The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent failed to file surcharge tax reports and to remit surcharge tax in the amount of $55,478.84 for the audit period January 1, 1994, through July 28, 1999; (b) whether Respondent failed to file surcharge tax reports from August 1, 1999, and continuing to the present; (c) whether Respondent failed to pay penalties and interest in the amount of $29,325.62 for the period beginning August 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999; and, if so, (d) whether Petitioner should revoke Respondent's alcoholic beverage license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing regulations related to alcoholic beverage licenses in Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises of its establishment in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent held License No. 26-0058. Alcoholic beverage licensees may elect one of two ways to calculate and pay the required surcharge tax on alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. First, the licensee may calculate, report, and pay the tax using the "sales method" based on retail sales records. Second, the licensee may calculate, report, and pay the tax using the "purchase method" based on wholesale records such as invoices from wholesale distributors. In this case, Respondent elected to calculate, report, and pay its surcharge tax using the "purchase method." Licensees who are authorized to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises are required to submit surcharge tax reports and to pay the tax for each month by the 15th day of the following month. Respondent submitted reports and paid the tax for the months of January and February 1999. The next time that Respondent submitted a report and paid the tax was for the month of November 1999. For a licensee who uses the "purchase method," Petitioner conducts an audit by comparing the licensee's sales history and payment history. The sales history is based on invoices for the purchase of alcoholic beverages from wholesale distributors who report their sales to each licensee every month. The payment history is based on the monthly surcharge tax reports filed by the licensee. Petitioner conducted a surcharge tax audit of Respondent's business for the period beginning January 1, 1994, and ending July 28, 1999. The audit began on August 1, 1999, and ended on August 17, 1999. The audit established that Respondent owed $31,809.72 in surcharge tax, penalties, and interest for the audit period. The Final Surcharge Audit Report established that Respondent would owe $55,478.84 in surcharge tax, penalties, and interest if Respondent did not pay the former amount within 30 days. Respondent did not make the required payment. Petitioner conducted a periodic surcharge tax audit for the period beginning on August 1, 1999, and ending on December 31, 2001. The audit was conducted on April 30, 2002, and ended on June 4, 2002. The second audit established that Respondent owed an additional statutory tax, penalties, and interest in the amount of $29,325.62. Respondent's corporate representative testified that Respondent stopped filing the surcharge tax reports after the initial audit because there was a discrepancy between Respondent's records (invoices for alcoholic beverages purchased and delivered) and the records that Petitioner relied upon to conduct the audit (wholesale distributors' invoices for alcoholic beverages sold to Respondent). Respondent did not present any documentation to support this testimony, which is not credited. Additionally, there is no competent evidence that Respondent's auditor advised Respondent to stop filing the reports until the discrepancy was resolved. Respondent's corporate representative also testified that Respondent gave away some alcoholic beverages to customers. According to the corporate representative, this occurred when Respondent charged the customers one fee at the door and allowed them to drink free of charge. Respondent did not present any documentation to support this testimony, which is not credited. Finally, the corporate representative agreed that Respondent owed the assessed surcharge tax. However, he objected to paying the statutorily assessed penalties and interest because they were more than Respondent would have owed if it had paid the tax when it was due. Respondent's argument in this regard is without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent owes $84,804.46 in tax, interest, and penalties and revoking its license to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 20th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherrie Barnes, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Captain Cynthia C. Britt Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway Suite 600 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Charles E. Scantling Corporate Representative Wackos, Inc., d/b/a Wackos 3484 Charmont Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32277 Peter Williams, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Does Petitioner have standing to challenge Rule 12A- 1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code? If Petitioner has standing, is Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority? See Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Rathon Corporation, formerly known as Diversey Corporation, is a Delaware Corporation authorized to do business in Florida. It manufactures various detergents, cleaners, and soaps, and the equipment to dispense those products. The products are marketed in Florida and other states. The customers of the products include hotels, hospitals, factories, and restaurants. The devices that dispense the detergents, cleaners, and soaps are referred to as "feeders." Those feeders can range from simple hand soap dispensers to electronically regulated machines that inject soap into commercial dishwashers. The feeders are loaned to Petitioner's customers at no additional charge for the period of time that the customer continues to purchase the product(s) dispensed by the feeder. These circumstances existed in the period of July 1993 through March 1995. In the period of July 1993 through March 1995, Diversey Corporation, now Rathon Corporation, paid the State of Florida $58,969.22 in use tax associated with the feeders. During the period in question, the Petitioner manufactured the feeders at a facility in Santa Cruz, California. The feeders were not warehoused in the Santa Cruz facility for an extended period. They were prepared for shipment and shipped to customers in the various states, to include Florida and California customers, to be used in the places of business operated by the customers. The feeders being shipped were not packaged with other products. During the period July 1993 through March 1995, the Petitioner not only paid use tax to Florida for the feeders, it paid use tax in forty-four other states and the District of Columbia, based upon the costs of manufacturing the feeders. California was among the other forty-four states. During the period in question, Petitioner accrued and paid use taxes to Florida and California limited to the feeders used by customers in those states, based upon the product sales allocation method it used in relation to the forty-three other states and the District of Columbia. The feeders that were provided to Florida customers were shipped by common carrier. Upon their arrival in Florida no tax had been paid to California pertaining to those feeders. When the feeders arrived in Florida during the period at issue, use tax would be remitted to Florida. Subsequently, the Petitioner paid the State of California a use tax associated with the feeders that had been shipped to Florida customers and upon which a use tax had been imposed by the State of Florida and paid. The California payment is described in detail below. Petitioner had paid Florida use tax on the feeders shipped to Florida customers based on the total manufactured cost of the feeders to Petitioner, including materials, labor, and overhead. The additional use tax paid to California for those feeders was based only on the cost of materials. The overall costs of feeders allocated to Florida for the refund period was $982,803.00. Petitioner remitted a 6% use tax to Florida totaling $58,969.22 for the period in question. In 1996, Petitioner was audited for sales and use tax compliance by the State of California. That audit process included the refund period that is in question in this case, July 1993 through March 1995. Following the audit, the State of California issued a Notice of Determination asserting additional liability for tax and interest that totaled $355,753.95. Petitioner paid that assessment. The California auditor had arrived at the assessment by concluding that Petitioner owed California for 44.57% of all feeders manufactured at Petitioner's Santa Cruz facility. The 44.57% represented all newly manufactured feeders that had been loaned by Petitioner to its customers during the refund period over the entire United States. As a consequence, the assessment of use tax by the State of California included tax on feeders for which Petitioner had paid Florida $58,969.22 in use tax prior to the California assessment of $355,753.95. Petitioner did not apply for credit in California for the portion of the $355,753.95 that would relate to the feeders brought to Florida during the period in question. Petitioner took no action to obtain a credit on the amount paid to Florida as a means to reduce the California tax obligation pursuant to the 1996 audit, because Petitioner had been told that the use tax for the feeders used by Florida customers was legally due in California and not in Florida. In arriving at the determination that 44.57% of the feeders manufactured during the period in question had been loaned to customers within the continental United States, the California auditor took into account that 21.8% of the feeders and feeder parts were sold for export, leaving 78.2% to be used in the United States. Of the 78.2% remaining for the United States, 57% were complete feeders sent to customers within the United States, and 43% were repair parts that were sent to Petitioner's Cambridge Division in Maryland, where those repair parts were being stored for future use. The percentage of 44.57% was arrived at by multiplying 57% times 78.2%, representing the percent of total feeders manufactured for use in the United States that were sent to customers within the United States and not held in inventory as repair parts. Again, California based its use tax for tangible personal property manufactured in that state to include only the cost of materials. Consequently, when the California auditor computed use tax to be collected by California using the 44.57% of total feeders manufactured to be used in the United States by Petitioner's customers in the United States, the California auditor used a cost factor of 55% of overall costs which was attributable to the cost of materials only. The total cost of feeders manufactured by Petitioner in California during the period in question, as related in the California tax audit, was $19,028,714.00. The total cost manufactured for use in the United States was $8,481,098.00, representing 44.57% of the overall cost of manufacturing. When the $8,481.098.00 is multiplied by 55%, representing the cost of materials only, the total costs of the goods subject to the use tax for the period in question is $4,664,604.00. A use tax rate of 7% was applied against the amount of $4,664,604.00. To attribute the