Findings Of Fact On August 27, 1976, the Respondent, State of Florida Department of Revenue, notified the Petitioner of its intention to assess sales tax, penalties and interest against the Respondent for business transactions in the period August 1, 1973 through July 31, 1976. This Notice of Proposed Assessment was revised on May 27, 1977, and the Petitioner was notified of that revision. By his letter of June 19, 1977, the Petitioner has challenged the assessment, as revised. Upon receipt of the June 19, 1977 petition, the Respondent moved for a more definite statement and the Petitioner was afforded fifteen (15) days from the date of the Order within which time to amend his petition. Petitioner took advantage of that opportunity to amend and by an undated document did make such an amendment. The Respondent subsequently moved to strike certain portions of the amended petition and filed its answer to the petition. A pre-hearing conference was held to consider the Motion To Strike and after that pre-hearing conference was concluded an Order was issued which struck certain portions of the amended Petition and allowed copies of the proposed notices of assessments of August 27, 1976 and the revision of May 27, 1977 to be made a part of the complaint/petition as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. After the pre-hearing Order had been issued by the undersigned, the case was noticed for hearing for December 5, 1977. At the December 5, 1977 hearing date a Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest Under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes was tendered. This revision dated from December 5, 1977, was allowed to be introduced as the final position of the Respondent on the question of the assessment. It was also allowed to be attached as Exhibit 3 to the amended petition. (Under cover of a separate correspondence the original petition, amended petition, exhibits to the amended petition, an Order which was entered after consideration of the Motion To Strike, are being submitted as a part of the record herein). In the ordinary course of his duties a tax examiner employed by the Respondent went to the business premises of the Petitioner to perform an audit to determine whether or not the Petitioner was collecting and remitting sales tax for the category of sales which the Petitioner was making, that required the payment of sales tax. These requirements spoken of are those set forth in Chapter 212, F.S. Mr. DeCico, the tax examiner, allowed Mr. Farhud to pick three (3) months in the year 1976 as being the period to be audited. DeCico then returned to Farhud's place of business and showed him the details of the three (3) month audit. Farhud was dissatisfied wish this audit and indicated that he preferred to have the audit sample expended for a full three (3) years. DeCico replied that he would be willing to expand the audit period. but cautioned Farhud that expansion of the audit period might promote an increased liability. Nonetheless, at Farhud's request, the audit period was expanded to one for thirty-six (36) months. The new audit period dated from August 1, 1973, through July 1, 1976. The work papers on that audit may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. This audit which is depicted in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, left out invoices pertaining to stamps, electric bills, wrapping paper, grocery bags, etc., since they were not retail items for sale. The audit was rendered on August 27, 1976. Before the Notice of Assessment was filed, Farhud had expressed his displeasure with the outcome of the second audit process because he felt that certain amounts depicted in the gross sales were not accurate; to wit, the inclusion of certain so-called "service fees", namely income tax preparation, notary fees, etc. DeCico tried to get a reasonable statement of the amounts of the categories which Farhud desired to have excluded. Farhud did not have records of the matters and was unable to provide an estimate as to the amount of income which had been derived from the aforementioned "service fees". The August 27, 1976, proposed assessment was computed on the basis of the proposition that the gross sales are equivalent to actual sales and are subject to sales tax in the taxable categories. As indicated before, this audit did not take into consideration any "service fees", nor did it grant any allowance for pilferage. No allowance was made for the latter category, because Farhud had not provided any estimate and/or police records to indicate the amount which would be lost to pilferage, and cause a reduction of the sales tax liability. Farhud formally challenged the audit of August 27, 1976, by his correspondence of September 8, 1976 in which he rejects the amount claimed and asks for a hearing. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. An informal conference was held between the parties on October 12, 1976 to see if a resolution of the dispute could be achieved. Mr. Farhud was represented at the informal conference by Michael J. Burman, Esquire, an attorney in Jacksonville, Florida. By a letter of October 14, 1976, Farhud's attorney requested the Respondent to utilize the figures for the three (3) month audit period, as opposed to the thirty-six (36) month period. The letter concluded by stating that Mr. Burman was unaware of any intention Mr. Farhud had to appeal the assessment of August 27, 1976. This letter was followed by a series of letters in which the various parties were indicating the desire to determine whether or not Mr. Farhud intended to accept the August 27, 1976 assessment or to appeal it. In the course of his correspondence Mr. Farhud continued to insist that he did not accept the amount of assessment as accurate. Mr. Farhud failed to indicate to Mr. Burman whether he was going to appeal the assessment or not and Mr. Burman withdrew as his attorney, as shown in the January 31, 1977 correspondence addressed to one of the employees of the Respondent. This correspondence is Respondent's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. On February 2, 1977, the audit supervisor in the Jacksonville district of the Respondent wrote Mr. Farhud indicating the intention of the Respondent to collect the taxes pursuant to the August 27, 1976 audit. A copy of this correspondence is Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. It should be indicated at this point, that the Respondent's representative had continued to request documentation from Farhud on the items requested for exemption which have been referred to as "service fee". The subject of pilferage had also been discussed at the October 12, 1976 informal conference and a request made for some form of records of police reports which would verify pilferage allowances. No documentation had been provided at the time the February 2, 1977 letter was written to Farhud. Subsequent to the February 2, 1977 letter another informal conference was held on April 4, 1977. As a result of that conference it was determined that certain items would be deleted from the audit assessment of August 27, 1976. This is evidenced in Respondents Exhibit No. 9 which is a copy of a letter dated May 27, 1977, from the audit supervisor, Mr. McCrone, to Mr. Farhud. At the April 4, 1977, discussion the subject of pilferage allowance as brought up in the deletion of 4 percent of the purchase price of taxable goods, as to soft drinks, paper and said products, pet foods and miscellaneous sundries were allowed. No allowance was given for beer, wine and tobacco products because these were felt to be out of reach of prospective pilferers. Again, this deletion is found in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 9. The 4 percent figure was arrived at as an industry estimate. Farhud still was not satisfied after the April 4, 1977, conference had been held and adjustments to the assessment had been mode. In view of this dissatisfaction, the Respondent elected to make a new type of audit, which was performed and was premised upon an analysis of the taxable purchases by the Petitioner for the three (3) year period. These purchases were divided into taxable categories and these categories were then marked up in price using an industry average to arrive at the actual taxable sales. The industry average was based upon an examination of the United Food Stores, Inc.'s sales catalog, which had suggested retail prices for low volume and high volume stores. The Respondent gave the Petitioner the benefit of the range of high volume stores, although the Petitioner's store was a neighborhood convenience store and therefore a low volume operation. The effect of allowing the average retail price for the high volume stores was that it made the differential between his purchase price and the retail price less than that for a low volume neighborhood store, causing lesser tax liability. As stated before, this alternative method was elected for the reason that the Respondent had objected that the gross sales figures reported in the monthly tax returns were incorrect, due to the fact that the Petitioner was unable to document his claim for entitlement to certain exemptions due to pilferage and "service fees", and due to the belief that the more correct approach to the audit was the second method. The work sheet on the alternative method may be found on Respondent's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence. The utilization of this method led to the revised assessment of May 27, 1977, which is the subject of the appeal by petition, and amended petition of the Petitioner. This revision was superceded by the second revision of December 5, 1977, which was allowed to be entered without objection from the Petitioner. The second revision reduces the amount of tax liability claimed by the Respondent. An analysis of the documents offered in this cause and the testimony, leads to the conclusion that the Petitioner/taxpayer owed sales tax during the audit period August 1, 1973 through July 31, 1976. Furthermore, the more correct form of audit procedure under the circumstances, was the alternate method employed in arriving at the May 27, 1977 revised Notice of Assessment as further revised by the December 5, 1977 Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment. This conclusion is grounded on the requirements of Section 212.05(1), F.S., which requires persons in the Petitioner's category for the exercise of the privilege of doing business, to assist in levying a tax in the amount of 4 percent in the categories covered. Furthermore, Sections 212.06(3) and 212.07(2), F.S., places the duty on the Petitioner to collect this 4 percent sales tax. The Petitioner failed to act in accordance with the provision of Chapter 212, F.S. and the Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment is correct and in keeping with the authority of Section 212.12(6), F.S.
