May 4, 2016, in the amount of $200 for “sod repair”; May 6, 2016, in the amount of $925 as reimbursement for travel expenses; May 9, 2016, in the amount of $1,011.50 (with no memo); and May 21, 2016, in the amount of $100 for “7845 Preservation.” Mr. Hansel was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster beginning on May 13, 2016. Petitioner proved that Mr. Hansel was Respondent’s employee at times during the audit period. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s records were insufficient to determine payroll to Mr. Hansel during the audit period, which would have required an imputed penalty. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $14,970.42 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Hansel during the audit period. Sod repair by Mr. Hansel is a service performed for Respondent during the audit period. Reimbursement of travel expenses is specifically included in the definition of payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.035(1)(f) (“Expense reimbursements, including reimbursements for travel” are included as remuneration to employees “to the extent that the employer’s business records and receipts do not confirm that the expense incurred as a valid business expense.”). Dumpster rental is neither work performed on behalf of, nor service provided to, Respondent during the audit period. The correct uninsured payroll amount attributable to Mr. Hansel is $2,296.50. Petitioner correctly applied NCCI class code 5551, Roofing, to work performed by Mr. Hansel based on the observation of Mr. Holman at the worksite on May 4, 2016. With respect to Mr. Hansel’s services for sod and sod repair, Petitioner did not correctly apply NCCI class code 5551. Petitioner did not introduce competent substantial evidence of the applicable NCCI class code and premium amount for landscaping services performed during the audit period.3/ Uninsured payroll attributable to Mr. Hansel for roofing services during the audit period is $2,036.50. The approved manual rate for workers’ compensation insurance for NCCI class code 5551 during the period of non- compliance--May 9 and 21, 2016--is $18.60. The premium amount Respondent would have paid to provide workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Hansel is $378.79 (One percent of Mr. Hansel’s gross payroll during the non-compliance period--$20.36--multiplied by $18.60). The penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure worker’s compensation coverage insurance for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is calculated as two times the amount Respondent would have paid in premium for the non- compliance period. The correct penalty for Respondent’s failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is $757.58. Penalty Calculation for Salesmen Independent contractors not engaged in the construction industry are not employees for purposes of enforcing workers’ compensation insurance requirements. See § 440.02(15)(d)1., Fla. Stat. Sales is a non-construction industry occupation. The Department calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to the following persons identified by Ms. Fisher as independent salesmen: Dylan Robinson, Kevin Miller, Marc Medley, Mike Rucker, Colby Fisher, David Jones, Jarod Bell, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. Section 440.02(15)(d)1. provides that an individual may be an independent contractor, rather than an employee, as follows: In order to meet the definition of independent contractor, at least four of the following criteria must be met: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal regulations; The independent contractor receives compensation for services rendered or work performed and such compensation is paid to a business rather than to an individual; The independent contractor holds one or more bank accounts in the name of the business entity for purposes of paying business expenses or other expenses related to services rendered or work performed for compensation; The independent contractor performs work or is able to perform work for any entity in addition to or besides the employer at his or her own election without the necessity of completing an employment application or process; or The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services rendered on a competitive-bid basis or completion of a task or a set of tasks as defined by a contractual agreement, unless such contractual agreement expressly states that an employment relationship exists. If four of the criteria listed in sub- subparagraph a. do not exist, an individual may still be presumed to be an independent contractor and not an employee based on full consideration of the nature of the individual situation with regard to satisfying any of the following conditions: The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for a specific amount of money and controls the means of performing the services or work. The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job basis and not on any other basis. The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services. The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations. The success or failure of the independent contractor’s business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. Ms. Fisher testified that each of the above-named salesmen sold roofing jobs for her at various times during the audit period on a commission-only basis. The contractors inspect homeowner roofs, draft schematics, use their own equipment (e.g., drones), incur all of their own expenses, and handle the insurance filing for the homeowner’s insurance to pay on the claim. Ms. Fisher further testified that each of the salesmen also sells for other roofing contractors in the Tallahassee area. She pays the salesmen on a per-job basis. Ms. Fisher does not compensate the salesmen for the time involved in inspecting a roof, preparing schematics, or making the sale. Nor does Ms. Fisher reimburse the salesmen for travel to sales jobsites. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontroverted. Respondent introduced in evidence four “Independent Contractor Checklists” allegedly completed by Mr. Robinson, Mr. Medley, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Flynn. Each form checklist follows the format of section 440.02(15)(d)1., listing the criteria set forth in subparagraphs a. and b. The forms indicate that they each meet all the criteria listed in subparagraph b.: they perform, or agree to perform services for a specific amount of money and control the means of performing the service; they incur the principal expenses related to the service performed; they are responsible for satisfactory completion of the services performed; they receive compensation for the services performed on a per-job or commission basis; they may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing the services; they have continuing and recurring business liabilities or obligations; and the success or failure of their business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures.4/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner conceded the nine men identified by Respondent as independent sales contractors “would not be considered employees of Respondent” because the “salesmen would seem to meet the majority of [the] requirements [of section 440.02(15)(d)1.b.].” Respondent issued Dylan Robinson, Mark Medley, Colby Fisher, Matt Flynn, Kevin Miller, Mike Rucker, Jarod Bell, David Jones, and Todd Zulauf an IRS FORM 1099-MISC for income paid during the 2016 tax year. Respondent did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the above-named salesmen were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. For SWO 16-148-1A, Respondent did not correctly calculate the penalty because Respondent included a penalty associated with Petitioner’s failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell. Penalty in the amount of $20.70 associated with Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell should not be included in the total penalty. The correct penalty amount for SWO 16-148-1A, based on records submitted by Respondent on or before March 20, 2016, is $929.16. Draft Revised Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment The additional records submitted by Respondent revealed payments made to persons during the audit period who were not included in the Department’s Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department and Respondent disagreed at hearing whether the payments qualified as payroll. At hearing, Petitioner submitted a draft revised second amended penalty calculation for SWO 16-148-1A based on all records received from Respondent. The revised penalty is in the amount of $61,453.50. Ms. Jackson populated the spreadsheet with the name of every individual to whom a check was written on Respondent’s business bank account during the audit period, removing only those payments to individuals and entities which, to Petitioner’s knowledge, were not Respondent’s employees. Respondent’s calculations in the revised penalty suffer from some of the same errors as in the second amended penalty calculation--they include individuals Petitioner did not prove were Respondent’s employees, as well as payments which were not uninsured payroll. For the reasons explained herein, Petitioner did not prove that salesmen David Jones, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, Mike Rucker, Tim Fischer, and Colby Fisher were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. Respondent did not accurately calculate the penalty associated with those persons. Respondent made payments to David Shields during the audit period, which the Department argues should be included as payroll. The Department included payments to Mr. Shields in its draft revised second amended order of penalty assessment and assigned NCCI class code “8810” for clerical work. Mr. Shields is a licensed professional roofing contractor who acts as “qualifier” for Respondent’s business. A qualifier is a licensed professional who certifies plans for permit applications submitted by another business. Respondent pays Mr. Shields a flat fee per permit application qualified by him. The record evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Shields provides clerical services to Respondent. Mr. Shields provides some sort of professional services to Respondent, and is likely an independent contractor providing his own materials and supplies, maintaining his own business accounts, and liable for his own business success. Assuming Mr. Shields were Respondent’s employee, the Department introduced no evidence of an appropriate NCCI class code for Mr. Shields’ services. The Department did not prove that payments to Mr. Shields should be included as Respondent’s uninsured payroll during the audit period. Respondent paid Susan Swain a total of $258 during the audit period for clerical work. Ms. Fisher maintained Ms. Swain’s work was casual at first, and the payments reflect a time when she worked on-again, off-again, handling the paperwork for restoration insurance claims. Later, Ms. Swain came to work for Respondent full-time and was added to the PMI leasing roster. Section 440.02(15)(d)5. provides that a person “whose employment is both casual and not in the course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of the employer” is not an employee. The statute defines “casual” employment as work that is anticipated to be completed in 10 working days or less and at a total labor cost of less than $500. See § 440.02(5), Fla. Stat. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argues Ms. Swain’s wages should be included as payroll because the “testimony regarding Ms. Swain does not suggest that she was employed for less than 10 days[.]” However, it was the Department’s burden to prove that Ms. Swain was a statutory employee. The Department did not prove that Ms. Swain’s wages should be included within Respondent’s uninsured payroll. The largest portion of the penalty assessed by the Department, as well as in the draft revised second amended penalty assessment, against Respondent is in connection with various roofers who were employed by Respondent at times during the audit period. Each of the roofers was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster, but received checks directly from Respondent in addition to PMI payroll checks. The Department included all the direct payments to those roofers as payroll for purposes of calculating a penalty in this case. As Ms. Fisher explained, the company bids a reroof on a per job basis--usually a per square foot price. Ms. Fisher adds each roofing contractor’s name to the PMI leasing roster to ensure that each roofer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance for the duration of the job. When the job is completed (which is a matter of just a few days), the contractor reports to Ms. Fisher what amount of the contract price was spent on materials, supplies, or other non-labor costs. Ms. Fisher cuts a check to the contractor for that amount and authorizes PMI to issue payroll checks for the “labor cost” (the difference between the contract price and the non-labor costs). Ms. Fisher refers to this process as “back-charging” the contractors for their materials, maintenance, tools, and other non-labor costs. The Department is correct that the direct payments are payroll to the roofing contractors. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(b) and (h) (remuneration includes “payments, including cash payments, made to employees by or on behalf of the employer” and “payments or allowances made by or on behalf of the employer for tools or equipment used by employees in their work or operations for the employer.”). The Department would be correct to include these payments in the penalty calculation if they represented uninsured payroll. However, the evidence supports a finding that the direct payments to the roofing contractors were made for the same jobs on which Respondent secured workers’ compensation coverage through PMI. The roofing contractors were covered for workers’ compensation throughout the job, even though they may have received partial payment for the job outside of the PMI payroll checks.5/ The direct payments were not for separate reroofs on which the roofers were not otherwise insured. The Department did not correctly calculate penalties associated with the following roofing contractors: Donald Tontigh, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Aaron Kilpatrick, Gustavo Tobias, Jose Mejia, and Tommy Miller. Ms. Fisher also received cash payments from Respondent during the audit period. These payments were made in addition to her payroll through PMI. Ms. Fisher described these payments as “cash tickets,” which were paid outside of her PMI payroll to reimburse her for investments made in the company. For purposes of calculating the penalty in this case, these “cash tickets” are clearly payroll, as that term is to be calculated pursuant to rule 69L-6.035. Similar to the issue with the roofing contractors, the question is whether the payments represent uninsured payroll. Ms. Fisher did not hold a corporate officer exemption at any time relevant hereto. Ms. Fisher testified that she was covered through PMI payroll leasing. In contrast to the roofing contractors, Ms. Fisher’s direct payments do not directly coincide with any particular job or specific time frame during which Ms. Fisher was covered for workers’ compensation insurance through PMI. The evidence was insufficient to determine that the amounts were insured payroll. The Department properly calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to Ms. Fisher. Respondent made one payment of $75 to Donald Martin during the audit period. The Department calculated a penalty of $27.90 associated with this payment to Mr. Martin. Ms. Fisher explained that Mr. Martin was a down-on-his-luck guy who came by the office one day complaining that Mr. Hansel owed him some money. Ms. Fisher offered to put him on a roofing crew and wrote him the $75 check to help him out. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. Mr. Martin was never hired by Respondent, put on any roofing crew, or added to the PMI leasing roster. Mr. Martin was not Respondent’s employee because he did not receive remuneration for the “performance of any work or service while engaged in any employment under any appointment or contract for hire” with Respondent. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Cale Dierking works for Respondent full-time in a clerical position. During the audit period, Respondent paid Mr. Dierking directly by check for $1,306.14. This payment was made outside of Mr. Dierking’s PMI payroll checks. Ms. Fisher testified that she paid Mr. Dierking directly on one occasion when “PMI’s payroll got stuck in Memphis, I believe it was a snow-in situation where payroll checks didn’t come.” Rather than ask her employee to go without a timely paycheck, she advanced his payroll. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. The payment to Mr. Dierking is clearly payroll. However, Mr. Dierking was covered for workers’ compensation through PMI for the period during which the check was issued. Thus, there is no evidence that it was uninsured payroll. The Department did not correctly calculate a penalty associated with payments to Mr. Dierking. The correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A is $770.60. Penalty Calculation for SWO 16-198-1A Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-198-1A in the amount of $19,115.84, as reflected in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department correctly imputed penalty against Respondent in the amount of $91.68 each for uninsured payroll to Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Lopez. The evidence supported a finding that these workers were Respondent’s statutory employees on June 8, 2016, and were not enrolled on the PMI leasing roster. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with salesmen Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with roofing contractors Abraham Martinez- Antonio, Edwin Kinsey, Dustin Hansel, Efrian Molina-Agustin, Jose Mejia, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Samuel Pedro, and Tommy Miller. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty against Respondent associated with Mr. Shields, Respondent’s qualifier. Based on a review of Respondent’s complete “untimely” records, the Department discovered direct payments made to additional employees not included on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Respondent made a direct payment to Ethan Burch in the amount of $602.50 during the audit period. Ethan Burch is one of Respondent’s full-time clerical employees. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the payment of $602.50 was insured or uninsured payroll. As such, the Department did not prove it correctly calculated the penalty associated with Mr. Burch. Respondent also made a direct payment to Chelsea Hansel in the amount of $965 during the audit period. Ms. Hansel is another clerical employee. Ms. Hansel’s PMI enrollment was delayed due to some background investigation. Respondent paid Ms. Hansel for work she completed prior to enrollment. The direct payment to Ms. Hansel constitutes uninsured payroll. The Department correctly calculated the penalty associated with the payment to Chelsea Hansel. The correct penalty amount to be imposed against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees (Gonzalez, Lopez, and Chelsea Hansel) during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-198-1A is $187.80.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and, in DOAH Case No. 17-0879, assessing a penalty of $770.60; and in DOAH Case No. 17-1558, assessing a penalty of $187.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 24th day of January, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondents violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Orders, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondents are gas station/convenience stores located in South Florida. Northlake was created by Nazma Akter on May 6, 2014. MB was created by Ms. Akter on March 23, 2010. Congress Valero was created by Muhammad Saadat on July 21, 2011. Hena was created by Ms. Akter and Abu Ahsan on December 14, 2011. Hayma was created by Ms. Akter on December 14, 2011. Blue Heron was created by Ms. Akter on August 4, 2009. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents were duly-licensed to conduct business in the state of Florida. On February 2, 2015, the Department's Compliance Investigator Robert Feehrer, began a workers' compensation compliance investigation of Gardenia, LLC. Investigator Feehrer called the number listed for Gardenia, LLC, and was provided with a corporate office address. On February 10, 2015, upon arrival at Gardenia, LLC's, corporate office located at 165 US Highway 1, North Palm Beach, Florida, 33408, Investigator Feehrer spoke with Operations Manager Mohammad Hossain. Mr. Hossain stated that Gardenia, LLC, was a paper corporation and existed only for the purpose of paying unemployment taxes on the "six stores." Mr. Hossain went on to provide Investigator Feehrer with a list of Respondents and names of the employees that worked at each store. As an employee of Gardenia, LLC, and Respondents, Mr. Hossain's statements are party opponent admissions and bind Respondents. Lee v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 698 So. 2d 1194, 1200 (Fla. 1997). With Mr. Hossain's statements and the list of Respondents' employees, Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, and confirmed that Respondents were current, active Florida companies. Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") for proof of workers' compensation coverage and exemptions associated with Respondents. Investigator Feehrer's CCAS search revealed that Respondents had no workers' compensation policies and no exemptions. On February 24, 2015, Investigator Feehrer conducted site visits at each of the six stores. Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain accompanied Investigator Feehrer during these site visits. At all times material hereto, Ms. Akter was a corporate officer or managing member of each of the six Respondents. Muhammed Saadat and Abu Ahsan were corporate officers or managing members of Congress Valero, Hena, and Blue Heron. Kazi Ahamed was a corporate officer or managing member of Congress Valero and Hayma. Kazi Haider and Mohammed Haque were managing members of Hayma. All received compensation from the companies with which they were involved. Although Investigator Feehrer only personally observed one employee working at each location during his site visits, the payroll records revealed that at least four employees (including corporate officers or managing members without exemptions) received compensation for work at each location during the relevant period. Investigator Feehrer required additional information to determine compliance, and with Respondents' permission, contacted Respondents' accountant. Investigator Feehrer met with the accountant at least two times to obtain relevant information prior to March 30, 2015. Upon Ms. Akter's authorization, the accountant provided