portion of use tax paid to California following the 1996 audit associated with feeders that had been sent to Florida during the period in question, the answer is derived by multiplying $982,803.00 by 55% for a total of $540,542.00, and in turn multiplying that amount by 7%, the rate of tax imposed by California. That total is $37,837.91 in use tax that was subsequently paid to California after $58,962.22 had been paid to Florida for use tax on the same feeders. Diversey Corporation sought a tax refund in the amount of $58,977.00, through an application dated August 8, 1996, in relation to the period July 1993 through March. Eventually through the decision by the Respondent in its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial dated July 16, 1997, Respondent refused to grant the refund of $58,977.00. At present, Petitioner requests that it be given a refund of $37,837.91, which represents the portion of use tax paid to Florida that has been duplicated in a payment of use tax to California. Respondent, in its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial entered on July 16, 1997, and based upon the facts adduced at the final hearing, premises its proposed agency action denying the refund request upon the language set for in Section 212.06(1)(a) and (7), Florida Statutes. The determination to deny the refund request was not based upon reliance on Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code. The theory for denying the refund is premised upon Respondent's argument that use tax was due to Florida, "as of the moment" feeders arrived in Florida for use in Petitioner's business operations associated with its customers. Petitioner then paid the use tax to Florida at the time the feeders arrived in Florida. Having not paid California Use Tax prior to paying Florida Use Tax, Respondent concludes, through its proposed agency action, that it need not refund to Petitioner the use taxes it paid to California at a later date. Petitioner had referred to Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, following receipt of the Notice of Proposed Refund Denial issued on December 9, 1996, possibly creating the impression that Petitioner believed that Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, would support its claim for refund. It later developed that Petitioner did not have in mind reliance upon Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, to support its claim for refund. Instead, Petitioner made reference to that rule and specifically Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, as a means to perfect a challenge to Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 15, 1997, claiming that the challenged rule was an invalid exercise of authority. That challenge was assigned DOAH Case No. 97-5908RX. In summary, notwithstanding Petitioner's argument to the contrary, Respondent has never relied upon Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, or any other part of that rule in its proposed agency action denying the refund request. Absent Petitioner's affirmative reliance upon Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, the rule has no part to play in resolving this dispute. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties to this action in accordance with Sections 120.56, 120.569(1), and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner sought repayment of funds paid into the State Treasury for use taxes for the period of July 1993 through March 1995. See Section 215.26(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent, in defending its decision to deny the repayment, has consistently relied upon provisions within Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, as well as the language within Section 215.26(1), Florida Statutes. In particular, Respondent has relied upon the language at Section 212.06(7), Florida Statutes, in defending its proposed agency action. Petitioner did not look to the provisions of Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, to assist the Petitioner in its refund claim. Instead, Petitioner claims that an inference has been created that Respondent utilized Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, to determine the refund question adverse to the interest of Petitioner. Petitioner believes this creates the opportunity to challenge the rule. Given that Respondent did not rely upon Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, to defend against the Request for Repayment of Funds, Petitioner is not substantially affected by the rule and is not entitled to seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule. Upon consideration, it is ORDERED: That Petitioner's challenge to the validity of Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, is DISMISSED.1 DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1998.
The Issue The issue presented is whether the $5.00 per gallon tax on perchloroethylene provided for in Section 376.75, Florida Statutes, is subject to Florida sales and use tax pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. STIPULATED FACTS Petitioner is a for-profit Florida corporation that sells perchloroethylene and other dry-cleaning supplies to the dry-cleaning industry. It is a "wholesale supply facility" as that term is defined in Section 376.301(17), Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a member of the Florida Drycleaners' Coalition, a state-wide trade association whose members consist of the owners/operators of dry-cleaning facilities and wholesale supply facilities. In 1993 and prior to and during the 1994 Florida legislative session, the Florida Drycleaners' Coalition employed lawyers-lobbyists to suggest and seek passage of amendments to Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, commonly known as the Florida Dry-Cleaning Solvents Cleanup Program. In 1994, the Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 94- 355, Laws of Florida, which amended Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. Chapter 94-355 created Section 376.3078(2)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that: All penalties, judgments, recoveries, reimbursements, loans, and other fees and charges related to the implementation of this section and the tax revenues levied, collected, and credited pursuant to ss. 376.70 and 376.75, and registration fees collected pursuant to s. 376.303(1)(d), shall be deposited into the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund, to be used upon appropriation as provided in this section. Charges against the funds for dry-cleaning facility or wholesale supply site rehabilitation shall be made in accordance with the provisions of this section. Chapter 94-355, Laws of Florida, also created Section 376.75, Florida Statutes, which provides, in part, as follows: Beginning October 1, 1994, a tax is levied on the privilege of producing in, importing into, or causing to be imported into the state perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene). A tax of $5.00 per gallon is levied on each gallon of perchloroethylene when first imported into or produced in the state. The tax is imposed when transfer of title or possession, or both, of the product occurs in this state or when the product commingles with the general mass of this state. Petitioner's corporate secretary and 50 percent shareholder is David J. Pilger. He contributed financially to the employment by the Florida Drycleaners' Coalition of lawyers- lobbyists charged with seeking passage of amendments to Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, and met several times with those lawyers- lobbyists in Tallahassee. He was assured during those meetings that it was the opinion of those lawyers-lobbyists that there was no danger of Florida sales tax being applied to the $5.00 per gallon tax on perchloroethylene. The Department conducted an audit of Petitioner for the period of January 1, 1993, through January 31, 1998. At no time prior to the Department's audit of Petitioner's financial records did Petitioner receive from the Department materials of any kind indicating that Florida sales and use tax would apply to the $5.00 per gallon tax on perchloroethylene. The Department had, however, adopted emergency Rule 12BER94-2, effective October 1, 1994, and Rule 12B-12.003(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, effective February 19, 1995. The 1998 Florida Legislature amended Section 376.75, Florida Statutes, by enacting Chapter 98-189, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1998, which added a sentence regarding the $5.00 per gallon tax, as follows: "This tax is not subject to sales and use tax pursuant to ch. 212." The Department has assessed and/or collected from certain taxpayers Florida sales and use tax on the sales price of perchloroethylene and the $5.00 per gallon tax on perchloroethylene. The sales and use taxes are deposited into the general revenue fund pursuant to Section 212.20(1), Florida Statutes. The $5.00 per gallon tax on perchloroethylene is deposited into the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund, pursuant to Section 376.3078(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment to Petitioner on October 22, 1998, assessing sales and use tax of $39,098.66, penalties of $19,549.64, and interest of $11,184.10 through October 22, 1998, with interest of $12.85 to accrue per day. The Department issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment to Petitioner on October 22, 1998, assessing indigent care surtax of $2,128.98, penalties of $1,064.48, and interest of $611.97 through October 22, 1998, and interest of $.70 to accrue per day. Petitioner charged its customers and remitted to the Department the $5.00 per gallon tax on perchloroethylene provided for in Section 376.75, Florida Statutes, but neither collected from the customer nor remitted to the Department sales and use tax on this $5.00 per gallon tax. The $5.00 per gallon tax collected by Petitioner from its customers was reflected at the bottom of Petitioner's invoices as "the ENVRN TAX." Petitioner charged its customers and remitted to the Department the excise tax provided for in Section 206.9935(2), Florida Statutes, but neither collected from its customers nor remitted to the Department sales and use taxes or indigent care surtax on this excise tax. This tax was reflected at the bottom of Petitioner's invoices as "PERC TAX." Petitioner does not contest the Department's assessment of sales and use taxes and indigent care surtax on the water quality tax provided for in Section 206.9935(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner does not dispute that its sales to its customers during the audit period were paid for by its customers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining the assessment against Petitioner, together with interest, but compromising the entire penalty amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 22nd day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Jarrell L. Murchison, Esquire John Mika, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Fred McCormack, Esquire Landers & Parsons, P.A. 310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Joseph C. Mellichamp, III, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Alachua County Tax Collector, discriminated against Petitioner based upon her race, in violation of section , Florida Statutes,1 and/or whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for the exercise of protected rights under section 760.10.