Recommendation Therefore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest found as Exhibit 3 to the amended petition which total is $2,238.92 be allowed with such adjustments as may be necessary for a computation of interest prior to the rendition of a final order. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan Weil, Esquire 203 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Patricia Turner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Attorney, Division of Administration Department of Revenue Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner is liable for the sales and use tax, penalties, and interest assessed by the Department of Revenue and if so, what amount?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Rowe's Supermarkets, LLC ("Petitioner" or "Rowe's"), is a Florida limited liability company. Robert Rowe was the president and primary shareholder in Rowe's. Respondent, Department of Revenue ("DOR" or "Respondent"), is an agency of the State of Florida authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida. §§ 20.21 and 213.51, Fla. Stat. (2011) During the audit giving rise to this proceeding, Rowe's had its principal address at 5435 Blanding Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Currently, Rowe's is located at 1431 Riverplace Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Rowe's organized in Florida on May 4, 2005. Rowe's was a sales and use tax dealer registered with the Department to conduct business in this state. It was in business approximately four years. Rowe's acquired several former Albertson's grocery retail stores, including the adjacent liquor stores, in Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Orange Park, Florida. During the audit period, Rowe's sold five stores with the adjacent liquor stores. Soon after beginning operation, Rowe's experienced significant financial difficulties which ultimately led to its demise. Its secured lender forced Rowe's to liquidate assets whenever possible, and all proceeds from the sale of the stores were paid directly into a locked account to Rowe's lender, Textron Financial. On October 29, 2008, the Department issued to Rowe's a Notification to Audit Books and Records, Form DR-840, bearing audit number 200048409, for sales and use tax, for the audit period beginning October 1, 2005, and ending September 30, 2008. On August 14, 2009, the Department issued to Rowe's a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, form DR-1215, for sales and use taxes, penalties and interest totaling $321,191.45, with additional interest accruing at $53.71 per day. On August 20, 2009, Rowe's canceled its sales and use tax Certificate of Registration. In a letter dated September 11, 2009, Rowe's requested an audit conference. The requested audit conference was held November 19, 2009. On January 8, 2010, the Department issued the taxpayer a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, form DR-1215, Revision #1, for sales and use tax, penalty and interest totaling $180,435.61, with additional interest accruing at $25.32 per day. On March 10, 2010, the Department issued a NOPA, which indicated Rowe's owed $137,225.27 in sales and use tax; $44,755.99 in interest through March 10, 2010; and $59.70 in penalties, with additional interest accruing at $26.32 per day. Prior to issuance of the NOPA, the Department compromised $34,246.663 in penalties, based upon reasonable cause. By letter dated May 6, 2010, Rowe's filed a protest to dispute the proposed assessment. The letter stated: I am submitting this informal protest on behalf of Rowe's Supermarkets, LLC (RS) as its past President. RS is no longer in business and has not assets. Before this audit began RS was unable to pay its bills. Also, its line of credit, which was secured by all of RS's assets, was in default and had been called by the lender. RS was unable to refinance the loan because of its poor financial condition. As a result, it sold all of its assets to a new company which was able to obtain financing and used the proceeds of that sale to repay its secured loan. RS not only has no assets but also is subject to an unsatisfied judgment lien against it in the amount of $324,936.33, which has been accruing interest at 8% per year from August 25, 2009, the date the judgment was entered by the Circuit Court here in Jacksonville. Even if Supermarkets was still in business and could pay its bills, we don't think it should be assessed with these taxes on the basis of the audit that was conducted. The auditor's lack of communication skills made it difficult for us to understand what information she needed. To the extent we understood her requests, we made every effort to provide her with the relevant information. But because most of the stores RS operated had already been closed, the only repository for obtaining accurate information was RS's general ledger, which she declined to review. She never explained why she made the proposed adjustments. We still don't know. We did our best when RS was operating to properly collect all sales taxes, we reflected all of the sale tax collections in the general ledger and we timely turned over all of the those taxes to the department of revenue, as is clear in the general ledger. We request that the proposed assessment be dropped. The Department issued a Notice of Decision on October 14, 2010, which sustained the assessment in full. In issuing its Notice of Decision, the Department did not review any issues related to the assessment other than doubt as to collectability. With respect to this issue, the Department stated, "[b]ased on our evaluation of all the factors of this case, including the financial information, we have concluded that it is not in the best interest of the State to accept your offer." Petitioner's challenge to the assessment presents five issues: 1) whether it was entitled to an exemption in section 212.12(14) for those additional taxes assessed for "rounding" up to the whole cent as opposed to using the bracket system in section 212.12(9); 2) whether the Department's assessment of additional taxes for expenses was erroneous where it was based on a sampling plan not presented to or agreed to by the taxpayer; 3) whether the additional tax on liquor sales was based on an incorrect application of Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A- 1.057(3)(a); 4) whether the Department violated the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights; and whether the Department was correct in determining that compromise of the assessment based on collectability was not in the best interest of the state. Each issue is treated separately below. The Exemption pursuant to section 212.12(14) Section 212.12(9) and (10), Florida Statutes, requires that sales taxes be paid on a "bracket system," and prescribes the amount of tax due for each portion of a dollar. Subsection (9) provides the tax brackets for those counties, such as St. Johns, which do not have a discretionary sales surtax and for which the tax rate is 6 percent. Subsection (10) provides the brackets for those counties, such as Duval and Clay, where a discretionary sales surtax of one percent has been adopted, making the sales-tax rate 7 percent. Section 212.12(14) provides a "safe harbor" from additional assessment of taxes for those dealers who fail to apply the tax brackets required by section 212.12. The taxpayer is not assessed additional taxes, penalty, and interest based on the failure to apply the bracket system if it meets three requirements: that it acted in a good faith belief that rounding was the proper method of determining the amount of tax due; if it timely reported and remitted all taxes collected on each taxable transaction; and if the taxpayer agrees in writing to future compliance with the law and rules concerning brackets applicable to the dealer's transactions. It is undisputed that Rowe's was not using the bracket system to calculate and collect sales taxes. The point-of-sale cash register system Rowe's purchased when opening its business was represented to Petitioner as compliant with Florida requirements when in fact it was not. The Department's auditor, Delaine Arrington, determined that assessment of additional taxes was appropriate because she believed that Rowe's had not timely reported and remitted all taxes collected on each taxable transaction, and that Rowe's had not agreed in writing to future compliance with respect to the bracketing system. The sales tax records for Rowe's were based upon the meshing of three different computer systems. First, there was a point-of-sale system at each cash register which collected the data, such as sales amounts, taxable sales, and sales tax collected, for each individual transaction. A software system called BR Data would then "pull" the sales data from the individual cash registers to create the cumulative sales register reports for each store. The cumulative data from BR Data was then automatically imported into Petitioner's accounting software, MAS 90, to populate the figures in Rowe's general ledger. Taxes collected were recorded in the general ledger under the credit column. The data in this column was transmitted from BR Data. It could not be adjusted manually, although other columns in the general ledger could be. There were sometimes problems with the transmission of information from BR Data, which generally occurred where there was a power surge or a thunderstorm that would affect the communication of information. As a result of these communication problems, there were times that the sales figure transmitted would be double or triple the actual sales for that day. When such an error was discovered, Rowe's staff would contact BR Data and have the report rebuilt, and the general ledger entry would be corrected. Rowe's informed Ms. Arrington that there had been numerous problems with the exporting process and the resulting need to correct journal entries. Ms. Arrington acknowledged at hearing that she had been advised that due to these problems, the sales figures were sometimes doubled or tripled. Ms. Arrington reviewed the general sales ledger, the cumulative sales register reports, and the sales and use tax returns for the audit period. According to her review, there were three days in August 2006 where the amount of collected tax reflected in the cumulative sales register was higher than what was reflected in the general ledger. Based upon this review, she assessed $1,193.98 in additional sales taxes. For August 1, 2006, the general ledger indicated that $263.48 in sales tax was collected. The cumulative sales report reflected that $790.44 in sales tax was collected. This second number in the cumulative sales report is exactly three times the amount reflected in the general ledger. The difference between the cumulative sales report amount and the general ledger amount is $526.96. For August 2, 2006, the general ledger indicated that $277.04 was collected. The cumulative sales report reflected that $554.08 in sales tax was collected, an amount exactly twice the amount recorded in the general ledger. The difference between the two documents is $277.04. For August 11, 2006, the general ledger indicated that $389.98 in sales tax was collected. The cumulative sales report reflected that $779.96 was collected, an amount exactly twice the amount recorded in the general ledger. The difference between the two documents is $389.98. The difference in the amounts reflected in the general ledger (which Rowe's claims is the more accurate document), and the cumulative sales register (which Ms. Arrington relied upon), is $1,193.98, the amount of additional tax assessed for this item. Ms. Arrington acknowledged at hearing that she credited the cumulative sales register numbers over Rowe's general ledger documents, and that she knew during the audit that there were issues relating to BR Data that occurred during the audit period. The only document upon which she relied was the cumulative sales register. Given the credible testimony by Robert Rowe and Neil Newman regarding the process and the problems encountered with the interface of data, and the fact that in each instance, the difference was an exact multiple of the amount reflected in the general ledger, the greater weight of the evidence presented at hearing supports the finding that the general ledger represents the amount of sales tax actually collected and paid by Rowe's. This finding means that not only is the assessment of additional sales tax for August 2006, in error, but also that means that Rowe's met the second requirement for avoiding the assessment of additional taxes under section 212.12(14) for failing to use the bracket system. Ms. Arrington also found that Rowe's had not agreed in writing to future compliance with the bracket system. On or about November 19, 2009, in conjunction with the Audit Conference, Ms. Arrington prepared an Agreement for Future Compliance (Agreement) and provided it to Mr. Rowe for signature. The text of the Agreement, which is on DOR letterhead and specifically references the Sales and Use Tax Audit number for Rowe's, states: The following dealer had demonstrated the proper actions required by Section 212.12(14),(a) and (b), F.S. (see attachment), and agree [sic] to sign the following suggested form to compliance with the laws concerning brackets applicable to the dealer's transactions in the future. Rowe's Supermarkets, LLC - BP#2134130, succeeded by Rowe's IGA, LLC - 3082649 agrees to future compliance with the laws and rules concerning the proper application of the tax bracket system to the dealer's transactions. Mr. Rowe did not sign the Agreement at the Audit Conference because he wanted to be able to confirm that the point of sale system his store operated could be properly programmed to comply with the bracket system before signing a document stating he would comply. After discussions with both the vendor and Ms. Arrington, and making sure the system was in fact operating in compliance with the requirement, Mr. Rowe signed the Agreement on December 7, 2009, and returned it to the Department. Ms. Arrington did not recall receiving the Agreement, but also admitted she had no specific memory as to whether she received it. Her Case Activity Record indicates that on December 3, 2009, she spoke with Mr. Rowe about whether he was able to input the brackets in his point-of-sale system, and that he indicated he was able to do so. The greater weight of the evidence supports the finding that Mr. Rowe executed and returned the Agreement, and it is so found. The Use Tax Assessment Based on a Sampling Plan Section 212.12 allows the Department to use a sample from the taxpayer's records and project audit findings from the sample to the entire audit period where the records of the taxpayer are "adequate but voluminous in nature and substance." The statute, which is discussed in more detail in the Conclusions of Law, contemplates the use of a sampling plan agreed to by the taxpayer, and in the absence of an agreement, the taxpayer's right to have a review by the Department's Executive Director. The work papers to the Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes dated January 8, 2010, include a sampling plan that runs from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2006 for the calculation of use tax for purchases by Rowe's where sales tax was not collected by the vendor. Ms. Arrington reviewed Rowe's' records for expense purchases for 2006 to determine the total amount of additional tax due for that period. She then took the total additional tax on expenses for that period, i.e., $14,981.26, and divided it by 12 to obtain a monthly average additional tax of $1,248.44. She then applied that number to the entire 36-month audit period to determine a total assessment of additional tax for expense purchases of $44,943.84. Ms. Arrington testified that at the initial audit conference, she discussed different audit techniques in terms of sampling. However, a specific sampling plan was not discussed with Mr. Rowe and no Sampling Agreement was presented to him. No sampling plan was reviewed by the Executive Director. Ms. Arrington did not tell Mr. Rowe that 2006 would be the year used as the sample. Mr. Rowe never would have agreed to the use of 2006 as a sampling plan, because it would not be representative of the expenses incurred during the audit period. Using 2006 as a sampling period did not take into account the store closures during the audit period, and the concomitant reduction in expenses. Rowe's closed two grocery stores by March 2006, and operated only four stores for the remaining three quarters of the year. A third store was closed in January 2007, a fourth in May 2007 and a fifth in 2008, leaving only one store open for the entire audit period. All of the liquor stores were also closed during the audit period, the last one being sold in May 2008. Ms. Arrington knew that Rowe's had closed almost all of its stores during the audit period, and included information regarding the closings in her Standard Audit Report. She acknowledged at hearing that as the stores decreased, the expenses related to those stores would also most likely decrease. For the 12 months of 2006, the Department determined that an additional tax of $14,981.26 would be due, based on purchases of $253,637.22. There has been no