tax returns and payroll information for Respondents' employees. Information from Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain also confirmed the specific employees at each of the six stores during the period of March 30, 2013, through March 30, 2015. On March 30, 2015, based on his findings, Investigator Feehrer served six Stop-Work Orders and Orders of Penalty Assessment. The Stop-Work Orders were personally served on Ms. Akter. Mr. Hossain was present as well and confirmed the lists of employees for each of the six stores were accurate. In April 2015, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Christopher Richardson to calculate the six penalties assessed against Respondents. Respondent provided tax returns for the audit period and payroll transaction details were provided, as well as general ledgers/breakdowns, noting the employees for each Respondent company. Based on Investigator Feehrer's observations of the six stores on February 24, 2015, Auditor Richardson used the classification code 8061 listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). Classification code 8061 applies to employees of gasoline stations with convenience stores. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. In the penalty assessment, Auditor Richardson applied the corresponding approved manual rate for classification code 8061 for the related periods of non-compliance. The corresponding approved manual rate was correctly utilized using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027 to determine the final penalties. The Department correctly determined Respondents' gross payroll pursuant to the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(d) and rule 69L-6.027. On January 14, 2016, the Department served the six Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment on Respondents, assessing penalties of $1,367.06 for Northlake, $9,687.00 for MB, $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, $18,508.88 for Hena, $7,257.48 for Hayma, and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents were engaged in the gasoline station, self-service/convenience store industry in Florida during the periods of noncompliance; that Respondents failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees, as required by Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and that the Department correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a consolidated final order upholding the Stop-Work Orders and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment in the amounts of $1,367.06 for Northlake Mobile Enterprises, Inc.; $9,687.00 for MB Food and Beverage, Inc.; $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, Inc.; $18,508.88 for Hena Enterprises, Inc.; $7,257.48 for Hayma Enterprises, Inc.; and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron BP, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 16th day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether DOAH has jurisdiction to entertain an agency's motion for attorney's fees brought pursuant to section 185.05(5), Florida Statutes, where the motion was filed with DOAH approximately two and one-half years after the agency's entry of a final order in the administrative proceeding for which the agency seeks an award of attorney's fees and costs.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc., and its surety, Western Surety Company, are liable for funds due to Petitioner from the sale of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a producer of agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. Petitioner operates a nursery supply company that produces trees, plants, and other landscaping supplies at a location in Bunnell, Florida. Respondent is a dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. At the time of the transactions in question, Respondent was a licensed dealer in agricultural products supported by a surety bond provided by Western Surety Company. This matter arose over a Producer Complaint filed by Petitioner on June 24, 2005, in which it alleged that Respondent owed $20,512.97, based upon five invoices for nursery goods delivered to various job sites where Respondent was providing landscaping services. The five invoices set forth in the original Producer Complaint are as follows: Date of Sale Invoice # Amount Dec. 28, 2004 64679 $2,884.72 Jan. 11, 2005 64828 3,878.75 Jan. 11, 2005 64829 1,926.00 Feb. 1, 2005 65229 2,086.50 Feb. 3, 2005 65127 9,737.00 Petitioner later amended its Complaint to withdraw its claims under Invoice Nos. 65229 and 65127, as untimely filed, resulting in an amended amount due of $8,689.47. Respondent filed a Response to the Producer Complaint on August 15, 2005, admitting the amounts due under Invoice Nos. 64679 and 64828, totaling $6,763.47, and denying the amount claimed in Invoice No. 64829, $1,926.00, as never having been filled, resulting in Respondent's using another vendor to fill the order. Respondent admitted the amounts due under Invoice Nos. 64679 and 64828; therefore, no further discussion is necessary for those items, except to note that Delivery Receipt No. 17751, relating to Invoice No. 64828 contains the note "Reject 1 Live Oak." Therefore, the amount of Invoice No. 64828 must be reduced by $214.00 ($200 for the tree and 7 percent Florida Sales Tax). With respect to Invoice No. 64829, however, Petitioner produced at hearing only an unsigned invoice without either a sales order or a receipt for delivery of goods, as was its custom concerning deliveries of nursery goods. Accordingly, Petitioner provided no proof that the order under Invoice No. 64829 was actually delivered to Respondent. Respondent and its surety, Western Surety Company, currently owe Petitioner $2,884.72 under Invoice No. 64679, and $3,664.75 under Invoice No. 64828, for a total amount owed of $6,549.47.