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Tax Collector is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Ms. Tyson is an African American female who worked for the Tax Collector from 1993 until her employment was terminated on June 22, 2017. John Power is the elected Alachua County Tax Collector. Below him in the chain of command is Jon Costabile, the Chief Deputy Tax Collector. Directly below Mr. Costabile is Executive Director Donna Johnson. The Tax Collector has four offices in Gainesville: Downtown, Southwest, Northwest, and a Communication and Processing Center (the “CPC”). Each of these offices is supervised by a branch Director who reports to Ms. Johnson. Two supervisors called Coordinators directly report to each Director. At the time of her dismissal, Ms. Tyson was a Coordinator at the Downtown office. The other Coordinator at the Downtown office was Veronica Taylor, also an African American female. Ms. Tyson’s employee evaluations over the years were generally positive as to her performance. However, she had a reputation, at least among her fellow supervisory employees, of being temperamental and difficult to work with. Her ultimate dismissal was based on her insubordinate conduct, not her job performance. The series of events leading to Ms. Tyson’s dismissal began in Spring 2017, when the decision was made to move Lori Carmichael, the Director of the Downtown office, to the CPC facility. This move created a vacancy in the Downtown office. For supervisory positions, the Tax Collector seeks to promote internally. Mr. Costabile testified that the pool for the vacant Director position comprised the current branch Coordinators, including Ms. Tyson. Mr. Costabile and Ms. Johnson consulted the Directors regarding their recommendations for the position. Mr. Costabile testified that Venus McCray, a Coordinator in the Southwest office, was the clear number one choice for the Downtown Director position. All of the Directors agreed on the choice of Ms. McCray, who is African American. Not only was Ms. McCray the unanimous choice of the other Directors, but she was senior to Ms. Tyson in the Tax Collector’s office. Mr. Costabile testified that the Directors are a close knit group that works closely together. Two of the Directors told him point-blank that they did not want to work with Ms. Tyson. There were no specific complaints about Ms. Tyson, just a general feeling that she was “standoffish” and people had to “walk on eggshells” around her. Ms. Tyson testified that Ms. Carmichael recommended her for the Downtown Director position. In her testimony, Ms. Carmichael was generally positive about Ms. Tyson but did not confirm that she recommended her as Director. Ms. Carmichael did confirm Ms. Tyson’s testimony that, upon learning of Ms. McCray’s promotion, Ms. Tyson asked Ms. Carmichael why she was passed over for promotion. Ms. Carmichael agreed to take up the issue with Ms. Johnson, who told her that Ms. Tyson had a propensity for ignoring the Directors and needed to make an effort to be more interactive and look people in the eye. Ms. Carmichael passed this information on to Ms. Tyson. Ms. Tyson testified that Ms. Johnson was referring to occasions when Directors from other offices would visit the Downtown office. She stated that these were four white women who would not acknowledge her when she spoke to them, or at best would “smirk” at her. Ms. Tyson felt insulted by their behavior. She told Ms. Carmichael that Ms. Johnson’s advice was demeaning, inhumane, and “slave-ish.” Ms. McCray testified that she had “bumped heads” with Ms. Tyson in the past and therefore had some reservations about accepting the Downtown position. Her misgivings appeared justified when she went to the office to shadow Ms. Carmichael before taking over her position. Ms. Carmichael was not there when Ms. McCray arrived, so she spoke to Ms. Tyson and Ms. Taylor, the two Coordinators in the Downtown office. Ms. Tyson asked Ms. McCray why she had not personally contacted her to tell her about her promotion. Ms. McCray responded that she had been told not to discuss the promotion before the official announcement. This answer did not satisfy Ms. Tyson. The conversation was uncomfortable enough that Ms. Taylor felt compelled to walk away and give privacy to the other two women. After taking over as Director, Ms. McCray would have regular meetings with her Coordinators. She testified that Ms. Taylor was positive and cooperative but Ms. Tyson was consistently disagreeable. Ms. McCray testified that she dreaded coming to work in the morning knowing she had to deal with Ms. Tyson. At a meeting on June 19, 2017, Ms. McCray was questioning her Coordinators about the duties of office personnel, trying to get a feel for the daily operation of the Downtown office. Ms. McCray testified that Ms. Tyson studiously avoided making any eye contact with her. Ms. Tyson sat with her head down. She doodled on a piece of paper while Ms. McCray spoke. Ms. McCray asked Ms. Tyson to please do her the courtesy of looking her in the eye. Ms. Tyson said, “I don’t have to,” and continued scribbling on the paper. Ms. Tyson testified that she was taking thorough notes during the meeting. She stated that she takes pain medications for carpal tunnel syndrome and wants to be sure she gets things right because she does not want her superiors blaming mistakes on her medications. Ms. Tyson testified that when Ms. McCray asked her to look her in the eye, she looked up and asked Ms. McCray why she needed to look her in the eye while taking notes. Ms. McCray’s version of the June 19, 2017, meeting is more believable. Ms. McCray is credited with knowing the difference between avid notetaking and idle scribbling. It is noted that even Ms. Tyson’s version of the meeting presents Ms. Tyson as defensive and somewhat truculent toward her superior. Mr. Costabile testified that after she had been at the Downtown office for a couple of weeks, Ms. McCray requested a meeting with Ms. Johnson and him to discuss her difficulties with Ms. Tyson. Ms. McCray stated that she might have to go back to being a Coordinator in a different office if the situation did not improve. Mr. Costabile recalled Ms. McCray stating that she did not want to be a Director if it was going to affect her health. Mr. Power testified that Ms. Johnson came to him with concerns about Ms. Tyson’s acceptance of Ms. McCray as her Director. Ms. Johnson reported that Ms. Tyson was being very disrespectful and difficult to work with. Mr. Power testified that he took this matter seriously because Ms. Johnson does not come to him with personnel matters unless they are important. Mr. Power testified that Ms. McCray herself spoke to him after a morning meeting at the Northwest office. She told him that things were not going well and he responded that he had heard about the problem. Ms. McCray told him that Ms. Tyson was being disrespectful, embarrassing, and disruptive. Mr. Power advised her to give the situation some time to sort itself out. The Downtown office opened to the public at 8:30 a.m. It was Ms. McCray’s practice to hold an all-employees meeting at 8:15 each morning. On the morning of June 22, 2017, Mr. Power, Mr. Costabile, and Ms. Johnson happened to be present at the meeting. Ms. McCray stood at the front of the group, flanked by her Coordinators, Ms. Tyson and Ms. Taylor. Ms. McCray convened the meeting and announced that she wanted the employees to set personal and professional goals for themselves. She distributed “goal sheets” for each employee to fill out. This exercise served the dual purpose of helping the employees establish priorities and helping Ms. McCray get to know them better. The general feeling in the room was enthusiastic support for Ms. McCray’s idea. The meeting lasted about 15 minutes. Everyone in the room was oriented toward, and listening to, Ms. McCray, except for Ms. Tyson. Ms. Tyson stood with her arms folded across her chest, ostentatiously turned away from Ms. McCray. She stared at the ceiling, apparently uninterested, while Ms. McCray spoke. At the conclusion of her presentation, Ms. McCray turned to her Coordinators to ask if they had anything to add. She first asked Ms. Taylor, who responded that she thought the goal setting exercise was a good idea. Ms. McCray then asked Ms. Tyson if she had anything to add. Without looking away from the ceiling or turning toward Ms. McCray, she said, “Nope.” The testimony of Mr. Power, Mr. Costabile, Ms. McCray, and Ms. Taylor all agreed on the facts as set forth in the previous two paragraphs. Ms. Tyson stood in front of all the Downtown employees and all her superiors in the Tax Collector’s office in a manner clearly intended to convey contempt for Ms. McCray. Each of these witnesses heard Ms. Tyson answer “nope” to Ms. McCray’s question.2 Ms. Tyson testified that she was turned away from Ms. McCray because she was speaking to another employee. She stated that her arms are always crossed because of her severe pain. She testified that the state of her C5 and C7 vertebrae make it impossible for her to look at the ceiling for 15 minutes. She stated that it is “not my nature” to turn away from Ms. McCray and that “‘nope’ is not in my vocabulary.” Given the unanimity of the contrary testimony, Ms. Tyson’s version of the June 22, 2017, meeting cannot be credited. Mr. Power testified that Ms. Tyson’s behavior at the meeting left him aghast. Her body language indicated she was removing herself from the meeting, though as a supervisor she was expected to set an example for the front line employees. Mr. Power stated that he “about fell on the floor” when Ms. Tyson said “nope” in answer to Ms. McCray’s question. After the meeting, Mr. Power retired to his office to ponder his options as to Ms. Tyson. He had been hearing reports about Ms. Tyson’s behavior for the past month and now he had seen it with his own eyes. Ms. Tyson was a leader in the organization and had blatantly shown disrespect to a member of senior management in front of all the Downtown staff. She was advertising her opinion that no one should listen to Ms. McCray. Mr. Power decided that Ms. Tyson’s employment should be terminated. He directed Mr. Costabile to release Ms. Tyson from the Tax Collector’s office. Mr. Costabile prepared the paperwork and convened the termination meeting with Ms. Tyson. Also present at the meeting was Human Resources Administrator Linda Power, whose only function was to serve as a witness. 