evidence presented to rebut the accuracy of the tax assessment for these 2006 purchases. Petitioner presented evidence establishing that, for the 21 months of the audit period following 2006, Rowe's made purchases from the same vendors reflected in the 2006 sample of only $51,073.72, which would result in additional taxes of $3,575.16. No evidence was presented by either party as to whether there were any other purchases from other vendors for which taxes had not been paid. The difference between the use tax assessed against Rowe's by using the sampling plan and taxes due based on the actual purchases demonstrated at hearing is $22,642.08. In addition, there was one vendor, Advo, Inc. (Advo), which accounted for a significant percentage of the tax due based on the sampling plan. While the audit sample period was for twelve months, payments to Advo for a seven-month period accounted for approximately 58% of the total additional taxes due for expenses. There were no purchases from Advo after July 2006 because of Rowe's shrinking assets and inability to pay for direct advertising. Further, 15 of the 23 vendors reflected in the sample period from whom purchases were made had no sales to Rowe's from January 2007 through September 2008. The Department's work papers indicate that, within the sample year, the purchases tapered off significantly as the year progressed. Given the known closure of five grocery stores and six liquor stores during the audit period, using a time period where the most stores were open is not representative of the expenses experienced by Petitioner, and use of the sampling plan to which the taxpayer had not agreed was inappropriate, and led to an inflated assessment of additional taxes. The Effective Tax Rate at the Liquor Stores During the audit period, Rowe's operated package liquor stores adjacent to the grocery stores. By the time the audit commenced, Rowe's no longer owned any of the liquor stores, and no longer had the cash register tapes from the liquor stores. Because of the lack of cash register tapes, the auditor was unable to determine the effective tax rate Rowe's was collecting. She did not, however, ask Rowe's what rate was collected. A review of the sales tax returns indicates that it remitted a flat rate of 6 or 7 percent, depending on the county. These rates were consistent with what Rowe's was collecting for the grocery store sales, and cash register tapes were available from the grocery store. Ms. Arrington applied the tax rates identified in Florida Administrative Code Rules 12A-1.057(3)(a) and 12A- 15.012(2)(a), both of which identify the rate that should be collected where the dealer sells package goods but does not sell mixed drinks; does not separately itemize the sales price and the tax; and does not put the public on notice that tax is included in the total charge. The work papers paraphrase but do not quote the rules. With respect to the liquor store in St. Johns County, the work papers state: "[a]ccording to Rule 12A-1.057(3)(a), F.A.C., when the dealer is located in a county with no surtax and the public has not been put on notice through the posting of price lists or signs prominently displayed throughout the establishment that the tax is included in the total charge, package stores which sell no mixed drinks shall remit tax at the effective rate of .0635." With respect to the liquor stores in Clay and Duval Counties, the work papers state: "[a]ccording to Rule 12A- 15.012(2)(a)1., F.A.C., when a dealer, located in a county imposing a 1% surtax, sells package goods but does not sell mixed drinks and does not put the public on notice that tax is included in the total charge, the dealer is required to remit tax at the effective tax rate of .0730." The Department's auditor made the assumption that tax was not separately itemized for package store sales and assessed the additional tax accordingly. She did not ask the taxpayer whether this was the case and did not ask about signage in the package stores that were no longer owned by Rowe's. Mr. Rowe testified that the same point-of-sale program was used for the liquor stores as were used for the adjacent grocery stores. That program separately identified the tax due. His testimony is unrebutted and is credited. The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights At hearing, Petitioner took the position that the Department violated the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights as stated in section 213.015(5), by its failure to provide Petitioner with a "narrative description which explains the basis of audit changes, proposed assessments, assessments." In its Proposed Recommended Order, however, Petitioner candidly acknowledged that the evidence did not support a finding consistent with Petitioner's position. In light of this concession, no further findings of fact are necessary with respect to this issue. Collectibility Rowe's asserted in its challenge that it was unable to pay any taxes assessed because it was no longer in business and no longer had any assets. The Department declined to exercise its discretion to compromise the tax assessment based on collectability. While not specifically stated in its Notice of Decision, this position was apparently based upon the belief that the taxes could be paid by Rowe's IGA, LLC, to whom the assets of Rowe's was sold, and which shares the same managing member, Robert Rowe. The two companies share a managing member and one common location, which Rowe's sold to Rowe's IGA. However, no evidence was presented regarding the specifics of the assets sold to Rowe's IGA, and the only evidence presented indicates that any proceeds from the sale went to pay the secured lender for Rowe's, Textron Financial. Other than the involvement of Robert Rowe, no connection between the companies was established. Rowe's provided to the Department the copy of a judgment against it for $324,963.33, which bears interest at a rate of 8% annually. The Department did not identify any assets from which either the assessment or the judgment could be paid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order that: Reduces the Department's assessment for additional taxes, penalties, and interest by any amounts attributable to the failure to comply with the sales bracket system at Petitioner's grocery stores; Reduces the Department's assessment for additional use taxes, penalties, and interest by any amounts attributable to the failure to remit all taxes due for the month of August 2006; Reduces the Department's assessment for additional use taxes, penalties, and interest by any amounts attributable to expense purchases for the period January 2007 through September 2008; Sustains the assessment for additional use tax, penalties, and interest for expense purchases in calendar year 2006; Reduces the Department's assessment for additional use taxes, penalties, and interest by any amounts attributable to the asserted basis that Petitioner should have collected tax at a higher effective tax rate at its liquor stores based upon the application of rules 12A-1.057(3)(a) or 12A-15.012(2)(a); Sustains the Department's assessment for additional sales tax, penalties, and interest against Petitioner for failure to pay tax on certain capital asset purchases identified in the audit; Sustains the Department's assessment for additional sales tax, penalties, and interest against Petitioner for failure to pay sales tax on commercial rent payments under certain of Petitioner's store leases identified in the audit; and Sustains the Department's assessment for additional sales tax, penalties, and interest against Petitioner for failure to pay sales tax on Petitioner's payment of ad valorem taxes under certain of Petitioner's store leases identified in the audit. In addition, it is Recommended that the Department reconsider its decision as to whether the remaining assessment is collectible, and whether it is in the best interest of the state to compromise the assessment, based on the record contained in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 July, 2012.
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 18-4475RX, whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.044(5)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in violation of section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.1/ As to DOAH Case No. 18-4992RU, whether the Department of Revenue's ("Department") Standard Audit Plan, Vending and Amusement Machines--Industry Specific, section 1.1.3.3 ("SAP") is an unadopted rule in violation of sections 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Audit Period GBR is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. Gilda Rosenberg is the owner of GBR and a related entity, Gilly Vending, Inc. ("Gilly"). GBR and Gilly are in the vending machine business. At all times material hereto, Amit Biegun served as the chief financial officer of the two entities. The Department is the state agency responsible for administering Florida's sales tax laws pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes. This case concerns the audit period of January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014. GBR's Provision of Vending Machine Services Prior to the audit period, the school boards of Broward and Palm Beach County issued written solicitations through invitations to bid ("ITB"), seeking vendors to furnish, install, stock, and maintain vending machines on school property. The bids required a "full turn-key operation." The stated objectives were to obtain the best vending service and percentage commission rates that will be most advantageous to the school boards, and to provide a contract that will be most profitable to the awarded vendor. The stated goal was that student choices from beverage and snack vending machines closely align with federal dietary guidelines. GBR operates approximately 700 snack and beverage vending machines situated at 65 schools in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade Counties. Of these 65 schools, 43 are in Broward County, 21 are in Palm Beach County, and one is in Miami-Dade County. The snack vending machines are all owned by GBR. Beverage vending machines are owned by bottling companies, such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Of the 700 vending machines, approximately 60 percent of the machines are for beverages and the remaining 40 percent are for snacks. GBR has written vending agreements with some schools. In these agreements, GBR is designated as a licensee, the school is designated as the licensor, and GBR is granted a license to install vending machines on school property in exchange for a commission. Furthermore, GBR is solely responsible to pay all federal, state, and local taxes in connection with the operation of the vending machines. Ownership of the vending machines does not transfer to the schools. However, in some cases the schools have keys to the machines. In addition, designated school board employees have access to the inside of the machines in order to review the meter, monitor all transactions, and reconcile the revenue from the machines. GBR places the vending machines on school property. However, the schools control the locations of the vending machines. The schools also require timers on the machines so that the schools can control the times during the day when the machines are operational and accessible to students. The schools also control the types of products to be placed in the machines to ensure that the products closely align with the federal dietary guidelines. The schools also control pricing strategies. GBR stocks, maintains, and services the vending machines. However, Coca-Cola and Pepsi may repair the beverage machines they own. GBR is solely responsible for repairing the machines it owns. The schools require that any vendor service workers seeking access to the vending machines during school hours pass background checks. GBR route drivers collect the revenue from all of the vending machines and the revenues are deposited into GBR's bank accounts. In exchange for GBR's services, the schools receive from GBR, as a commission, a percentage of the gross receipts. However, neither GBR nor the schools are guaranteed any revenue unless sales occur from the machines. On its federal income tax returns, GBR reports all sales revenue from the vending machines. For the tax year 2012, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $5,952,270. Of this amount, GBR paid the schools $1,363,207, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. For the tax year 2013, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $6,535,362. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $1,122,211, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. For the tax year 2014, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $6,076,255. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $1,279,682, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. Thus, for the audit period, and according to the federal tax returns and general ledgers, GBR's gross receipts or sales were $18,563,887. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $3,765,100, as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. The Department's Audit and Assessment On January 27, 2015, the Department, through its tax auditor, Mary Gray, sent written notice to GBR of its intent to conduct the audit. This was Ms. Gray's first audit involving vending machines at schools. Thereafter, GBR provided Ms. Gray with its general ledger, federal returns, and bid documents. On October 28, 2015, Ms. Gray issued a draft assessment to GBR. The email transmittal by Ms. Gray to GBR's representative states that "[t]he case is being forwarded for supervisory review." In the draft, Ms. Gray determined that GBR owed additional tax in the amount of $28,589.65, but there was no mention of any purported tax on the monies paid by GBR to the schools as a license fee to use real property. However, very close to the end of the audit, within one week after issuing the draft, and after Ms. Gray did further research and conferred with her supervisor, Ms. Gray's supervisor advised her to issue the B03 assessment pursuant to section 212.031 and rule 12A-1.044, and tax the monies paid by GBR to the schools as a license fee to use real property. Thus, according to the Department, GBR was now responsible for tax in the amount of $246,230.93, plus applicable interest. Of this alleged amount, $1,218.48 was for additional sales tax (A01); $4,181.41 was for purchase expenses (B02); $13,790 was for untaxed rent (B02); and $227.041.04 was for the purported license to use real property (B03). Ms. Gray then prepared a Standard Audit Report detailing her position of the audit and forwarded the report to the Department's dispute resolution division. On January 19, 2016, the Department issued the Notice of Proposed Assessment ("NOPA") against GBR for additional tax and interest due of $288,993.31. The Department does not seek a penalty against GBR. At hearing, Ms. Gray testified that the Department's SAP is an audit planning tool or checklist which she used in conducting GBR's audit. Employees of the Department are not bound to follow the SAP, and the SAP can be modified by the auditors on a word document. The SAP was utilized by Ms. Gray during the audit, but it was not relied on in the NOD.4/
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should grant Petitioner's application for a sales tax exemption certificate as a charitable institution within the meaning of Section 212.08(7), Florida Statutes. 1/
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the governmental agency responsible for issuing sales tax exemption certificates in accordance with Section 212.08(7). Petitioner is a non-profit, Florida corporation and a charitable organization, within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, for purposes of the federal income tax. On December 29, 1995, Petitioner applied for an exemption from state sales and use tax ("sales tax") as a charitable institution. On February 8, 1996, Respondent denied Petitioner's application. The parties stipulated that Petitioner is a non-profit corporation. The parties further stipulated that the only exemption under which Petitioner may qualify for a sales tax exemption is the exemption for a charitable institution. In order to qualify as a charitable institution, Petitioner must provide one or more of seven services listed in Section 212.08(7). The parties stipulated that the only service Petitioner arguably provides as a charitable institution is that of raising funds for medical research within the meaning of Section 212.08(7)(o)2b(V). It is uncontroverted that Petitioner does not provide medical research directly. Petitioner raises funds for its national organization. The national organization then disburses funds raised by local affiliates. Petitioner failed to submit any competent and substantial evidence showing the disposition of funds by its national organization. Petitioner failed to show that its national organization either provides direct medical research or raises funds for one or more organizations that provide medical research.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and therein DENY Petitioner's request for a sales tax exemption. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1996.