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc., or its surety, Respondent, Western Surety Company, to pay Petitioner $6,549.47 for unpaid invoices. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 25th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher E. Green, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Marketing 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Joseph Robbins, Jr. Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc. 11025 Southeast Highway 42 Summerfield, Florida 34491 Tom Snyder Western Surety Company Post Office Box 5077 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57117-5077 Donald M. DuMond Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 2970 Hartley Road, Suite 302 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Tom Robinson Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 13000 State Road 11 Bunnell, Florida 32110 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Carl R. Glass, d/b/a Osceola Forge located at 2749 North Orange Blossom Trail, Kissimmee, Florida 34744. Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and fabricating burglar bars, steel gates, decorative plastic ornamental castings and injection moldings. Petitioner built and erected one double sided billboard on his business property at 2749 North Orange Blossom Trail, Kissimmee, Florida. It is anchored by its owns supports into the ground as a permanent improvement to Petitioner's real property. The size of the billboard is approximately 12' x 38', plus an apron that runs along the length of the bottom of the billboard. Petitioner leases the face and apron of each side of billboard to customers who are generally required to supply their own labor and material to create an advertising message. The billboard was built to provide double-sided advertising for lanes of traffic going northbound or southbound past Petitioner's place of business. Petitioner has rented the billboard to various lessees for a monthly rental fee over the relevant period. Petitioner did not charge or collect sales and use taxes on the rental fee. Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner's entire business, for the period May 1, 1986 through April 30, 1991. There was only one item assessed as a result of the audit which was on the lease of the billboard located on Petitioner's business property. Petitioner was assessed sales and use taxes, interest and penalties totalling $6,142.38, including taxes ($4,017.76) with a per diem interest rate of $1.32 to be computed from 10/3/91 to the present. Additional interest due, as of July 1, 1993, was calculated to equal $842.16 (638 days x $1.32). The sales tax assessment was based on invoices and other information provided by the Petitioner and followed the Department of Revenue routine procedures required for all audits. From January 1987 through February 1991, Petitioner, or his secretary, made five telephone calls from Osceola Forge to the Taxpayer Assistance Number of the Department of Revenue's regional office located in Maitland, Florida, requesting assistance. On each occasion, the Department's employee advised Petitioner or his employee that they could call the Department's Tallahassee 800 taxpayer assistance number. On at least one occasion, Petitioner's secretary or Petitioner was advised that the transaction was tax exempt, and need not be collected. Petitioner was aware of the 800 taxpayer assistance number in Tallahassee and tried to call the number. However, he was unable to get through, and called the local office only. On April 9, 1992, Petitioner personally telephoned the Titusville office of the Department of Revenue. On each occasion, Petitioner inquired whether or not sales or use taxes should be collected on the rental of the billboard. A free, updated Sales and Use Tax Rules Book is available to any tax payer upon request. In addition, a taxpayer could personally appear and bring documentation relating to any questions relating to the sales and use tax at any regional office. Petitioner did not obtain an updated rules book or personally appear at a regional office. On April 30, 1992, Petitioner filed a Protest Letter with Respondent challenging the abovementioned tax assessment. Respondent issued to Petitioner a Notice of Decision dated December 1, 1992. On January 8, 1993, Petitioner filed a Request for a Formal Administrative Hearing with Respondent. To date, Petitioner has not paid any of the contested taxes, interest, and penalties to Respondent. Petitioner relied on information provided by his secretary, his accountant, and brief phone conferences with the DOR's Maitland office to determine that the rental fees were tax exempt, and did not collect the sales tax from his customers. The DOR Audit Supervisor testified that there is a clear distinction between the taxable rental of a billboard and the nontaxable services of placing an advertising message on the billboard. The rental of the face of the billboard is a taxable transaction. On the other hand, if a person rents or leases a billboard, then hires a third party to place an advertising message on the billboard, this advertising service is tax exempt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order upholding its sales and use tax assessment, waive penalties and interest accrued prior to October 2, 1991, and assess a tax of $4,017.76, plus interst from the date due. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent are accepted except as noted below. Those proposed findings neither noted below nor included in the Hearing Officer's findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Rejected as argument: paragraphs 37, 38, 39 COPIES FURNISHED: Carl R. Glass 2749 North Orange Blossom Trail Kissimmee, Florida 34741 James McAuley, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