2 It is possible to answer “nope” in a way that conveys a positive attitude toward the questioner. However, each of these witnesses demonstrated the contemptuous manner in which Ms. Tyson spoke the word. The meeting was brief. Mr. Costabile told Ms. Tyson that her insubordination was a serious matter. He stated that every employee needs to accept change, but Ms. Tyson was apparently unable to accept Ms. McCray’s promotion. Ms. Tyson was a member of management and was expected to set an example for her subordinates. The Tax Collector’s policy is to offer an employment resignation agreement, waiver, and release when a long-term employee is terminated for cause, in lieu of termination. The agreement includes a severance package. Ms. Tyson declined to accept the offer to resign. Mr. Costabile terminated her employment effectively immediately. Ms. Tyson testified that Mr. Costabile told her that she was being fired for failing to look Donna Johnson in the eye at the morning meeting. Ms. Tyson responded that Donna Johnson wasn’t speaking at the meeting. “Why would I be looking her in the eye?” She testified that Mr. Costabile told her she was bringing down the morale of the office and that people were complaining. Mr. Costabile credibly denied telling Ms. Tyson she was being fired for not looking someone in the eye. Ms. Tyson’s position as Coordinator was ultimately filled by Christie Tyson, a white woman who is not related to Ms. Tyson. Ms. McCray testified that Ms. Johnson asked her whether she thought the job should go to Christie Tyson or to Regina Gainey, an African American woman. Ms. McCray testified that she recommended Christie Tyson, based on prior experience of working with her. Ms. Taylor, the other Coordinator in the Downtown office, also recommended Christie Tyson.3 3 Ms. Tyson made an issue of the fact that Christie Tyson and Donna Johnson share a grandson. However, given the unanimity of the recommendation, it is found that Ms. Johnson did not improperly favor Christie Tyson. Furthermore, whether Ms. Tyson’s replacement had a familial relationship with one of her former superiors has nothing to do with whether Ms. Tyson was terminated on the basis of her race. Ms. Tyson believed that her dismissal had been in the works since April, and that Christie Tyson had been “groomed” to take her place. She saw a nefarious connection between Ms. Johnson’s advice that she greet and look the Directors in the eye and Ms. McCray’s request that she look her in the eye at the June 19 meeting. She offered no supporting evidence for her intuitions. Ms. Tyson testified that because the Tax Collector’s office was planning to fire her, a black woman, they needed another black woman to take her place in order to fend off public complaint. She further testified, without support, that Ms. McCray was a useful pawn in that regard, willing to lie about her interactions with Ms. Tyson to advance her own career. Ms. Tyson testified that after being told multiple times to look people in the eye, she was sure that something was up. She stated that she went to Veronica Taylor’s office and told her she knew she would not be around much longer. Ms. Taylor did not confirm this incident in her testimony. Ms. Tyson testified that, a day or so after her conversation with Ms. Taylor, she accidentally bumped into Mr. Power in the office, and he said to her, “You look like the type that will fight.” Ms. Tyson stated that this scared her because she did not know why he would say that. She went to her office and scoured her notes looking for what she had done wrong. She tearfully phoned her mother and asked for her prayers because she was about to be fired. Mr. Power flatly and credibly denied telling Ms. Tyson that she looked like she would fight. Ms. Tyson presented the testimony of other Tax Collector employees who believed there was an element of racism in the running of the office. Isaiah Minter, an African American male, worked in the Tax Collector’s office in a non-supervisory capacity from 2013 to 2015. Ms. Tyson was his Coordinator. He testified that he came to the job with a bachelor’s degree from the University of Florida and experience as a driver’s license examiner. He expected to advance quickly. He was upset when Ms. Johnson told him that he would have to prove himself and that it might take five years for him to be promoted into a supervisory job. He was offended that Mr. Power told him he was needed at the front desk. Mr. Minter left the Tax Collector’s office in good standing to take a job at the Veterans Administration. Moranda Bethley, an African American female, worked in the Tax Collector’s office from December 2003 until March 2017. She worked with Ms. Tyson at the Northwest and Downtown offices. Ms. Bethley described Ms. Tyson as a “saint,” always friendly, personable, positive, and helpful. Ms. Bethley testified that there was no room for black people to advance in the Tax Collector’s office. The supervisors would tell the black employees they were doing a good job, keep up the good work, but would never offer a promotion. The white supervisors were less interested in helping than in pointing the finger at the employee seeking help. Ms. Bethley would seek out the assistance of Ms. Tyson rather than her own supervisor because of the latter’s negativity. Ms. Bethley resigned in lieu of termination as a result of her persistent practice of disruptive behavior in the workplace, culminating in a weeks-long conflict with a fellow employee that could not be resolved and that escalated to the point that management concluded that Ms. Bethley’s employment was no longer tenable. The weight given to Ms. Bethley’s testimony as to the atmosphere of the office is lessened by the evidence of her own unprofessional behavior. Toya Williams, an African American female, worked at the Tax Collector’s office from 2013 until May 11, 2017. Ms. Tyson supervised her for at least part of that time. She found it unsettling that in her two interviews for positions with the agency, she met with two white males and five white females. She asked questions about the racial mix of personnel and was assured that progress would come. Ms. Williams testified that in her four years, she never served under a Director of color. Ms. Williams initially worked at the Southwest office, where there was a lot of “cliquish foolery.” The Director was incompetent, unable to explain the work they were doing. Venus McCray was one of the Coordinators and was the only knowledgeable supervisor in the office. At one point, Ms. McCray asked the employees to stop coming to her for help so often, because the Director and the other Coordinator had noticed that no one ever sought their assistance. Ms. Williams immediately felt a difference when she moved to the Downtown office. There were frequent morning meetings and Ms. Tyson went out of her way to greet everyone in the morning. Ms. Tyson was good for morale. If an employee made a mistake, she used it as a teaching method rather than an opportunity to castigate the employee. Ms. Williams testified to being shocked when Mr. Power referred to the Downtown office as the “ghetto office” at a morning meeting. She wondered whether he gave it that name because it was in a decrepit old building, or because it was the only office with two black Coordinators and was located in a part of town where many black people lived. Ms. Williams resigned from the Tax Collector’s office as an employee in good standing to accept another job. Amber Allen, an African American female, worked as an intern at the Tax Collector’s office from 2013 through March 2016. Ms. Allen testified that she worked with Ms. Tyson at the Downtown office and that Ms. Tyson was the only reason she stayed as long as she did. Ms. Tyson encouraged her to focus on her work instead of office politics and the racism of the white supervisors. Ms. Allen testified that one day she changed into flat shoes before going out into the street for her lunch hour. Ms. Johnson told her that her overall demeanor, appearance, and hairstyle were too relaxed for the Tax Collector’s professional environment. Ms. Allen stated that on that day, she had pinned up her hair on one side. The other side was in an Afro style. Ms. Allen testified that she spent the rest of that lunch hour on the phone crying to her mother, asking why she was required to gauge how black she was allowed to look at work. She wanted to quit the job, but Ms. Tyson took her into her office and counseled her to advocate for herself in the office, but not in a disrespectful or demeaning way. Ms. Allen testified that Ms. Johnson never made any more comments about her relaxed appearance but that she did make comments about her hair. Ms. Allen found this especially galling because her white counterparts would arrive at work with hair so wet that it soaked the backs of their chairs and their shirts, but Ms. Johnson said nothing. Ms. Allen stated that Ms. Johnson’s comments made her feel small. Ms. Allen testified that she was also at the meeting at which Mr. Power referred to the Downtown office as the ghetto office. Mr. Power stated that the office dealt with many different types of people, many of them unsavory. He also mentioned that much of the Downtown client base came from the east side of Gainesville, known as a minority area. Ms. Allen was certain that Mr. Power was not referring to the physical condition of the building, but the people who were being served in the building. She testified that a number of black employees found the comments “disgusting.” Mr. Power testified that he indeed referred to the Downtown office as the ghetto office at a morning meeting. He stated that he used that term because the building was in a “deplorable condition,” like a building in a ghetto. It was embarrassing to the staff. One day, a rat fell through the ceiling in the middle of work. Mr. Power testified that his use of “ghetto” referred only to the building, not to any of the building’s customers. He stated that he would not use “east side” as a pejorative term, if for no other reason than because he lives on the east side. Copious evidence was presented attesting to Mr. Power’s personal and professional involvement in the African American community of Alachua County. There is little question that Mr. Power does not harbor any animosity or personal discriminatory feelings toward African Americans. However, this finding is not inconsistent with Ms. Tyson’s allegation that there is an element of institutional racism at work in the Tax Collector’s office. The testimony of Petitioner’s supporting witnesses should not be minimized. It is clear that the Tax Collector has at least a perception problem. Rightly or wrongly, some African American employees believe that their working environment and path to advancement are tainted by racism. It might prove fruitful for Mr. Power to institute a program of institutional soul-searching on the question. That being said, the purpose of this proceeding is not to undertake a systemic analysis of racism in the Tax Collector’s office. This proceeding is limited to the question of whether the adverse employment action taken against Ms. Tyson was an act of racial discrimination. The overwhelming evidence is that it was not. Ms. Tyson presented no persuasive evidence that comparable employees outside of her protected group were treated differently. She alleged that a white supervisor named Valerie Jerkins had a practice of clocking in to the workplace then leaving without clocking out, thus stealing time from the Tax Collector, without being subject to any adverse employment action. Ms. Tyson had no firsthand knowledge of this alleged behavior. The only employee claiming direct knowledge of Ms. Jerkins’s behavior was Ms. Bethley, who claimed that she reported the matter to Ms. Johnson. None of the supervisory employees who testified, including Ms. Johnson, had any recollection of having received a report or complaint of Ms. Jerkins stealing time. Mr. Costabile testified as to a former employee named Tracy Jones, a Caucasian woman who held several positions in the Tax Collector’s office and was a Director at the time her employment was terminated in June 2018. Ms. Johnson had asked Ms. Jones to accept a reassignment. Ms. Jones proceeded to announce her displeasure to other employees and customers. Ms. Jones was dismissed for insubordination. In summary, it is found that the decision to terminate Ms. Tyson’s employment was based entirely on her own behavior. It is clear that Ms. Tyson’s bitterness at being passed over for the Director’s job poisoned her relationship with Ms. McCray and led her to behave in a manner so startlingly unprofessional that Mr. Power saw no option but to dismiss her.4 Ms. Tyson offered no evidence that, prior to her termination, she opposed any discriminatory practices at the Tax Collector’s office, or that she participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing challenging discriminatory practices at the Tax Collector’s office. Ms. Tyson offered no evidence to support her allegation that the Tax Collector retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity. Ms. Tyson offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non- discriminatory reason given by the Tax Collector for her termination. Ms. Tyson offered no credible evidence that the Tax Collector’s stated reason for her termination was a pretext for discrimination based on her race or color. Ms. Tyson offered no credible evidence that the Tax Collector discriminated against her because of her race or color in violation of section 760.10.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the Alachua County Tax Commissioner did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31at day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 31st day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) William H. Andrews, Esquire Gray Robinson Suite 1100 50 North Laura Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202-3611 (eServed) Salana Tyson 21812 Northwest 210th Avenue High Springs, Florida 32643 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