The Issue Whether the contested and unpaid portions of the tax, penalty and interest assessment issued against Petitioners as a result of Audit No. 9317210175 should be withdrawn as Petitioners have requested?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Shuckers is an oceanfront restaurant and lounge located at 9800 South Ocean Drive in Jensen Beach, Florida. In November of 1992, Petitioner Mesa's brother, Robert Woods, Jr., telephoned Mesa and asked her if she wanted a job as Shuckers' bookkeeper. Woods had been the owner of Shuckers since 1986 through his ownership and control of the corporate entities (initially Shuckers Oyster Bar Too of Jensen Beach, Florida, Inc., and then NAT, Inc.) that owned the business. Mesa needed a job. She therefore accepted her brother's offer of employment, notwithstanding that she had no previous experience or training as a bookkeeper. When Mesa reported for her first day of work on November 19, 1992, she learned that Woods expected her to be not only the bookkeeper, but the general manager of the business as well. Mesa agreed to perform these additional responsibilities. She managed the day-to-day activities of the business under the general direction and supervision of Woods. After a couple of weeks, Woods told Mesa that it would be best if she discharged her managerial responsibilities through an incorporated management company. Woods had his accountant draft the documents necessary to form such a corporation. Among these documents were the corporation's Articles of Incorporation. Mesa executed the Articles of Incorporation and, on December 3, 1992, filed them with the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, thereby creating Petitioner TAN, Inc. TAN, Inc.'s Articles of Incorporation provided as follows: The undersigned subscribers to these Articles of Incorporation, natural persons competent to contract, hereby form a corporation under the laws of the State of Florida. ARTICLE I- CORPORATE NAME The name of the corporation is: TAN, INC. ARTICLE II- DURATION This corporation shall exist perpetually unless dissolved according to Florida law. ARTICLE III- PURPOSE The corporation is organized for the purpose of engaging in any activities or business permitted under the laws of the United States and the State of Florida. ARTICLE IV- CAPITAL STOCK The corporation is authorized to issue One Thousand (1000) shares of One Dollar ($1.00) par value Common Stock, which shall be designated "Common Shares." Article V- INITIAL REGISTERED OFFICE AND AGENT The principal office, if known, or the mailing address of this corporation is: TAN, INC. 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 The name and address of the Initial Registered Agent of the Corporation is: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 ARTICLE VI- INITIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS This corporation shall have one (1) director initially. The number of directors may be either increased or diminished from time to time by the By-laws, but shall never be less than one (1). The names and addresses of the initial directors of the corporation are as follows: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 ARTICLE VII- INCORPORATORS The names and addresses of the incorporators signing these Articles of Incorporation are as follows: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 On the same day it was incorporated, December 3, 1992, TAN, Inc., entered into the following lease agreement with the trust (of which Woods was the sole beneficiary) that owned the premises where Shuckers was located: I, Michael Blake, Trustee, hereby lease to Tan, Inc. the premises known as C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, 9800 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, Florida for the sum of $3,000.00 per month. This is a month to month lease with Illinois Land Trust and Michael Blake, Trustee. Mesa signed the agreement in her capacity as TAN, Inc.'s President. She did so at Woods' direction and on his behalf. No lease payments were ever made under the agreement. 3/ The execution of the lease agreement had no impact upon Shuckers. Woods remained its owner and the person who maintained ultimate control over its operations. At no time did he relinquish any part of his ownership interest in the business to either Mesa or her management company, TAN, Inc. Mesa worked approximately 70 to 80 hours a week for her brother at Shuckers doing what he told her to do, in return for which she received a modest paycheck. Woods frequently subjected his sister to verbal abuse, but Mesa nonetheless continued working for him and following his directions because she needed the income the job provided. As part of her duties, Mesa maintained the business' financial records and paid its bills. She was also required to fill out, sign and submit to Respondent the business' monthly sales and use tax returns (hereinafter referred to as "DR- 15s"). She performed this task to the best of her ability without any intention to defraud or deceive Respondent regarding the business' tax liability. The DR-15s she prepared during the audit period bore NAT, Inc.'s Florida sales and use tax registration number. On the DR-15 for the month of December, 1992, Mesa signed her name on both the "dealer" and "preparer" signature lines. Other DR-15s were co-signed by Mesa and Woods. In April of 1993, Woods told Mesa that she needed to obtain a Florida sales and use tax registration number for TAN, Inc., to use instead of NAT, Inc.'s registration number on Shuckers' DR-15s. In accordance with her brother's desires, Mesa, on or about May 14, 1993, filed an application for a Florida sales and use tax registration number for TAN, Inc., which was subsequently granted. On the application form, Mesa indicated that TAN, Inc. was the "owner" of Shuckers and that the application was being filed because of a "change of ownership" of the business. In fact, TAN, Inc. was not the "owner" of the business and there had been no such "change of ownership." By letter dated June 22, 1993, addressed to "TAN INC d/b/a Shuckers," Respondent gave notice of its intention to audit the "books and records" of the business to determine if there had been any underpayment of sales and use taxes during the five year period commencing June 1, 1988, and ending May 31, 1993. The audit period was subsequently extended to cover the six year period from June 1, 1987 to May 31, 1993. Relying in part on estimates because of the business' inadequate records, auditors discovered that there had been a substantial underpayment of sales and use taxes during the audit period. The auditors were provided with complete cash register tapes for only the following months of the audit period: June, July, August and December of 1992, and January, February, March, April and May of 1993. A comparison of these tapes with the DR-15s submitted for June, July, August and December of 1992, and January, February, March, April and May of 1993 revealed that there had been an underreporting of sales for these months. Using the information that they had obtained regarding the three pre- December, 1992, months of the audit period for which they had complete cash register tapes (June, July and August of 1992), the auditors arrived at an estimate of the amount of sales that had been underreported for the pre- December, 1992, months of the audit period for which they did not have complete cash register tapes. The auditors also determined that Shuckers' tee-shirt and souvenir sales, 4/ Sunday brunch sales, cigarette vending sales, vending/amusement machine location rentals 5/ and tiki bar sales that should have been included in the sales reported on the DR-15s submitted during the audit period were not included in these figures nor were these sales reflected on the cash register tapes that were examined. According of the "Statement of Fact" prepared by the auditors, the amount of these unreported sales were determined as follows: TEE-SHIRT SALES: Sales were determined by estimate. This was determined to be $2,000/ month. No records were available and no tax remitted through May, 1993. SUNDAY BRUNCH SALES: Sales were determined by estimate. This was determined to be 100 customers per brunch per month (4.333 weeks). No audit trail to the sales journal was found and no records were available. CIGARETTE VENDING SALES: The estimate is based on a review of a sample of purchases for the 11 available weeks. The eleven weeks were averaged to determine monthly sales at $3/pack. VENDING MACHINE LOCATION RENTAL REVENUE: The revenue estimate is based on a review of a one month sample. TIKI BAR SALES: The sales estimate is based on a review of infrequent cash register tapes of February, 1993. The daily sales was determined by an average of the sample. The number of days of operation per month was determined by estimate. In addition, the auditors determined that TAN, Inc. had not paid any tax on the lease payments it was obligated to make under its lease agreement with Illinois Land Trust and Michael Blake, Trustee, nor had any tax been paid on any of the pre-December, 1992, lease payments that had been made in connection with the business during the audit period. According to the "Statement of Fact" prepared by the auditors, the amount of these lease payments were determined as follows: The estimate is based on 1990 1120 Corporate return deduction claimed. This return is on file in the Florida CIT computer database. The 1990 amount was extended through the 6/87 - 11/92 period. For the period 12/92 - 5/93 audit period, TAN's current lease agreement of $3,000/month was the basis. No documentation was produced during the audit supporting any the sales tax exemptions that the business had claimed during the audit period on its DR-15s. 6/ Accordingly, the auditors concluded that the sales reported as exempt on the business' DR-15s were in fact taxable. Using records of sales made on a date selected at random (February 1, 1993), the auditors calculated effective tax rates for the audit period. They then used these effective tax rates to determine the total amount of tax due. An initial determination was made that a total of $201,971.71 in taxes (not including penalties and interest) was due. The amount was subsequently lowered to $200,882.28. On or about December 22, 1993, TAN, Inc., entered into the following Termination of Lease Agreement with Ocean Enterprises, Inc.: TAN, Inc., a Florida corporation, hereby consents to termination of that certain lease of the premises known as C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 of ISLAND BEACH CLUB, located at 9800 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, Florida, dated December 3, 1992, acknowledges a landlord's lien on all assets for unpaid rent; and transfers and sets over and assigns possession of the aforesaid units and all of its right, title and interest in and to all inventory, equipment, stock and supplies located on said premises 7/ in full satisfaction of said unpaid rent; all of the foregoing effective as of this 22nd day of December, 1993. FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing termin- ation of lease, OCEAN ENTERPRISES, Inc., a Florida corporation, hereby agrees to pay Linda Mesa, each month all of the net revenues of the operation of the bar and restaurant located on said premises, up to the sum of $15,000.00, for sales tax liability asserted against TAN, Inc. or Linda A. W. Mesa based upon possession or ownership of said premises or any of the assets located thereon, plus attorney's fees incurred in connection with defending or negotiating settlement of any such liability. Net revenue shall mean gross revenue, less operating expenses, includ- ing, but not limited to, rent, up to the amount of $5,000.00 per month, costs of goods sold, utilities, payroll and payroll expense and insurance. OCEAN ENTERPRISES, Inc. represents that it has entered into a lease of said premises for a term of five years commencing on or about December 22, 1993, pursuant to the terms and conditions of which OCEANFRONT [sic] ENTERPRISES, Inc. was granted the right to operate a restaurant and bar business on said premises. Ocean Enterprises, Inc., leases the property from Island Beach Enterprises, which obtained the property through foreclosure. TAN, Inc., has been administratively dissolved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order withdrawing the contested and unpaid portions of the assessment issued as a result of Audit No. 9317210175, as it relates to TAN, Inc., and Linda A. W. Mesa. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of June, 1995. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1995.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner collected and remitted to Respondent the correct amount of sales and use taxes during the audit period from October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2007, and, if not, what additional amount of tax plus penalty and interest is due.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner True Blue Pools (Petitioner, taxpayer, or TBP) is a domestic corporation headquartered in Miami-Dade County, Florida. TBP services, repairs, and renovates swimming pools and constructed some pools during the audit period. Respondent, Florida Department of Revenue (Respondent or DOR), is the agency of state government authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida, pursuant to section 213.05, Florida Statutes.2 DOR is authorized to prescribe the records to be kept by all persons subject to taxes under chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Such persons have a duty to keep and preserve their records, and the records shall be open to examination by DOR or its authorized agents at all reasonable hours pursuant to section 212.12(6), Florida Statutes. DOR is authorized to conduct audits of taxpayers and to request information to ascertain their tax liability, if any, pursuant to section 213.34, Florida Statutes. On November 2, 2007, DOR initiated an audit of TBP to determine whether it was properly collecting and remitting sales and use taxes to DOR. The audit period was from October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2007. On December 15, 2008, DOR sent TBP its Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (NOI), with schedules, showing that TBP owed to DOR additional sales and use taxes in the amount of $113,632.17, penalty in the amount of $28,406.05, and interest through December 16, 2008, in the amount of $34,546.59, making a total assessment in the amount of $176,586.81. On October 26, 2009, DOR issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment. TBP timely challenged the Notice of Proposed Assessment, filing its petition with DOR and requesting an administrative hearing. Subsequent to the petition being filed, additional documentation was provided by TBP resulting in a revision to the tax, interest, and penalty amount due. DOR's revised work papers, dated May 27, 2010, claim Petitioner owes $64,430.83 in tax, $16,107.71 in penalty, and interest through May 27, 2010, in the amount of $27,071.99, with an assessment of $107,610.53. The assessed penalty, $16,107.71, was calculated after 25% of the penalty was waived, pursuant to subsection 213.21(3)(a), Florida Statutes, based on DOR's determination that there is no evidence of willful negligence, willful neglect, or fraud. The audit was conducted to determine liability in four categories: improper sales tax exemptions, unpaid sales taxes for taxable expenses, unpaid use taxes on fixed assets, and unpaid use taxes on taxable materials used to fulfill contracts to improve real property. Sales Tax Exemptions Due to the large volume of invoices and other records, the auditor conducted a random sampling of invoices for three months during the audit period, October 2004, January 2005, and September 2007.3 If no sales tax was collected and the Petitioner claimed that the transaction was exempt from the requirement to pay taxes, the auditor looked for proof that either the TBP customer was an exempt organization, for example, a school or a church, or that TBP had provided its suppliers with a DOR Form DR-13 to exempt from taxes products acquired for resale. In the absence proof of either type of exemption, DOR assumed taxes should have been paid. Using the difference between taxes collected and taxes due for the three months, the auditor determined that the percentage of error was .016521. When .016521 was applied to total sales of $1,485,890.79 for the 36-month audit period, the results showed that an additional $24,548.41 in sales taxes should have been collected from customers, and is due from TBP. Although a business is required to pay taxes for the materials it purchases to use in its business, it is not required to collect taxes from its customers when it enters into lump sum contracts to perform a service for customers. At least one invoice for $9,500.00 that the auditor treated as an improper exemption was, in fact, a partial payment on a lump-sum contract. The invoice referenced a "shotcrete draw," which represented the collection of funds after the concrete part of pool construction was completed. TBP is not required to collect taxes when it uses lump-sum contracts. Other invoices for pool repair and services were also mischaracterized as exempt by the TBP, but it is not clear that all were payments related to lump-sum contracts. DOR's auditor, nevertheless, testified as follows: With the knowledge that I have for True Blue Pools, being a lump-sum contractor, True Blue Pools should not charge their customer any sales tax. Transcript at pages 67-68. DOR concedes that some of TBP's transactions are also exempt from taxes as improvements to real property. In its Proposed Recommended Order, DOR asserted that TBP's use of the term "improvements to real property" is overbroad, but it did not specify how or why this is the case. During cross- examination of the owner of TBP, only one invoice for $500.00 for leak detection on the Delgado property was shown to have been for a service rather than for swimming pool construction. Taxable Expenses DOR audited TBP's purchases of tangible personal property used in the daily operation of its business. The products included chlorine and other chemicals, office supplies, and vehicle parts, expenses, and repairs. The ledger for a 12- month period, calendar year 2006, showed an average monthly additional tax due of $111.18, or a total of $4,002.48 in additional taxes for the 36-month audit period. As noted in Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, "[t]he representative of TBP did not dispute DOR's allegation that no tax may have been paid on the purchase of all of these items " Fixed Assets TBP's list of fixed assets was taken from the depreciation schedule on Internal Revenue Service Form 4562. The items listed are computer- and software-related. TBP provided no proof that it had paid a use tax. The additional tax due equals $419.94. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order includes the statement that "[a]gain, the representative of TBP did not dispute DOR's allegation that no tax may have been paid on the purchase of these items " Taxable Materials Taxable materials, those purchased to fulfill a contract to improve real property, included items used to build, renovate, and repair pools. The items included concrete, meters, drains, and valves. For the 12-month sample period, calendar year 2006, TBP failed to pay taxes on material purchases in the total amount of $168,310.05, or an average of $14,078.96 a month. For the 36-month audit period, the total of the purchases was $506,842.56. With a 6 percent tax due for the state and 1 percent for the county, the total additional tax due on materials is $35,460.00. TBP conceded that it improperly used a resale exemption to purchase taxable materials from suppliers without paying taxes. The materials were used to provide services and were not resold. Acknowledging again that TBP uses lump-sum contracts, this time to support the collection of additional taxes, the auditor testified as follows: And the law states that the taxpayer's [sic] an ultimate consumer of all materials purchased to fulfill a lump-sum contract, and that's what they told me they operate under, a lump-sum contract. Transcript at page 58. At the hearing, TBP used its actual profit and loss statement to show that the cost of goods it sold (general purchases and taxable materials) in the amounts of $18,360.77 in October 2004, $8,519.22 in January 2005, and $4,818.65 in September 2007. Corresponding taxes for each of those months should have been $1,285.25, $596.35, and $337.31, or an average of $739.63 a month, or a total of $26,626.68 for 36 months. The goods that it sold were not at issue in the audit of taxable materials, rather it was TBP's purchases from vendors that should have been taxed that resulted in DOR's audit results. Total Additional Sales and Use Taxes Due The three categories of additional taxes due, $4,002.48 for taxable expenses, $419.94 for fixed assets, and $35,460.00 for taxable materials, equal $39,882.42 in additional taxes due during the audit period. Taxes Paid TBP filed DOR Forms DR-15, monthly sales and use tax reporting forms, and paid sales and use taxes during the audit period. For the sample months used by DOR to examine sales tax exemptions, TBP paid $1,839.10 in taxes in October 2004, $1,672.73 in January 2005, and $1,418.13 in September 2007. Using the three months to calculate an average, extended to 36 months, it is likely that TBP paid $59,712 in taxes. TBP asserted that DOR was required to, but did not, offset the deficiency of $39,882.42, by what appears to be an overpayment of $59,712.00 in sales and use taxes. Other than pointing out that the amount reported on the DR-15s differed, being sometimes more and sometimes less than the amount shown on the profit and loss statements, DOR did not dispute TBP's claim that it had paid sales and use taxes. TBP's representative explained that end-of-the-year adjustments for additional collections or for bad debt could cause the amounts on the DR-15s and profit and loss statements to differ. With regard to the taxes paid, DOR took the following position in its Proposed Recommended Order: Petitioner's DR-15's [sic] for the collection periods October 2004, and January 2005, [and September 2007] (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1) do reflect sales tax being collected and remitted to DOR. DOR does not allege that Petitioner never paid tax on its purchases, or made bona fide exempt sales for which no tax was collected. DOR's audit findings identify just those which occurred within the sample period, scheduled in the auditor's workpapers, and applied over the entire audit period. The DR-15s are taken from the sample months selected by DOR within the audit period, and DOR does not address TBP's claim that a set off for taxes paid was mandatory, pursuant to subsection 213.34(4), Florida Statutes. Using the audit schedules, DOR showed credit for taxes paid in the amounts of $20.63 for taxable expenses, $0 for fixed assets, and $24.31 in state taxes and $1.03 for county taxes on taxable materials. The amounts are far less that the $59,712.00 in sales/use taxes TBP showed that it paid during the audit period.
Recommendation Based upon the forgoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue issue a final order dismissing the Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes dated December 15, 2010. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 20th day of January, 2011.
The Issue The petition that initiated this proceeding challenged the taxes, interest, and penalties assessed against Petitioner by Respondent following an audit and identified the following four issues: Issue One. Does the sale of obsolete games at the "annual game sale" qualify for exemption from sales tax as an occasional or isolated sale? Issue Two. Are the purchases of video games exempt from Florida sales and use tax as sales for resales? Issue Three. Are the purchases of plush exempt from Florida sales and use tax as sales for resale or, alternatively, does taxation of the vending revenues and taxation of purchases of plush represent an inequitable double taxation? Issue Four. Should penalties be assessed based upon the facts and circumstances [of this proceeding].
