The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is liable for sales and use taxes, penalties, and interest and, if so, how much.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operated a bar and grill in Punta Gorda that served beer, wine, liquor, and food at retail. In the course of business, Petitioner collected tax from the customers. Petitioner reported to Respondent sales tax collections for May 1996, November 1996, March 1997, November 1997, and December 1997. In connection with these collections, Petitioner remitted to Respondent seven checks representing the net tax due Respondent. These checks totaled $6700.64. The bank on which the checks were drawn dishonored them. The remittance of net sales tax proceeds by payment through checks that are later dishonored implies a fraudulent, willful intent to evade the payment of these sums. Respondent has issued five warrants concerning the unremitted taxes, penalties, and interest. Warrant 953620064 shows that Petitioner owes $1171 in sales tax remittances for the five months from July through November 1995. With penalties and interest, the total due on this warrant, through June 5, 1998, is $1832.37. Interest accrues after June 5 at the daily rate of $0.35. Warrant 467049 shows that Petitioner owes $2940.25 in sales tax remittances for the following months: April 1996, October 1996, December 1996, and January 1997. Petitioner purportedly paid each of these remittances with five (two in January) checks that were later dishonored. With penalties, including the 100 percent penalty for fraud, and interest, the total due on this warrant, through June 5, 1998, is $7480.12. Interest accrues after June 5 at the daily rate of $0.95. Warrant 971680037 shows that Petitioner owes $1301.85 in sales tax remittances for the following months: December 1995, June 1996, July 1996, September 1996, November 1996, and February 1997. With penalties and interest, the total due on this warrant, through June 5, 1998, is $2669.69. Interest accrues after June 5 at the daily rate of $0.43. Warrant 471481 shows that Petitioner owes $2912.48 in sales tax remittances for October and November 1997, for which Petitioner made remittances with two dishonored checks. With penalties, including the 100 percent penalty, and interest, the total due on this warrant, through June 5, 1998, is $6751.49. Interest accrues after June 5 at the daily rate of $0.95. Warrant 989840034 shows that Petitioner owes $8077.76 in sales tax remittances for the following months: August 1997, September 1997, December 1997, January 1998, and February 1998. With interest, the total due on this warrant, through June 5, 1998, is $8285.21. Interest accrues after June 5 at the daily rate of $2.65. Totaling the five warrants, Petitioner owes a total of $27,018.88 in taxes, penalties, and interest through June 5, 1998, and $5.33 per day for each ensuing day until the amount is paid.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order determining that Petitioner owes $27,018.88 in taxes, penalties, and interest through June 5, 1998, and $5.33 per day for each ensuing day until the amount is paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John N. Upchurch Nicholas Bykowsky Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Judith Crown, President Tombstone, Inc. Suite P-50 1200 West Retta Esplanade Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
The Issue Whether Respondent's tax assessment against Petitioner should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mark Benson, was the owner of both B.I. Sub Shop and B.I. Auto Parts which were small business enterprises in Miami, Florida. B.I. Sub Shop was in the business of selling retail food, while B.I. Auto Parts sold retail automobile parts. Neither business is currently in operation. In December 1986, sales and use tax collections by the enterprises had not been received by Respondent. When Petitioner was notified in December 1986 by Respondent that he had not submitted the required sales tax collections, he contacted Respondent. An audit by Respondent ensued in the first quarter of 1987 resulting in the issuance of a Notice of Assessment against B.I. Auto Parts totalling $9,237.42 and a Notice of Assessment against B.I. Sub Shop totalling $1,421.33. To record sales for B.I. Auto Parts, Petitioner kept copies of sequentially numbered invoices of his sales, some of which were missing at the time of the audit, and of vendor receipts. For B.I. Sub Shop, Petitioner calculated sales by subtracting the amount of money in the cash drawer at the beginning of the day from the amount remaining at the end of the day. The amount was then entered in a daily log. Invoices of vendor sales were also maintained. Petitioner admitted that the records he kept did not meet acceptable business standards but contended that his records were adequate for his needs. Finding that the bookkeeping practices of both of Petitioner's enterprises were inadequate, Respondent made an estimate of the sales and use taxes owed. During the audit, Respondent requested certain records, including bank statements and certain income tax returns from Petitioner. Petitioner was given a date certain in which to provide the records but failed to timely comply with the request. To calculate the estimate for B.I. Auto Parts, Respondent calculated a gross taxable sales amount by adding an additional taxable sales amount to the gross sales amount noted on the invoices. The additional taxable sales amount was found by a calculation of an average monthly sales figure determined from the deposits noted on the available bank statement (10 months). The average monthly sales figure was then applied to the number of months covered in the estimate yielding an estimated gross sales amount. The gross sales taken from the invoices was subtracted from the estimated gross sales amount, resulting in additional taxable sales. To calculate the estimate for B.I. Sub Shop, Respondent took a sample (4 months) of the invoices of vendor sales. An average of the invoices was taken to obtain estimated purchases per month. The gross was calculated. Then, a 20% spoilage factor was deducted from the gross purchase and a 250% markup factor was applied, yielding an estimated gross sales. Certain other appropriate credits were given. In view of the inadequacy of Petitioner's records, Respondent's methodology to assess the monies owed was reasonable, and Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any error in such assessment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order sustaining the subject assessments. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of August 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 15th day of August 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Benson, B.I. Sub Shop and B.I. Auto Parts, 8250 N.W. 58th Street Miami, Florida 33166 Linda G. Miklowitz, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Katie D. Tucker, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 William D. Moore, Esquire General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Certain hospital equipment ("Equipment") was sold in 1973 and 1974 by Hospital Contract Consultants ("Vendor") to F & E Community Developers and Jackson Realty Builders (hereinafter referred to as "Purchasers") who simultaneously leased the Equipment to Petitioner. These companies are located in Indiana. At the time of purchase, Florida sales tax ("Tax") was paid by the Purchasers and on or about March 18, 1974, the tax was remitted to the State of Florida by the Vendor. However, the Tax was paid in the name of Medical Facilities Equipment Company, a subsidiary of Vendor. In 1976, the Department of Revenue audited Petitioner and on or about April 26, 1976 assessed a tax on purchases and rental of the Equipment. On or about April 26, 1976, petitioner agreed to pay the amount of the assessment on the purchases and rentals which included the Equipment, in monthly installments of approximately Ten Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($10,000.00) each and subsequently paid such amount of assessment with the last monthly installment paid on or about November 26, 1976. On or about December, 1976, the Department of Revenue, State of Florida, checked its records and could not find the Vendor registered to file and pay sales tax with the State of Florida. Petitioner then looked to the State of Indiana for a tax refund. On or about January 4, 1977, Petitioner filed for a refund of sales tax from the State of Florida in the amount of Thirty Five Thousand One Hundred Four and 02/100 Dollars ($35,104.02). This amount was the sales tax paid to and remitted by various vendors for certain other equipment purchased in 1973 and 1974 and simultaneously leased. The amount of this refund request was granted and paid. Relying upon the facts expressed in paragraph 4 heretofore, Petitioner on or about June 2, 1977 filed with the Department of Revenue of the State of Indiana for the refund of the Tax. On or about June 7, 1979, the Department of Revenue of Indiana determined that the Vendor was registered in the State of Florida as Medical Facilities Equipment Company and therefore Petitioner should obtain the refund of the Tax form the State of Florida. So advised, Petitioner then filed the request for amended refund, which is the subject of this lawsuit, on July 16, 1979 in the amount of Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Sixteen and 28/100 Dollars ($17,216.28). This request for refund was denied by Respondent, Office of the Comptroller, on the basis of the three year statute of non-claim set forth in section 215.26, Florida Statutes. Purchasers have assigned all rights, title and interest in sales and use tax refunds to Petitioner. During the audit of Petitioner in 1976 the lease arrangement on the equipment apparently came to light and Petitioner was advised sales tax was due on the rentals paid for the equipment. This resulted in an assessment against Petitioner of some $80,000 which was paid at the rate of $10,000 per month, with the last installment in November, 1976. The auditor advised Petitioner that a refund of sales tax on the purchase of this equipment was payable and he checked the Department's records for those companies registered as dealers in Florida. These records disclosed that sales taxes on the sale of some of this rental equipment had been remitted by the sellers of the equipment but Hospital Contract Consultants was not registered. Petitioner was advised to claim a refund of this sales tax from Indiana, the State of domicile of Hospital Contract Consultants. By letter on March 18, 1974, Amedco Inc., the parent company of wholly owned Hospital Contract Consultants, Inc. had advised the Florida Department of Revenue that Medical Facilities Equipment Company, another subsidiary, would report under ID No. 78-23-20785-79 which had previously been assigned to Hospital Contract Consultants Inc. which had erroneously applied for this registration. (Exhibit 2) Not stated in that letter but contained in Indiana Department of Revenue letter of April 18, 1979 was the information that the name of Hospital Contract Consultants had been changed to Medical Facilities Equipment Company. The request for the refund of some $17,000 submitted to Indiana in 1976 was finally denied in 1979 after research by the Indiana Department of Revenue showed the sales tax had been paid to Florida and not to Indiana.
The Issue Whether the University can require that Mr. Haywood repay $7,487.52?