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.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner GDU is a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Development Corporation and has eight operating divisions. At the end of the 1979 test year, the petitioner's Port Malabar Division had 3,899 water connections and 3,760 sewer connections. At the end of July, 1981, the system was serving 4,852 water customers and 4,332 sewer customers. During the test year, petitioner's Port Malabar water system consisted of 16 shallow wells, 47 miles of distribution and transmission lines, and a three million gallon per day lime softening treatment plant with two storage facilities. The sewer system consisted of 17 lift stations, about 44 miles of collection and force mains and a treatment plant-rated at two million gallons per day. During the test year, 28 employees were assigned to the water and sewer operations. At the time of the August hearing, petitioner had 34 employees. Quality of Service The water and sewer service customers of petitioner who testified at the hearing were primarily concerned about the magnitude of the proposed rate increase and its impact upon persons with fixed incomes. Many customers testified that they were satisfied with the water and sewer service provided to them. The few complaints voiced about service included odor from a new lift station, the high mineral content of the water, water lost during construction projects, interruptions in service without notice, and, on occasion, dirty water. Petitioner maintains a customer service and local billing office in the Port Malabar area. It is the customary practice of petitioner to give its customers advance notice of any interruption in service. Water utilized for construction purposes is metered and billed to the individual contractors. The odor problem from the recently installed lift station has been resolved. Petitioner has an ongoing program for monitoring water quality and compliance with state and federal water quality standards. All drinking water requirements and standards for sewage treatment plant effluent have been complied with by petitioner. Petitioner presently has 3 sewage treatment plant operators and is attempting to secure one more operator to meet the Department of Environmental Regulation's requirement of four. Used and Useful The term "used and useful" is a ratemaking term to establish that portion of investment upon which a utility is entitled to earn a return. Facilities which are used and useful are those used to serve present customers, with a reasonable reserve added for future customers. A knowledge of engineering principles is necessary to perform a used and useful analysis. The used and useful analysis performed by petitioner resulted in a determination that the water treatment plant is 100 percent used and useful. The methodology utilized was to take the maximum day's water production during the test year and add an allowance for 18 months' growth based on an average of the prior three years growth rates. The actual growth rate of 953 water customers between the end of the test year and July, 1981, a 24.4 percent increase, closely matched the increase used in petitioner's calculations. The eighteen month period is representative of the period of time required for a utility to design, receive approval, complete construction and place the facility in usage. The utility's methodology made no allowance for fire demand and thus the results are conservative. Using a similar methodology, the PSC engineering expert also found the water plant to be 100 percent used and useful. The Office of Public Counsel's accounting expert determined that the petitioner's water plant was only 81 percent used and useful. His methodology utilized a peak day flow different than that utilized by petitioner for the reasons that he felt it was more representative of actual customer demand and did not reflect excess water loss. This witness also felt that the use of the marginal reserve or growth factor resulted in the inclusion of plant associated with future customers and allowed the utility to over-recover its depreciation expenses. Petitioner's used and useful analysis of water distribution mains resulted in the determination that $162,501 should be deemed held for future use and therefore excluded from rate base. For purposes of this calculation, petitioner utilized as-built plans and excluded those mains in sparsely settled areas unless they fronted on an occupied lot or on a fire hydrant located within 500 feet of an occupied lot. The PSC expert witness determined that the water distribution system was 100 percent used and useful. The OPC's witness determined that the used and useful portion of the water distribution system was 80.96 percent. His analysis was apparently based on the actual billings during the test year as compared to the total potential connections. By averaging the average daily flow and the average maximum flow days, and then adding an eighteen month allowance for future growth, the petitioner determined that the sewage treatment plant was 60.5 percent used and useful. Maximum flow days are more significant than average days from an engineering design perspective, and thus petitioner's calculations are quite conservative. The PSC witness determined that the sewage treatment plant was 100 percent used and useful. Based upon average daily flow and making no allowance for growth, the OPC's witness determined that the sewer plant was only 40 percent used and useful. His rationale for using the average daily flow was not adequately explained. Comparing the actual connections plus an eighteen month allowance for growth to potential connections, petitioner determined that the sewage collection and distribution mains are 100 percent used and useful. The PSC witness agreed. The witness for the OPC calculated the sewage collection line system as being only 73.4 percent used and useful, apparently giving no weight to a growth allowance. Water Loss Petitioner calculates its unaccounted for water loss at 9 percent, though a little over 1 percent is due to meter slippage because of mechanical design. Petitioner's meters are read on a monthly basis and are calibrated by a private firm once a year for the water meters and twice a year for the sewer meters. A range for water loss between 10 percent and 15 percent is considered reasonable in the industry. Pointing to the facts that many Florida water utilities have water losses at 5 percent or lower and that petitioner's own water losses were less in 1980, the OPC witness felt that the unaccounted for water should be calculated at a 5 percent rate. Construction Work in Progress A portion of the assets carried on the petitioner's books as construction work in progress (CWIP) were actually completed, paid for, in service and generating revenues during the test year. These assets--$246,9l6 of water mains and $1,053,476 of sewer mains--were reflected as CWIP because the bookkeeping process of classifying them to the proper plant accounts had not been completed. The assets were subjected to the petitioner's used and useful analysis, and they should be reclassified as utility plant in service. A utility is entitled to recover the cost of carrying its construction program. The two alternative methods of recovery are to allow the average balance of CWIP to be included in rate base or to allow the interest or other return on the construction balances to be capitalized as part of the cost of the asset and amortized over its useful life. This latter method is referred to as allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC). If AFUDC is not added to the rate base and if the amount of construction is reasonable based upon engineering standards, CWIP should be includable in rate base. Over the long run, this method is less costly to customers than charging AFUDC. Petitioner did not charge AFUDC on the assets claimed as CWIP and the amounts claimed were less than in previous years and met the standard of reasonableness. The witness for the OPC was of the opinion that CWIP should be excluded from rate base because the assets benefited the utility rather than the current customers, and current ratepayers should not be required to finance the utility's investments. He further felt that if these funds were included in rate base, the result would be a mismatch between rate base and the utility's income statement. Contributions-in-Aid-of-Construction Petitioner has properly excluded from its rate base those moneys which represent CIAC. However, it has included in rate base accumulated depreciation on CIAC. Petitioner has done this by adding back to rate base that portion of total accumulated depreciation associated with CIAC after subtracting both total accumulated depreciation and CIAC from plant in service. The PSC method reaches the same result by subtracting from plant in service both total accumulated depreciation and net CIAC (CIAC less accumulated depreciation on CIAC). If the depreciation expense on contributed property has already been included as an above-the-line expense and re- covered through rates, accumulated depreciation corresponding to such expenses should be removed from rate base. Petitioner has never recovered depreciation on contributed property as an expense for ratemaking purposes. Working Capital An allowance for working capital should be included in rate base. Petitioner utilized the formula approach for calculating its working capital needs. This methodology is recognized by PSC rule and is a simplistic, rule-of- thumb approach. It is calculated by taking one-eighth or 12 1/2 percent of the utility's annual operation and maintenance expenses. It does not reflect some items which provide a source of working capital and it does not necessarily measure the actual working capital requirements or investment of any particular company, The result obtained from using the formula approach must be reduced by an amount for federal income tax lag. The balance sheet approach to determine working capital requirements is generally preferred by the PSC staff and its use is urged by the Office of Public Counsel in this proceeding. This method involves