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an Illinois Corporation headquartered in Texas and licensed to do business in Florida. Petitioner owns and operates video and arcade game amusement centers, hereafter referred to as centers. Petitioner sells to center customers the opportunity to play the games in the centers. Petitioner purchases the games from sources outside itself; it does not manufacture the games it makes available in its centers. Petitioner paid sales tax upon the purchase of machines purchased in Florida and use tax upon the purchase of machines outside Florida and imported for use inside Florida. The Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) is the State of Florida agency charged with the enforcement of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, Tax on Sales, Use and Other Transactions, the Transit Surtax, and the Infrastructure Surtax -- the state and local taxes at issue in this case. The DOR audited Petitioner for the period December 1, 1986 through November 30, 1991, hereafter referred to as the audit period. During the audit period, Petitioner operated 12 centers in the State of Florida. For purposes of the instant litigation, references to the centers will mean only the centers located in Florida. The audit determined that Petitioner owed $51,593.37 in sales and use tax, $440.81 in transit surtax, and $1,459.80 in infrastructure surtax. Each of the sums assessed included penalty and interest accrued as of September 13, 1994. In accordance with section 120.575(3), Florida Statutes, Petitioner paid $32,280 as follows: a. sales and use tax $22,411 b. interest 8,575 c. charter transit surtax 234 d. interest 64 e. infrastructure surtax 750 f. interest 246 The centers make available three types of games. The games are activated either by a coin or a token that is purchased at the center. Video games include pinball machines and electronic games which do not dispense coupons, tickets or prizes. Redemption games include skeeball, hoop shot and water race which dispense coupons or tickets which the player earns according to his or her skill. Merchandise games include electronic cranes which the operator or player maneuvers to retrieve a prize directly from the machine. Merchandise games do not dispense coupons or tickets. The tickets earned in the course of playing redemption games can be exchanged for prizes displayed at the centers. The prizes obtained directly from the merchandise games and exchanged following receipt from redemption games are termed "plush." Plush may be obtained only by seizing it in a redemption game or by redeeming coupons earned during the play of redemption games; it may not be purchased directly for cash. A merchandise game does not dispense an item of plush upon the insertion of a coin or token and activation of the crane's arm -- acquisition of plush requires a certain level of skill on the player's part. A redemption game does not dispense an item of plush upon the insertion of a coin or token and the push of a button -- acquisition of tickets requires a certain level of sill on the player's part. Petitioner purchases plush in bulk and distributes it to the various centers. Each of the centers sells some of its games to individual buyers. Petitioner's headquarters coordinates the sale. For each of the years in the audit period, the centers sold games at various dates. Petitioner characterizes as its "annual sale" the period November 1 through January 10 when most of the sales took place. The specific dates for the sales that took place during the audit period follow; numbers in square brackets indicate the number of sales on a particular date if there is more than one. a. December 1986 through July 1987 -- no information available -- but more than one sale was made during this time. b. November 1987: 2, 5, 7, 10, 17, 18[2], 20, 22, 25, 28[3] c. December 1987: 2, 4, 7, 15, 18, 23 d. November 1988: 4, 5, 7[2], 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20[2], 21[2], 25, 26, 28, 29 e. December 1988: 6, 7, 8, 10[2], 12[2], 16, 21, 22, 23[2], 24 f. January 1989: 3, 6, 7[4], 9, 12 g. November 1989: 6, 15, 16[2], 20 h. December 1989: 1, 6, 10, 22, 29[3], 31 January 1990: 26 March 1990: 26 April 1990: 26 l. June 1990: 12 m. November 1990: 3, 9, 13[2], 14, 16, 19, 24, 26 n. December 1990: 1, 2, 7, 20 January 1991: 8 May 1991: at least 1 q. November 1991: 4, 9, 10, 14, 15, 21 Petitioner did not provide its machine vendors resale certificates upon Petitioner's purchase of the games. Petitioner did not provide its plush vendors resale certificates upon Petitioner's purchase of plush. Petitioner did not apply for a refund of sales tax paid upon its purchase of games in Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained herein. The assessments against Petitioner should be sustained to the extent the assessments are consistent with the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1996.
Findings Of Fact On January 22, 1986, American Aviation Resources, Inc., sold an airplane to Munur Yurtsever, a resident of Brazil. This aircraft was a Hansa jet model HFB-320 with U.S. registration number N71DL (the subject aircraft). On January 28, 1986, Mr. Yurtsever transferred title of the subject aircraft to Petitioner, Selcuk Yetimoglu. At the time of the transfer, the subject aircraft was in the State of Florida undergoing repairs. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Yetimoglu resided at 20530 Jacaranda Road, Cutler Ridge, Miami, Florida, in a residence owned by Mr. Yurtsever. The aircraft bill of sale dated January 28, 1986, reflects that Mr. Yetimoglu was the purchaser of the subject aircraft and that Mr. Yurtsever was the seller. The bill of sale recited that the consideration paid was $20.00 and other good and valuable consideration. While the bill of sale reflects that Mr. Yetimoglu resided in Miami, Florida, the bill of sale does not state that the sale occurred in the State of Florida. On January 29, 1986, Mr. Yetimoglu applied to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the registration of the subject aircraft in his name. On March 13, 1986, Mr. Yetimoglu wrote to the FAA regarding the registration and stated, in pertinent part, as follows: Mr. Munur Yurtsever sold the aircraft to me on January 28, 1986, five days after he bought the aircraft from American Aviation Resources, Inc. when he found out that the government of Brazil did not give him a (sic) permission to import the aircraft and that he could not register the aircraft in the United States because he was not a citizen of the United States. By letter dated May 15, 1986, Mr. Yetimoglu provided the FAA proof that the subject aircraft had not been registered in Brazil. Mr. Yetimoglu was the record owner of the subject aircraft between January 28, 1986, and March 13, 1987. On March 13, 1987, Mr. Yetimoglu sold the subject aircraft back to Mr. Yurtsever. The bill of sale identifies the purchaser as being: Munur Yurtsever Rico Taxi Aereo Ltda. Av. Mal. Camara 160-GR. Rio de Janeiro - RJ Brazil On April 8, 1987, Mr. Yetimoglu wrote the FAA and stated, in pertinent part: ... I request cancelation of U.S. registra- tion for the aircraft ... because I sold the aircraft back to Rico Taxi Aereo Ltda. ... On January 11, 1988, Respondent issued to Petitioner a "Notice of Delinquent Tax Penalty and Interest Due and Assessed" (Notice of Assessment) based on the transaction involving Mr. Yetimoglu, Mr. Yurtsever, and the subject aircraft. The Notice of Assessment contained the following statement: "This Department has information that you purchased the following aircraft. However, there is no evidence of payment of Florida Sales and/or Use Tax". The Notice of Assessment reflected that Respondent had, pursuant to Section 212.12(5)(b), Florida Statutes, estimated the value of the aircraft as being $320,000 and assessed the following taxes, interest, and penalties: Florida State Sales/Use Tax 5% $16,000.00 (Estimated) Per 212.06(8), F.S. Penalty 5% per month; Maximum 25% of 4,000.00 (25%) Tax Due Per Section 212.12(2), F.S. Additional Penalty 11,840.00 (50%) Per 212.12(2)(a), F.S. Interest = 1% per month from date of 3,680.00 (23%) Purchase To Date of Payment Per Section 212.12(3), F.S. Less Tax Paid ----------------- TOTAL DUE WITH THIS NOTICE $35,520.00 Respondent requested that Mr. Yetimoglu provide it information and documentation as to the value of the aircraft. Mr. Yetimoglu contends that he paid Mr. Yurtsever nothing for the aircraft, that the title was transferred to him and registered in the FAA in his name so that the aircraft could be test flown after it was repaired, and that Mr. Yurtsever had paid $100,000 for the aircraft. There was no evidence as to the sales price that Mr. Yetimoglu paid for the aircraft other than Mr. Yetimoglu's testimony. Respondent estimated that the reasonable value of the subject aircraft on January 28, 1986, was $320,000. This estimate was based on an appraisal prepared for Respondent and assumed that the aircraft was in a scrapped or junked condition. Respondent generally uses a standard reference work on the value of aircraft to assist it in estimating the value of the subject aircraft. Because of its age and model, the subject aircraft is no longer listed in this standard reference. In support of his contention that Mr. Yurtsever paid $100,000 for the aircraft, Mr. Yetimoglu provided Respondent with a copy of a wire transfer of funds from Mr. Yurtsever to American Aviation Resources, Inc. in the amount of $100,000. However, there was no documentation provided that established that the $100,000 constituted the entire purchase price paid by Mr. Yurtsever. The dispute between the parties as to the value of the aircraft is resolved by finding, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that the reasonable value of the aircraft at the times pertinent to this proceeding was $320,000.00. In December 1986, while Mr. Yetimoglu was the record owner, the subject aircraft engaged in international flight between the Turks and Caicos Islands and the State of Florida. Respondent's Notice of Redetermination, dated February 26, 1990, upheld the Notice of Assessment on the basis that the underlying transaction was subject to use tax pursuant to Section 212.06(8), Florida Statutes. The issue to be resolved was framed by the Notice of Redetermination as being: "The only issue involved pertains to a use tax assessment upon an aircraft brought into this country". This determination was based, in part, upon a letter to Respondent from an attorney who was representing Mr. Yetimoglu at the time the letter was written. 1/ The letter implied that the aircraft was brought into Florida after the title was transferred to Mr. Yetimoglu, and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The transferor of the aircraft, Munur Yurtsever, is a nonresident alien. His inten- tion is to deliver the plane to a purchaser outside the country. Mr. Yurtsever advises that the F.A.A. will not allow the plane to be flown in this country unless it is owned by a U.S. resident. As it was imperative to fly the plane here in order to prepare it for its flight outside the country, Mr. Yurtsever transferred the plane to his partner, Selcuk Yetimoglu, who is a resident of the United States. ... At the formal hearing, Mr. Yetimoglu established that the aircraft was in Florida undergoing repairs at the time the title was transferred to him. Prior to and at the formal hearing, Respondent asserted the position that use taxes, interest, and penalties were due for this transaction. In its post- hearing submittal, Respondent, for the first time in this proceeding, contends that sales taxes, interest and penalties are due for this transaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which withdraws the subject assessment. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of March, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1991.