deducting current liabilities from current assets to determine the amount of funds the utility has currently available to meet its working capital needs. The balance sheet approach more accurately addresses the specific working capital variables of the company to which it is applied. The PSC's accounting witness recommended use of the formula approach in this case because of the absence of a staff audit of the petitioner's balance sheet, In actuality, the difference in terms of dollars between the two approaches, as calculated by the petitioner and the OPC, is an immaterial amount. On cross-examination and rebuttal, the intervenor's calculation of working capital requirements by use of the balance sheet approach was shown to be incorrect and the result obtained was therefore understated. Federal Income Tax Petitioner GDU is a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Development Corporation which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GDV, Inc. GDU files its federal income tax returns as part of the consolidated group which contains no other public utilities. Using this subsidiary approach, each member of the group computes its tax liability as if it were a freestanding company. Petitioner computed its federal income tax liability at the full statutory rate of 46 percent. While the petitioner's actual capital structure is almost 100 percent equity, its tax was computed by recognizing its parent company's capital structure. Petitioner did not contribute any tax losses that could be used by the group on its consolidated return. A certified public accountant with the PSC staff agreed with the petitioner's use of the subsidiary approach and the 46 percent statutory rate for calculation of petitioner's federal income tax expense. During the 1979 test year, the consolidated group actually paid taxes to the Internal Revenue Service at less than the 46 percent statutory rate. This was the result of losses at the parent company level. The witness for the OPC was of the opinion that the petitioner's tax expense should be calculated so as to recognize the actual tax expense of the corporation as a whole and that only those taxes which are eventually flowed through to the Internal Revenue Service should be claimed. He would calculate petitioner's effective tax rate by use of a "payout ratio" methodology which involves adjusting the statutory rate by the ratio of taxes actually paid to the IRS to the total taxes paid by all subsidiaries. Depreciation Rate On the basis of an estimation of the average service lives for each of its primary plant accounts, petitioner has calculated an overall depreciation rate of 3.43 percent for water assets and 3.11 percent for sewer assets. This component method of depreciation has been used by petitioner for over twenty years. In estimating the service lives of its assets, petitioner relied upon its experience with its own water and sewer assets in Florida and recognized that such assets are affected by Florida's high temperatures and humidity levels and the flat topography. The composite 2.5 percent depreciation rate customarily utilized by the PSC assumes a forty year service life of assets. In actuality, petitioner has retired two of its wells in less than twenty years and most of its meters have been replaced. The service lives used by petitioner are comparable with other depreciation data from the PSC, a National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioner's (NARUC) survey and a Texas Public Service Commission survey on average service lives. The petitioner's witnesses were of the opinion that the 2.5 percent rate or forty year composite service life is not appropriate because it does not consider the unique physical characteristics of water and sewer systems in Florida. The OPC urges the application of the 2.5 percent overall depreciation rate on the basis that petitioner did not produce sufficient evidence that a change from Commission policy was necessary. Inflation Adjustment Petitioner proposes to adjust certain operating and maintenance expenses upward by 8.3 percent as an allowance for the effect of inflation on those expenses. No adjustment is proposed for those items which were the subject of other adjustments or for those items not expected to increase directly with inflation. The figure of 8.3 percent was derived from a three- year average of percentage increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from 1976 through 1979. The CPI is a "market basket" approach to measuring inflation on the average consumer, and includes such items as foodstuffs and home mortgages. Based upon its 1980 expense figures and discounting increases in expenses attributable to growth in customers, petitioner experienced a 10 percent inflationary increase for water operations and a 9 percent increase for sewer operations for 1980 over 1979. Since at least 1976, petitioner has never earned its authorized rate of return, primarily due to the effects of inflation. The PSC staff has not audited the petitioner's 1980 expense figures. Such figures have been audited by an outside CPA firm for financial purposes, but not for regulatory purposes. The 10 percent and 9 percent increases in water and in sewer operations measure only increased costs and do not account for increased revenues. Pursuant to a 1980 amendment to Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, public utilities are now entitled to automatically adjust their major categories of operating costs incurred during the previous calendar year by applying a price increase or decrease index to those costs. Section 367.081(4)(a), Florida Statutes. The PSC has established an 8.99 percent index for application by utilities in 1981. Highland Shores/Knecht Road Adjustments It is anticipated that the City of Palm Bay will purchase petitioner's water distribution system serving one commercial and 54 residential customers in the Highland Shores subdivision and 8 customers on Knecht Road. Petitioner eliminated certain amounts from its revenues, variable expenses and rate base to reflect this transaction, but did not adjust non-variable fixed costs which would not be affected by loss of these customers. Adjustments were made to chemical and electrical expenses and depreciation and property taxes associated with the plant serving those areas. No adjustments were made to payroll or other labor expenses. Petitioner presented evidence that the loss of those customers would not reduce personnel requirements or labor costs. The witness for the OPC proposed across-the-board adjustments for all operating and maintenance expenses based upon percentages of consumption and usage figures associated with these areas. Cost of Capital In actuality, the capital structure of petitioner consists almost entirely of equity invested in the utility by its parent, General Development Corporation. With adjustments for funds not available to petitioner, petitioner used its parent's capital structure in performing its cost of money analysis since the ultimate source of its equity funding consists of a mixture of debt and equity at the parent company level. All parties agreed that the proper capital structure to use in this case is that of petitioner's parent, General Development Corporation. Employing a discounted cash flow method and a risk premium analysis, petitioner has determined tat its cost of equity capital ranges from 18.06 percent to 22.32 percent, with a midpoint of 20.19 percent. Under the discounted cash flow method, the five year annual growth rates of ten water utilities were averaged and added to the average dividend yield for those utilities, to obtain an 18.06 percent return on equity. Under the risk premium analysis, petitioner analyzed utility debt costs by considering the current costs and yields of bonds, and then added a 4 percent risk premium to reflect the higher yield associated with equity as compared to debt. This analysis resulted in equity ranges between 20.59 percent and 22.32 percent. These figures are comparable to the combination of dividend yield and price appreciation of the Fortune 500 companies. The OPC witness concluded that a reasonable return on equity for petitioner would be between 14 percent and 14.5 percent. In measuring this cost of equity for petitioner, the comparable earnings method and a discounted cash flow method was employed. The former method involves an observation of the equity returns achieved by companies of comparable risks. Mr. Parcell examined the earnings of unregulated companies and large public utilities. His discounted cash flow method combined dividend yield and growth in retained earnings for nine water companies. The petitioner presented evidence that its current cost of debt is 15.3 percent instead of the 10.89 percent originally indicated in its application. Rate Case Expenses Petitioner originally estimated its rate case expenses at $25,000 based upon the assumption that there were only two issues in dispute between the utility and the PSC staff and that the proceedings could be handled by in-house personnel. Following the intervention of the Office of Public Counsel, the corresponding increase in the number of issues to be litigaged and the six additional days of actual hearing, petitioner is claiming that rate case expenses are $105,787. This figure is based upon the hourly rates of various professionals and the actual expenses incurred for the hearings. Petitioner expects the rates which will result from these proceedings to be in effect for no more than two years. This is consistent with petitioner's past history. Petitioner therefore seeks to amortize its rate case expenses over a two-year period and to divide them equally between the water and sewer operations. The OPC presented testimony expressing the opinion that the expenses claimed by petitioner in this proceeding were unreasonable and entirely out of line. It was pointed out that the expenses requested amount to about 20 percent of the total proposed revenue increase. It is contended that the hourly rates charged by petitioner's witnesses are excessive and that it was unreasonable to engage more than one witness per issue in a case of this magnitude. The hourly rates charged by the OPC's witnesses were set pursuant to an annual contract between those witnesses and the Office of Public Counsel. The OPC also believes that rate case expenses should be amortized over a three to five year period to properly take into account the newly enacted automatic pass-through provisions of Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, which should increase the time between rate cases. One witness testifying for the OPC did not feel that rate case expenses should be recovered at all through rates. The PSC staff witness did not feel that the rate case expenses claimed by petitioner were excessive when compared with other utilities of similar size.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the issues in dispute in this proceeding be resolved as follows: That the quality of water and sewer service provided by petitioner to its customers be found satisfactory; That 100 percent of petitioner's water treatment plant, 60.5 percent of its sewage treatment plant and 100 percent of its sewage collection and distribution system be found to be used and useful in the public service and that $162,501 attributable to petitioner's water distribution lines be excluded from rate base; That petitioner's water loss of 9 percent is not excessive; That those assets in service during the test year carried on the utility's books as construction work in progress be transferred to utility plant in service and the remaining amount of CWIP proposed by petitioner for inclusion in rate base is reasonable; That accumulated depreciation on contributions-in-aid-of-construction not be excluded from petitioner's rate base; That the formula approach utilized by petitioner in determining its working capital requirements is appropriate in this case; That the petitioner's federal tax expenses be calculated at the 46 percent statutory rate; That the composite rates of depreciation of 3.11 percent on petitioner's sewer division and 3.43 percent on its water division be adopted; That petitioner's proposed 8.3 percent inflation adjustment for certain operation and maintenance expenses be rejected; That the adjustments proposed by petitioner for loss of its Highland Shores/Knecht Road customers are appropriate; That the capital structure of General Development Corporation be utilized to determine petitioner's cost of capital; that petitioner's cost of debt is 15.3 percent and that petitioner's cost of equity is 18.06 percent; and That rate case expenses in the amount of $105,787 are reasonable. Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary P. Sams, Esquire and Richard D. Melson, Esquire Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams Suite 420 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nancy H. Roen, Esquire General Development Utilities, Inc. 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Gregory J. Krasovsky, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve, Esquire Stephen C. Burgess, Esquire and Suzanne S. Brownless, Esquire Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to the repayment of funds paid to the State Treasury through overpayment or error, in relation to use taxes? The refund claim is $37,837.91. See Section 215.26, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Rathon Corporation, formerly known as Diversey Corporation, is a Delaware Corporation authorized to do business in Florida. It manufactures various detergents, cleaners, and soaps, and the equipment to dispense those products. The products are marketed in Florida and other states. The customers of the products include hotels, hospitals, factories, and restaurants. The devices that dispense the detergents, cleaners, and soaps are referred to as "feeders." Those feeders can range from simple hand soap dispensers to electronically regulated machines that inject soap into commercial dishwashers. The feeders are loaned to Petitioner's customers at no additional charge for the period of time that the customer continues to purchase the product(s) dispensed by the feeder. These circumstances existed in the period of July 1993 through March 1995. In the period of July 1993 through March 1995, Diversey Corporation, now Rathon Corporation, paid the State of Florida $58,969.22 in use tax associated with the feeders. During the period in question, the Petitioner manufactured the feeders at a facility in Santa Cruz, California. The feeders were not warehoused in the Santa Cruz facility for an extended period. They were prepared for shipment and shipped to customers in the various states, to include Florida and California customers, to be used in the places of business operated by the customers. The feeders being shipped were not packaged with other products. During the period July 1993 through March 1995, the Petitioner not only paid use tax to Florida for the feeders, it paid use tax in forty-four other states and the District of Columbia, based upon the costs of manufacturing the feeders. California was among the other forty-four states. During the period in question, Petitioner accrued and paid use taxes to Florida and California limited to the feeders used by customers in those states, based upon the product sales allocation method it used in relation to the forty-three other states and the District of Columbia. The feeders that were provided to Florida customers were shipped by common carrier. Upon their arrival in Florida no tax had been paid to California pertaining to those feeders. When the feeders arrived in Florida during the period at issue, use tax would be remitted to Florida. Subsequently, the Petitioner paid the State of California a use tax associated with the feeders that had been shipped to Florida customers and upon which a use tax had been imposed by the State of Florida and paid. The California payment is described in detail below. Petitioner had paid Florida use tax on the feeders shipped to Florida customers based on the total manufactured cost of the feeders to Petitioner, including materials, labor, and overhead. The additional use tax paid to California for those feeders was based only on the cost of materials. The overall costs of feeders allocated to Florida for the refund period was $982,803.00. Petitioner remitted a 6% use tax to Florida totaling $58,969.22 for the period in question. In 1996, Petitioner was audited for sales and use tax compliance by the State of California. That audit process included the refund period that is in question in this case, July 1993 through March 1995. Following the audit, the State of California issued a Notice of Determination asserting additional liability for tax and interest that totaled $355,753.95. Petitioner paid that assessment. The California auditor had arrived at the assessment by concluding that Petitioner owed California for 44.57% of all feeders manufactured at Petitioner's Santa Cruz facility. The 44.57% represented all newly manufactured feeders that had been loaned by Petitioner to its customers during the refund period over the entire United States. As a consequence, the assessment of use tax by the State of California included tax on feeders for which Petitioner had paid Florida $58,969.22 in use tax prior to the California assessment of $355,753.95. Petitioner did not apply for credit in California for the portion of the $355,753.95 that would relate to the feeders brought to Florida during the period in question. Petitioner took no action to obtain a credit on the amount paid to Florida as a means to reduce the California tax obligation pursuant to the 1996 audit, because Petitioner had been told that the use tax for the feeders used by Florida customers was legally due in California and not in Florida. In arriving at the determination that 44.57% of the feeders manufactured during the period in question had been loaned to customers within the continental United States, the California auditor took into account that 21.8% of the feeders and feeder parts were sold for export, leaving 78.2% to be used in the United States. Of the 78.2% remaining for the United States, 57% were complete feeders sent to customers within the United States, and 43% were repair parts that were sent to Petitioner's Cambridge Division in Maryland, where those repair parts were being stored for future use. The percentage of 44.57% was arrived at by multiplying 57% times 78.2%, representing the percent of total feeders manufactured for use in the United States that were sent to customers within the United States and not held in inventory as repair parts. Again, California based its use tax for tangible personal property manufactured in that state to include only the cost of materials. Consequently, when the California auditor computed use tax to be collected by California using the 44.57% of total feeders manufactured to be used in the United States by Petitioner's customers in the United States, the California auditor used a cost factor of 55% of overall costs which was attributable to the cost of materials only. The total cost of feeders manufactured by Petitioner in California during the period in question, as related in the California tax audit, was $19,028,714.00. The total cost manufactured for use in the United States was $8,481,098.00, representing 44.57% of the overall cost of manufacturing. When the $8,481.098.00 is multiplied by 55%, representing the cost of materials only, the total costs of the goods subject to the use tax for the period in question is $4,664,604.00. A use tax rate of 7% was applied against the amount of $4,664,604.00. To attribute the portion of use tax paid to California following the 1996 audit associated with feeders that had been sent to Florida during the period in question, the answer is derived by multiplying $982,803.00 by 55% for a total of $540,542.00, and in turn multiplying that amount by 7%, the rate of tax imposed by California. That total is $37,837.91 in use tax that was subsequently paid to California after $58,962.22 had been paid to Florida for use tax on the same feeders. Diversey Corporation sought a tax refund in the amount of $58,977.00, through an application dated August 8, 1996, in relation to the period July 1993 through March. Eventually through the decision by the Respondent in its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial dated July 16, 1997, Respondent refused to grant the refund of $58,977.00. At present, Petitioner requests that it be given a refund of $37,837.91, which represents the portion of use tax paid to Florida that has been duplicated in a payment of use tax to California. Respondent, in its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial entered on July 16, 1997, and based upon the facts adduced at the final hearing, premises its proposed agency action denying the refund request upon the language set for in Section 212.06(1)(a) and (7), Florida Statutes. The determination to deny the refund request was not based upon reliance on Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code. The theory for denying the refund is premised upon Respondent's argument that use tax was due to Florida, "as of the moment" feeders arrived in Florida for use in Petitioner's business operations associated with its customers. Petitioner then paid the use tax to Florida at the time the feeders arrived in Florida. Having not paid California Use Tax prior to paying Florida Use Tax, Respondent concludes, through its proposed agency action, that it need not refund to Petitioner the use taxes it paid to California at a later date. Petitioner had referred to Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, following receipt of the Notice of Proposed Refund Denial issued on December 9, 1996, possibly creating the impression that Petitioner believed that Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, would support its claim for refund. It later developed that Petitioner did not have in mind reliance upon Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, to support its claim for refund. Instead, Petitioner made reference to that rule and specifically Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, as a means to perfect a challenge to Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 15, 1997, claiming that the challenged rule was an invalid exercise of authority. That challenge was assigned DOAH Case No. 97-5908RX. In summary, notwithstanding Petitioner's argument to the contrary, Respondent has never relied upon Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, or any other part of that rule in its proposed agency action denying the refund request. Absent Petitioner's affirmative reliance upon Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, the rule has no part to play in resolving this dispute.