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner owes unpaid sales and use tax for the period extending from May 1, 1986, through April 30, 1991, and, if so, the amount owed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Jay P. Weiss is a Florida-licensed motor vehicle dealer, and he has been licensed in Florida for 27 years. Mr. Weiss does business as Jay P. Weiss, Inc. ("Weiss"), and Weiss is, and was during the times material to this proceeding, in the business of selling cars for resale. Weiss purchases motor vehicles at auction, from banks, from leasing companies, or from other dealers; reconditions the vehicles; and sells the majority of the vehicles to other dealers for resale. During the times material to this proceeding, Weiss purchased an average of 400 to 500 vehicles each year. During the times material to this proceeding, the locations from which Weiss conducted business consisted of an office and an adjacent shop in which vehicles were reconditioned. The locations did not include a showroom or a retail car lot, and Weiss did not advertise that vehicles were offered for retail sale on the premises. Nonetheless, people often walked into the office and inquired if Weiss sold cars at retail. Occasionally, Weiss sold cars to customers at retail. Motor vehicle purchases and sales were recorded on "title jackets," which contained information regarding each vehicle purchased and sold by Weiss, including the identification of the vehicle; the date of purchase, the purchase price and the identity of the person from whom the vehicle was purchased; the date of sale, the sales price, and the identity of the person to whom the vehicle was sold; and relevant title information. Duplicate information for each vehicle was included in "police books" maintained at Weiss's offices. Mr. Weiss was in Weiss's office about nine hours per week, including weekends. Throughout the week, he traveled to various auctions throughout the state, although he routinely called his office several times each day. In addition to Mr. Weiss and the employees who worked in the shop, Weiss employed a bookkeeper that was responsible for managing the office and handling all of the accounts and records for the business, including preparation of the Florida Sales and Use Tax Return Form DR-15. The bookkeeper also provided information to Weiss's accountants from which Weiss's U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation, Form 1120S, was prepared. During the times material to this proceeding, three successive bookkeepers were employed by Weiss, two of whom were employed approximately three years each. Section 212.12(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), grants to the Department of Revenue the authority to audit the books and records of any dealer subject to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, Tax on Sales, Use, and Other Transactions, to determine if the dealer overpaid or underpaid Florida sales and use taxes. Pursuant to this authority, the Department conducted an audit of the books and records of Weiss, for the period extending from May 1, 1986, through April 30, 1991. The Department initially concluded that Weiss owed $115.442.57 additional tax due on sales for the audit period and $10,706.94 additional tax due on purchases for the audit period, plus delinquent penalties and interest through December 6, 1991. Weiss provided additional documentation, and these amounts were revised downward in a Notice of Intent to Make Sales & Use Tax Changes dated January 13, 1993, to reflect $79,065.07 additional tax due on sales for the audit period and $10,706.94 additional tax due on purchases for the audit period, plus delinquent penalties and interest through January 13, 1993. The schedules and work papers from which the revised assessments were derived were attached to the January 13, 1993, notice. In conducting the audit of Weiss's books and records, the Department's auditor examined books and records made available to her at Weiss's business location and at the office of Weiss's accountant on August 1, 7, and 28, 1991; September 6, 1991; January 29 and 30, 1992; and February 5, 1992. Mr. Weiss never met the Department's auditor, although he did talk with her on the telephone. He has no personal knowledge of the records requested by the auditor or whether all of the requested records were provided. According to the affidavit of the accountant who prepared Weiss's federal tax returns for 1988, 1989, and 1990, which was introduced into evidence by Weiss, the accountant became aware of inaccuracies in the bookkeeping by Weiss "because of the audit by the Florida DOR and due to the fact that all details of bookkeeping records were either lost or misplaced it was recommended to Jay P. Weiss that an outside bookkeeper be hired to recreate the books and records." Weiss followed its accountant's advice, and the Department's auditor examined, and accepted as accurate, documents entitled "Sales Reconciliation" for 1988, 1989, and 1990, which were prepared by the outside accountant hired by Weiss. These documents itemized for each month of these years the corrected income received by Weiss from taxable sales, rents, and exempt sales; corrected taxable amounts; corrected sales tax; the original amount of tax paid; and the sales tax owed or overpaid. The Department's auditor concluded that additional sales tax was due in the amount of $4,281,57, attributable to unreported rental income collected by Weiss on commercial property it owned, as reflected in Schedule A-1 of the audit papers. The auditor calculated the additional taxable amount of rental income for the years 1988 and 1989 for which no tax had been paid based on the information provided by Weiss in the sales reconciliations and identified the actual rental income for 1990 based on Weiss's records. The auditor totaled the amount of additional rental income for these three years, divided the total by 36, the number of months in the sample period, and projected this average monthly amount of additional taxable rental income for each month of the 5-year audit period. The appropriate tax rate was applied to calculate the additional sales tax owed for each month, and these amounts were totaled for the 5-year audit period. 1/ The Department's auditor concluded that additional sales tax was due on retail sales of automobiles in the amount of $20,538.31, as reflected in Schedule A-3 of the audit papers. This amount was based on a comparison of the information provided by Weiss in the Florida Sales and Use Tax Returns, Form DR-15's, that it filed with the Department for 1988 and 1989 with the corrected taxable sales included by Weiss's accountant in the sales reconciliations prepared for 1988 and 1989. The auditor first totaled the taxable sales reported on the Form DR-15's for 1988 and 1989, which was $81,736.00, and the revised taxable sales included in the sales reconciliations for 1988 and 1989, which was $131,063.00, and then calculated a weighted error ratio of approximately 1.603492, meaning that Weiss's actual taxable sales were approximately 60 percent higher than reported in the Form DR-15's submitted by Weiss to the Department. The auditor then projected the total additional taxable sales by multiplying the taxable sales reported on the Form DR-15s by .603492 to arrive at the additional taxable sales for each month of the audit period. The appropriate tax rate was applied to calculate the additional sales tax attributable to additional taxable motor vehicle sales for each month, and these amounts were totaled for the 5-year audit period. The Department's auditor concluded that additional sales tax was due on undocumented sales in the amount of $54,245.19, as reflected in Schedule A-2 of the audit papers. In reaching this conclusion, the auditor reviewed the U.S. Income Tax Returns for an S Corporation, Form 1120S's, filed by Weiss with the Internal Revenue Service for 1988, 1989, and 1990, and the Florida Sales and Use Tax Returns, Form DR-15's, filed with the Department for the same period of time. The Department routinely compares the gross sales reported on the federal income tax returns with the total sales reported to the Department on Form DR-15's to determine if there is a difference between the amounts reported. The Department considers the gross sales reported on federal income tax returns to be more reliable than the total sales reported to the Department because it is assumed that taxpayers will not over-report sales to the federal government. If the gross sales reported on the federal income tax returns are greater than the total sales reported to the Department on the Form DR-15's for the applicable period, the Department asks for documentation from the taxpayer to account for the difference. If the taxpayer is unable to provide such documentation, the Department presumes that the difference is attributable to taxable sales. In concluding that Weiss owed additional tax on undocumented sales, the auditor compared the gross sales reported by Weiss in the U.S. Income Tax Returns for an S Corporation, Form 1120S's, filed with the Internal Revenue Service for 1988, 1989, and 1990 with the revised total sales reportable on the Florida Sales and Use Tax Returns, Form DR- 15's, filed with the Department for the same years. The auditor broke down Weiss's revised total sales into revised taxable sales based on Schedule A-3 of the audit papers, revised rental income based on Schedule A-1 of the audit papers, and revised exempt sales identified in the sales reconciliations for 1988, 1989, and 1990. 2/ The total gross sales Weiss reported on the Form 1120S's for 1988, 1989, and 1990 were higher than the revised total sales reported by Weiss on the Form DR-15's for the same years. The auditor calculated the monthly difference between the gross sales and the revised total sales for 1988, 1989, and 1990, 3 and, because no documentation was provided to establish that the difference was attributable to exempt sales, the difference was attributed to taxable sales. The average monthly difference was calculated, and this amount was projected for each month of the audit period. The appropriate tax rate was applied to calculate additional sales tax owed for each month, and these amounts were totaled to determine the additional sales tax due for the 5-year audit period. Because inaccuracies in the gross sales included in the Form 1120S's filed with the Internal Revenue Service for 1988, 1989, and 1990 were discovered by Weiss's accountant as a result of the recreation of Weiss's books by the outside accountant, Weiss's accountants prepared amended Form 1120S's for those years. The amended forms were sent to Weiss for execution and filing. Mr. Weiss cannot recall whether the amended returns were filed, and the Internal Revenue Service has no record that these amended returns were filed. For this reason and because Weiss did not provide any documentation to support the revised gross sales included in the amended returns, the Department refused to consider the gross sales reported in the amended Form 1120S's. The Department's auditor concluded that additional tax in the amount of $1,334.07 was due from Weiss with respect to purchases of consumable supplies, that is, supplies that did not become a component part of a motor vehicle. This conclusion was based on the auditor's review of invoices provided by Weiss for 1990 and the auditor's determinations that, of the $6,903.86 total derived from the invoices, $4,722.07 was taxable and that Weiss had paid no tax on the purchases. The average monthly taxable amount was calculated, the appropriate tax rate was applied to determine the additional tax owed for each month, and these amounts were totaled for the 5-year audit period. The Department's auditor concluded that, based on records provided by Weiss, additional tax was owed on fixed assets in the amount of $86.34. The Department's auditor concluded that additional tax was due in the amount of $9,286.53 on amounts paid by Weiss for commercial rentals and on amounts paid by Weiss in the form of mortgage payments on property it occupied that was owned by Jay P. Weiss, individually, who was also individually obligated under the note and mortgage on the property. This determination that additional tax was due was based on documentation Weiss provided to the auditor. After the January 13, 1993, Notice of Intent to Make Sales & Use Tax Audit Changes was issued, Weiss provided additional documentation to the Department. As a result of the new information, the amount of additional tax due was revised downward in a Notice of Intent to Make Sales & Use Tax Audit Changes dated March 22, 1995, which identified $75,998.46 additional tax due on sales for the audit period and $8,382.94 additional tax due on purchases for the audit period, for a total amount due of $166,800.43, including delinquent penalties and interest accrued as of March 22, 1995. This total amount was the final sustained amount identified in the Notice of Reconsideration dated May 10, 1995, which is the subject matter of this proceeding, and the notice includes a discussion of the basis for the revisions made to the January 13, 1993, assessment. After this case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, a representative of the Department met with Weiss's accountant. The Department's representative requested that Weiss provide any additional documentation that would explain the difference between the gross sales reported on the Form 1120S's and the revised total sales reportable on the Form DR-15's or that would support any further change in the sales and use tax assessment. No further documentation was provided. The evidence presented by the Department establishes that a sales and use tax audit assessment was made against Weiss, for the audit period extending from May 1, 1986, through April 30, 1991, and establishes the factual basis for that assessment. The methodology used by the Department's auditor to calculate the assessment was proper under the circumstances, and the Department's assessment for sales and use tax for the audit period, as revised in the May 10, 1995, Notice of Reconsideration, is reasonable. Weiss did not present any persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order upholding its assessment against Jay P. Weiss, Inc., in full, including all taxes, penalties, and interest statutorily due until the date of payment of the sales and use tax. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 2000.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is liable for the tax, penalty, and interest assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located at 2836 North Tamiami Trial, Sarasota, Florida. Petitioner primarily engages in the business of selling classic, vintage automobiles. Petitioner sells automobiles for delivery in-state, interstate, and internationally. Petitioner also engages in the business of selling other collectible items, including jukeboxes. Respondent is the state agency responsible for the administration of the Florida sales and use tax pursuant to Sections 20.21 and 213.05, Florida Statutes (1991). (All references to Florida Statutes are to Florida Statutes 1991 unless otherwise stated.) In accordance with Section 212.34, Respondent audited Petitioner's business records for the period from May 1, 1991, through July 31, 1996 (audit period). Respondent determined a deficiency and assessed Petitioner for $114,878.68, including tax, penalty, and interest through January 26, 1999. Respondent assessed tax in the amount of $55,771.16, penalty in the amount of $26,528.02, and interest through January 26, 1999, in the amount of $32,579.50. Additional interest accrues at the daily rate of $20.97. The assessed tax is based on several alleged deficiencies. Some deficiencies involve alleged failures of Petitioner to comply with taxing provisions. Other deficiencies involve alleged failures of Petitioner to comply with the requirements of claimed exemptions. Taxing provisions are construed narrowly against the taxing authority while the provisions authorizing exemptions are construed narrowly against the person claiming the exemption. The assessment against Petitioner includes tax on $51,353.10 in under-reported retail sales for 1994. Respondent compared the gross income reported by Petitioner for the 1994 tax year with the state sales tax revenues reported by Petitioner for the same year and determined that Petitioner under-reported sales tax revenues in the amount of $51,353.10. Mr. Martin Godbey is a corporate officer for Petitioner and a controlling shareholder. Mr. Godbey testified at the hearing. Mr. Godbey testified that $45,000 of the $51,353.10 was not under-reported gross sales in 1994. According to Mr. Godbey, Petitioner's accountant over-reported gross income for purposes of the federal income tax. Petitioner derives some income from providing brokerage services as an liaison between a buyer and seller. Mr. Godbey testified that Petitioner earned $1,400 in 1994 as a broker for the sale of a 1956 Jaguar XJ140 roadster on behalf of an automobile dealership in Virginia. The testimony is that Petitioner introduced the seller and buyer but never possessed the vehicle or delivered the vehicle. The price of the vehicle was approximately $45,000. Mr. Godbey testified that Petitioner's accountant incorrectly reported $45,000 as gross income under the federal income tax law and reported the difference between $45,000 and $1,400 as the cost of goods sold. The testimony of Mr. Godbey was credible and persuasive. However, the testimony was not supported by documentary evidence of Petitioner's federal income tax return or by testimony of Petitioner's accountant. The unsupported testimony of Mr. Godbey does not rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner over-reported gross income for the purpose of the federal income tax rather than under-reported gross sales for the purpose of the state sales tax. The testimony of Mr. Godbey did not explain the difference between the $51,353.10 amount determined by Respondent and $45,000 amount testified to by Mr. Godbey. For the period from 1991 through 1993, Petitioner collected sales tax on retail sales but did not remit the tax to Respondent. Rather, Petitioner paid the tax to two automobile dealers identified in the record as International Antique Motors, Inc. (IAM) and Autohaus Kolar, Inc. (AK). Petitioner registered with Respondent as a dealer sometime in 1991. However, Petitioner did not obtain a retail dealer's license from the Department of Motor Vehicles (Department) until late in 1993. From 1991 through most of 1993, Petitioner was licensed by the Department as a wholesale dealer and was not authorized by the Department to engage in retail sales of motor vehicles. Section 320.27(2) prohibited Petitioner from selling motor vehicles at retail and made such sales unlawful. Petitioner asserts that it could not have engaged in retail sales, within the meaning of Section 212.06(2)(c) and (d), because Petitioner had no legal authority to do so. From 1991 through 1993, Petitioner engaged in retail sales within the meaning of Section 212.06(2)(c) and (d). Petitioner engaged in retail sales by selling automobiles at retail in violation of Section 320.27(2). Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner collected sales tax on each sale. Petitioner did not engage in retail sales and collect sales tax on each sale in the capacity of an agent for IAM or AK. Petitioner acted in his own behalf as a principal. IAM and AK had no actual or legal control over the sales conducted by Petitioner. IAM and AK merely processed the title work for each retail sale conducted by Petitioner. Even if Petitioner were an agent for IAM and AK, Petitioner engaged in retail sales as a dealer defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.0066. (All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code during the audit period.) Petitioner registered the vehicles sold at retail from 1991 through 1993 by way of a business arrangement with IAM and AK. After Petitioner collected sales tax on each retail sale, Petitioner remitted the tax to IAM and AK. IAM and AK then registered the vehicles with the Department. Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner paid to IAM and AK the sales tax that Petitioner collected from each customer. Nor does Respondent dispute that the amount of tax Petitioner paid to IAM and AK was sufficient to pay the tax due. Section 212.06(10) requires IAM and AK to issue a receipt for sales tax with each application for title or registration. IAM obtained title or registration for 21 vehicles sold by Petitioner and at issue in this case. AK obtained title or registration for three vehicles at issue in this case. Section 212.06(10) does not operate to create a factual presumption that IAM and AK paid the sales tax due on the 24 vehicles at the time that IAM and AK applied for title or registration of each vehicle. In practice, the receipt issued by dealers with each application for title or registration contains a code indicating that the dealer has collected the tax and will pay the tax in the dealer's ensuing sales tax return. After IAM applied for title or registration for the vehicles evidenced in Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 4, 6, and 21, IAM remitted taxes to Respondent in an amount sufficient to pay the tax due on those sales by Petitioner. Respondent has no record of any tax deficiencies against IAM. Respondent's admitted policy is to avoid the collection of tax if the tax has already been paid. After IAM applied for title or registration for the vehicles evidenced in Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3, 5, and 7 through 20, IAM remitted taxes to Respondent in an amount that was insufficient to pay the tax due on those sales. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that IAM remitted to Respondent the taxes that Petitioner collected and paid to IAM in connection with the sales evidenced in Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3, 5, and 7 through 20. Petitioner is not entitled to a set-off of the taxes remitted to Respondent by IAM after the sales evidenced in Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3, 5, and 7 through 20. There is insufficient evidence to show that the taxes remitted by IAM were collected on the sales at issue in this case rather than other sales made by IAM. AK processed three vehicles for Petitioner that are at issue in this case. AK paid to Respondent the sales tax due on the three retail sales at issue. The relevant sales are evidenced in Petitioner's Exhibits 24 through 26. AK remitted taxes in an amount that was more than sufficient to pay the tax due on those sales by Petitioner. Respondent has no record of a tax deficiency against AK. Respondent's policy is to avoid the collection of tax if tax has already been paid. Several deficiencies are attributable to disallowed exemptions for 16 sales that include 14 vehicles and two jukeboxes. Statutory requirements for exemptions are strictly construed against the person claiming the exemption. Petitioner did not satisfy essential requirements for any of the disallowed exemptions. The exemptions asserted by Petitioner in its PRO are discussed in greater detail in the following paragraphs. During the audit period, Petitioner sold a 1972 Italia Spyder automobile, VIN: 50413414, to a Texas automobile dealership identified in the record as North American Classic Cars/Gene Ponder, of Marshall, Texas (North American). Petitioner claims that the sale to North American is exempt because it is a sale for resale to a non-resident dealer. The sale to North American is not exempt. Petitioner failed to obtain a non-resident dealer affidavit at the time of sale in violation of Section 212.08(10). During the audit, Petitioner obtained a Sales Tax Exemption Affidavit (DR-40) from North American. A DR-40 is not appropriate for a sale for resale to a non-resident dealer. The appropriate affidavit would have required the non-resident dealer to attest that "the motor vehicle will be transported outside of the State of Florida for resale and for no other purpose." Hand written notations on the bill of sale for the Italia Spyder indicate the North American representative took possession of the automobile in Florida. In addition, a hand- written letter to Petitioner indicates that the Italia Spyder was purchased for the private collection of the owner of North American rather than for resale. During the audit period, Petitioner sold a 1959 Mercedes Benz 190SL automobile, VIN: 12104-10-95012, to Mike Hiller, of Coral Springs, Florida (Hiller). Petitioner claimed, on the bill of sale, that the sale was exempt because it was a sale to a non-resident dealer for resale. The sale to Hiller is not exempt. At the time of the sale, Petitioner failed to obtain a non-resident dealer affidavit or a resale certificate. The bill of lading lists Hiller as an exporter and indicated that Hiller, as the exporter, took possession of the automobile in Florida. The bill of lading does not show unbroken, continuous transportation from the selling dealer to a common carrier or directly out of Florida as required in Section 212.06(5)(b)1. During the audit period, Petitioner sold a 1959 MGA Roadster, VIN: 54941, to Fabiana Valsecchi, of Rome, Italy. Petitioner claims the sale is exempt as a sale for export. The sale to Valsecchi is not exempt. At the time of the sale, Petitioner failed to obtain a bill of lading, or other shipping documentation that shows unbroken, continuous transportation from Petitioner to a common carrier or directly out of Florida. The bill of sale signed by the purchaser's agent shows that the agent took possession of the automobile in Florida. Petitioner failed to show that the sale was exempt because it was a sale for resale. Petitioner did not provide a resale certificate from the purchaser. During the audit period, Petitioner sold a 1961 Triumph TR3 automobile, VIN: TS753 38L, to Classic Automobile Investors, Inc., of Germany (Classic). Petitioner claims that the sale is exempt because it was a sale for export. The sale to Classic is not exempt. At the time of sale, Petitioner failed to obtain a bill of lading, or other shipping documentation which shows unbroken, continuous transportation from Petitioner to a common carrier or directly out of Florida. During the audit period, Petitioner sold a 1947 Bentley MKVI automobile, VIN: B137B, to Mr. Bob Erickson, of Palmetto, Florida. Petitioner failed to collect and remit Local Government Surtax on the sale and owes the uncollected tax. During the audit period, Petitioner sold two jukeboxes and other items of tangible personal property to Mr. C.P. Loontjens. Petitioner claims that the sales are exempt from sales tax because they were sales for export. At the time of the sale, Petitioner failed to obtain documentation from the buyer to show that items sold were delivered to a common carrier or directly delivered outside of Florida. During the audit period, Petitioner was engaged in the business of selling items of tangible personal property other than vehicles and jukeboxes. Petitioner failed to collect and remit sales tax on the sale of these items of tangible personal property. Respondent properly assessed Petitioner for sales tax due on tangible personal property other than vehicles and jukeboxes in the amount of $3,352.50. Vintage rented commercial real property for its business. Rental payments for such real property are subject to sales tax pursuant to Section 212.031. During the audit period, Petitioner failed to pay sales tax on two payments for the commercial rental of real property. Petitioner is liable for use tax on the use of real property during the audit period. Respondent properly assessed Petitioner for additional use tax in the amount of $108.00. Although Petitioner maintained some books and records of sales and purchases, Petitioner failed to maintain adequate records. Respondent properly conducted an audit by sampling Petitioner's available books and records in accordance with Section 212.12(6)(b) but limited the claimed penalty to a delinquent penalty. The trier of fact cannot determine the taxes, interest, and penalty that are due after eliminating the deficiencies found in paragraphs 21 and 24 not to exist in connection with the sales evidenced in Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 4, 6, 21, and 24 through 26. Only Respondent can make that calculation using the same sampling formula that Respondent used to calculate the tax, interest, and penalty in the assessment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order ordering Petitioner to pay the tax, interest, and penalty that is due after Respondent recalculates the assessment against Petitioner in accordance with the findings pertaining to Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 4, 6, 21, and 24 through 26. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Martha F. Barrera, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 R. John Cole, II, Esquire Law Offices of R. John Cole, II 46 North Washington Boulevard, Suite 24 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