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's request for repayment of funds paid to the State Treasury in the amount of $37,837.91, paid as use taxes for all years in question, be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Michael Madsen, Esquire Vickers, Madsen, and Goldman, LLP Suite 101 1705 Metropolitan Boulevard CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1998. Tallahassee, Florida 32308-3765 John N. Upchurch, Esquire James McCauley, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Certificate of Registration may lawfully be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.21. The Department has the responsibility of administering the revenue laws of the state, including the laws relating to the imposition and collection of the state's sales and use tax, pursuant to Chapter 212. Spin and Marty is a Florida corporation doing business as Crabbit's Pub whose principal address is 10513 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida. Spin and Marty is a "dealer" as that term is defined in Chapter 212. It holds a certificate of registration issued by the Department that is numbered 37-8012056472-7. Spin and Marty initially registered with the Department on January 30, 1992. The sales and use tax collected by a registrant, such as Spin and Marty, become the property of the state at the moment they are collected. A registrant is an agent of the state when collecting the sales and use tax. Spin and Marty was required to remit the sales and use tax collected to the state on or before the 20th of each month. From November 1999 until December 2003, Spin and Marty filed no returns and paid no sales and use taxes to the Department. Also, Spin and Marty, in November 2005, did not file a return or pay sales and use taxes. In a letter dated November 20, 2001, Spin and Marty was notified that the Department was going to audit its records. The Department received no response. In a letter dated April 3, 2002, Spin and Marty was again asked to contact the Department's auditor so a mutually agreed date could be set to conduct the audit. The Department received no response to this letter. The Department thereafter conducted an audit. The result of the audit was a notice of proposed assessment which stated that Spin and Marty owed $146,044.74 in back taxes, penalties, and interest through September 4, 2002. Neither Spin and Marty, nor its principal, Mr. McNiff, contested the audit findings. A letter from the Department addressed to "Dear Taxpayer," dated August 5, 2002, was received by Spin and Marty. This letter stated that the Department wished to arrange a meeting in its office for the purpose of reviewing the Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes dated June 18, 2002. Spin and Marty did not avail itself of this opportunity. Six tax warrants were filed with the Clerk of Court in Hernando County against Spin and Marty. These warrants indicate that as of the day of the hearing Spin and Marty owed $175,299.93 to the Department. This amount includes the actual tax due, or in the case of warrant 1000000029678, the estimated tax due, penalties, interest, and filing fees. Interest continues to accrue. Pursuant to notice from the Department, on July 31, 2006, Theodore Faugno, who works for Mr. McNiff's CPA, and Mr. McNiff met with Debra B. Smith, a Revenue Specialist III with the Department. Neither Mr. McNiff nor Mr. Faugno contacted Ms. Smith following the meeting. This resulted in the Administrative Complaint seeking to revoke Respondent's Certificate of Registration. Mr. McNiff related that during the period he failed to submit returns and remit the taxes then due, he experienced adverse health issues and the unplanned birth of a baby. However, he was able to operate Spin and Marty and make a profit. It is indubitably concluded that he could have also reported and remitted the tax due, had he been so inclined.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue revoke Certificate of Registration No. 37-8012056472-7, held by Spin and Marty, Inc., d/b/a Crabbit's Pub. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 7th day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Warren J. Bird, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jarrell L. Murchison, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 James McNiff Spin and Marty, Inc., d/b/a Crabbit's Pub 10050 Sleepy Willow Court Spring Hill, Florida 34608 James McNiff Crabbit's Pub 10513 Spring Hill Drive Spring Hill, Florida 34608-5047 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is liable for the sales and use tax assessment issued by Respondent on February 21, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this proceeding, Respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), has issued a proposed sales and use tax assessment in the amount of $24,546.54, plus $6,640.12 in penalties, plus interest from the date of the assessment, against Petitioner, Florida Truck Dock Company (Petitioner or taxpayer). As of March 20, 1997, the assessment totaled $55,195.27, and it continues to increase by $8.07 each day. The assessment constitutes taxes, penalties, and interest allegedly due from Petitioner for various materials and supplies purchased by Petitioner for use in the performance of real property contracts for Petitioner's customers. In its response to the assessment, Petitioner denied that it owed the money. Petitioner's business activities consisted primarily of purchasing truck loading dock equipment from suppliers, principally Kelly Company, Inc. (Kelly), and then installing such equipment as an improvement to real estate. Its records indicate that purchased equipment was generally brought into Florida and installed in real property in the state under a contract whereby parts and labor were furnished for one lump sum contract price. The foregoing contracts were Class A or lump sum contracts within the meaning of Rule 12A-1.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Class A contracts are considered contracts for the improvement of real estate, not contracts for the resale of tangible personal property. In addition, when the equipment was purchased, Petitioner had not issued resale certificates to its vendors. Under these circumstances, Petitioner was properly treated as an end-user of the equipment in question and owed use taxes on all such purchases of tangible personal property. This controversy began on March 30, 1992, when DOR issued a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records of the taxpayer in conjunction with a routine audit. The notice requested that Petitioner make available various corporate records pertaining to its sales and use tax and intangible tax liability. However, only the sales and use tax is in issue here. DOR later advised the taxpayer that the audit period would run from March 1, 1987, through February 29, 1992, and that instead of a detailed audit, only a three-month sampling of the full audit period would be necessary. An initial audit revealed that Petitioner was entitled to a refund. None was given, however, because of information supplied by an employee of the taxpayer regarding the possible destruction and alteration of certain records by the taxpayer, and the auditor's conclusion that a three-month sampling of the records was not representative for the full five-year audit period. In addition, the auditor concluded that the results of the sample period were not reasonable. For these reasons, the scope of the audit was expanded. The auditor then requested, among other things, that copies of all sales (summary) journals for the entire five-year period be produced. Although Petitioner has always contended that these journals were merely "commission" journals for transactions between its vendors and customers, the auditor's finding that they are records of cash transactions is consistent with the language on the face of the journals, referring to "deposits" and "total deposits." Further, a comparison of the journals with Petitioner's own bank statements confirms this finding. At least twelve months of the records were missing, and the taxpayer agreed to recreate the missing records. Once a copy of all journals (both original and recreated) was produced, the auditor tested their validity and then made various audit adjustments, which are reflected on Schedule A-2 of Exhibit 5. In those instances where inadequate cost price information concerning equipment purchases was provided by the taxpayer, the auditor properly used estimates in making his adjustments. The tax liability for each taxable transaction was recorded by the taxpayer under Account 367 on the sales journals. The auditor then examined the source documents (original invoices) to verify the accuracy of the recorded amounts. These numbers were then compared with the taxes paid by the taxpayer on its monthly tax returns filed with DOR. This comparison produced a deficiency which represents approximately 75 percent of the total assessment. However, in those instances where Petitioner collected sales tax from its customers, and remitted the same to DOR, Petitioner was not assessed with a tax for those same items. A sampling of the audit period established that Petitioner also had a number of lump-sum contracts with various governmental customers on which it neither paid taxes to the vendor when the equipment was purchased, nor did it collect taxes from the end-user when the equipment was resold. Thus, it was responsible for the use taxes on these transactions. The deficiency is detailed on Schedule B-3 of the final audit report (Exhibit 6), and it accounts for approximately 14 percent of the total assessment. The remaining part of the assessment is related to four miscellaneous transactions which are unrelated to the sales journals. Two of the transactions occurred during the short period of time when the service tax was in effect in 1987, while the remaining two relate to small purchases of equipment and supplies by the taxpayer for its own consumption. There was no evidence that the taxpayer paid the taxes due on these transactions. DOR met with the taxpayer, its accountant, and its original counsel on various occasions in an effort to obtain more documentation favorable to the taxpayer's position. In most cases, the taxpayer refused to provide more records. At one meeting, however, the taxpayer produced additional source documents (invoices) that appeared to be altered from the original invoices previously given to the auditor. These are shown in Exhibit 7 received in evidence. When asked by the auditor for copies of the same invoices sent to customers so that the discrepancy could be resolved, the taxpayer refused to comply with this request. During the audit process, the taxpayer contended that its primary supplier, Kelly, had already paid taxes on a number of the transactions. No documentation was produced, however, to support this contention. It also complained that there was bias on the part of DOR's auditor. As to this contention, the record shows that the auditor had no relationship with the taxpayer prior to this audit, and for the intangible personal property tax, the auditor's field work actually resulted in a refund for Petitioner. Finally, the taxpayer contended that rather than using the originally supplied records, the auditor should have used Petitioner's recreated or altered records in making the audit adjustments. This latter contention has been rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining its original assessment against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Jeffrey M. Dikman, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Benjamin K. Phipps, Esquire Post Office Box 1351 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 L. H. Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