Findings Of Fact Jim C. Haywood is a Certified Public Accountant and has several years experience in financial and administrative positions. Mr. Haywood has earned a Masters in Accounting Degree. From 1959 through April, 1968, Mr. Haywood served as the Director of Financing and Accounting for the Florida Board of Regents. From April, 1968, through September, 1969, Mr. Haywood served as the Associate Director of Planning and Evaluation and the Budget Administrator for the State University System under the Florida Board of Regents. From September, 1969, through August, 1970, Mr. Haywood served as Comptroller of the University. From August, 1969, through January, 1986, Mr. Haywood served as Dean, Associate Vice President or Vice President and as head of administrative affairs at the University. Mr. Haywood was employed by the University from September 1, 1969, through August 30, 1987. Mr. Haywood is familiar with the policies of the Florida Board of Regents concerning accrued annual leave and the payment therefore upon retirement. In August and September of 1987, Mr. Haywood refamiliarized himself with these policies. Mr. Haywood retired from the University in August of 1987. Prior to his retirement, Mr. Haywood met with Art Cozart, University Classification and Pay Coordinator. Mr. Cozart provided Mr. Haywood with a certificate (hereinafter referred to as the "Certificate") which described the amount of accrued annual and sick leave Mr. Haywood was entitled to payment for upon his retirement. The Certificate provided, in pertinent part, the following: This is to certify that Mr. Jim C. Haywood, S.S.#252-52-7270, has a leave balance with the University of North Florida as follows: Annual Leave: 352.0 hours $7,458.96 Sick Leave: 2,328.50 hours $14,599.62 The stated amount will be laid upon termination of service with the University. [Emphasis added]. The total amount to "be paid upon termination of service" according to the certificate is $22,058.58. This is the gross amount of pay attributable to Mr. Haywood's accrued leave. The actual amount Mr. Haywood was entitled to receive, the net amount payable, was $22,058.58 less twenty percent federal income tax withholding. The Certificate does not, however, distinguish between the gross amount of pay and the net amount which Mr. Haywood was to receive. Nor did Mr. Haywood and Mr. Cozart discuss whether the amounts on the Certificate were gross amounts or net amounts to be paid to Mr. Haywood. Mr. Haywood was provided a Leave Payment Clearance Form dated September 14, 1987, indicating that Mr. Haywood was entitled to payment for only 240 hours of annual leave. Mr. Haywood used the Certificate to obtain a thirty-day loan of $22,893.00 from a private institution. Mr. Haywood borrowed this amount because of the amount listed on the Certificate. Mr. Haywood intended to use the money he received for his accrued leave to repay this loan. Mr. Haywood intended to use this money for living expenses between his retirement and the time when his retirement benefits were to begin. On September 25, 1987, Mr. Haywood received two checks from the Florida Office of Comptroller. One check was in the amount of $5,939.15 and the other was in the amount of $5,990.02. There was no indication on the checks as to what they were in payment for. On October 8, 1987, Mr. Haywood received a check from the Florida Office of Comptroller in the amount of $11,831.00. There was no indication on the check indicating what the payment was for. The total amount of the three checks received by Mr. Haywood on September 25, 1987, and October 8, 1987, was $23,760.17. The total amount Mr. Haywood received was consistent with what Mr. Haywood expected to receive because it was similar to the amount listed on the Certificate. What Mr. Haywood expected, however, was the gross amount he was entitled to before federal income tax withholding. The amount of the three checks Mr. Haywood received, however, was the net amount payable on a gross amount of $29,764.00. One of the two checks received by Mr. Haywood on September 25, 1987, constituted the net amount owed to Mr. Haywood for annual leave. The other check received on September 25, 1987, was an overpayment of accrued annual leave. This overpayment was made in error by the University. Mr. Haywood was paid twice for annual leave. The evidence failed to prove why there was a discrepancy in the amounts of the two checks or which check constituted the overpayment. The W-2 form provided to Mr. Haywood for the 1987 tax year included the amount of gross income for which Mr. Haywood received an overpayment. Mr. Haywood therefore, included $7,487.52 in his gross taxable income for federal income tax purposes for 1987, attributable to the overpayment of accrued annual leave he received. As a result of the inclusion of the overpayment in Mr. Haywood's taxable income, approximately $2,665.00 of federal income taxes attributable to the $7,487.52 of gross income and its effect on taxable income were paid by Mr. Haywood. Mr. Haywood has not filed an amended federal income tax return for 1987. Nor has Mr. Haywood communicated with the Internal Revenue Service concerning this matter. Mr. Haywood has not been provided with an amended W-2. In April of 1988, the University determined that Mr. Haywood had been overpaid for accrued annual leave. On May 3, 1988, the University notified Mr. Haywood of the overpayment of accrued annual leave and demanded reimbursement. On May 12, 1988, Mr. Haywood disputed the amount of the overpayment and requested an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Mr. Haywood has not repaid any amount of the overpayment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the University's demand for repayment of $7,487.52, from Mr. Haywood be denied until the University determines from the Department of Banking and Finance the amount of the gross overpayment which should be refunded by Mr. Haywood. It is further RECOMMENDED that, once the University determines from the Department of Banking and Finance what amount of the gross overpayment should be refunded, the University should demand payment of the refund from Mr. Haywood and Mr. Haywood should pay the refund to the University. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 3rd day of February, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Norman R. Haltiwanger Director, Office of Human Resources University of North Florida 4567 St. Johns Bluff Road South Jacksonville, Florida 32216 John E. Duvall, Esquire Post Office Box 41566 Jacksonville, Florida 32203 Stephen K. Moonly, Esquire Suite 2501, Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The University's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 4-6 and 8. 2-3 Hereby accepted. 4 11. 5 16. 6 See 23. 7 21. 8 22. 9 17. 10 See 18. 11-12 19. Irrelevant. Speculative. Argument and not totally correct. 15 23. Hereby accepted. 1-7. The eighth, ninth and tenth sentences are irrelevant. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Mr. Haywood's testimony did not lack credibility. 19 9. 20 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Certificate did not indicate that Mr. Haywood was entitled to payment for only 240 hours of annual leave. 21-22 12. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 11. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 27-28 Hereby accepted. 29-31 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection See 6. See 9. 3-4 16. 5 21. 6 22. 7 23. 8 8. 9 20.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner and its controlling person are entitled to licenses as, respectively, an employee leasing company and a controlling person of an employee leasing company.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has operated as an employee leasing company since November, 1989. Susan J. Haggerty is the president and controlling person of Petitioner. An employee leasing company assumes from the employer many of the administrative responsibilities normally associated with employment. The employee leasing company replaces the original employer by employing the employees and leasing them back to their original employer. For each leased employee, the employee leasing company assumes responsibility for workers compensation, employee benefit plans, unemployment compensation, withholding, and social security payments. The former employer enters into an agreement with the employee leasing company under which it pays a set amount to lease its former employees. The amount includes the leasing company's markup and all of the costs projected to be associated with the employee, including compensation and the items described in the preceding paragraph. In the case of Petitioner, the fee is not subject to readjustment, even if one of the items, such as workers compensation, later proves to be higher than projected. Due to the enactment of new legislation regulating employee leasing companies, on July 13, 1992, Petitioner and Ms. Haggerty filed with Respondent a joint application for licensure. Petitioner and Ms. Haggerty had been operating in their respective roles for at least six months prior to January 1, 1992, which qualifies them for licensure under the "grandfathering-in" provisions cited in the Conclusions of Law. Following receipt of the joint application on July 13, 199, Respondent informed Petitioner, by letter dated July 20, 1992, that the application was missing various items. The letter requested, among other things, financial statements for the two preceding years, including a corrected statement for 1991 and a certification that there had been no material adverse changes in financial statements since the date of the last statement. The portion of the application of the controlling person also required various items, such as fingerprints. The letter advised that the missing material must be supplied by August 5, 1992, if Respondent were to be able to issue the licenses by the statutory deadline of October 1, 1992. By letter dated July 30, 1992, Petitioner supplied additional information in response to the July 20 letter. By letter dated August 7, 1992, Respondent informed Petitioner that various deficiencies continued to exist. Among other things, the letter states that the 1991 financial statement must conform to generally accepted accounting principles, include a statement of cash flows, and describe loan receivables by footnote. Also, the letter asserts that the 1991 financial statement shows a tangible accounting net worth deficiency of about $109,000 when adjusted for loan receivables to controlling persons. By letter dated September 25, 1992, Petitioner submitted a financial statement dated August, 1992, containing footnotes describing loan receivables. By letter dated October 19, 1992, Petitioner references a letter dated October 8, 1992, from Respondent and encloses documentation concerning Ms. Haggerty's personal finances. In the October 19 letter, Ms. Haggerty promises that she will attend Respondent's November 2 meeting to answer questions regarding her previous employment. The letters dated July 20 and August 7 from Respondent are the only formal notification of deficiencies, errors, or omissions given Petitioner within the time permitted by statute. Consistent with its practice, Respondent considered the joint application to be separate applications of the employee leasing company and the controlling person. Consistent with Respondent's practice, it would, if appropriate, grant a license to a controlling person without granting a license to the employee leasing company with which she is associated. Respondent's first meeting at which it considered Petitioner's application was October 5, 1992. Ms. Haggerty and an attorney were in attendance. Although Board members wanted information as to where Ms. Haggerty had previously worked, they would not let her speak. At Respondent's November 2 meeting, Board members developed a long list of information that they wanted in order to consider the application. Petitioner's attorney, who was in attendance, asked that they memorialize their demands in a letter. When Respondent took up Petitioner's application at the December 8 meeting, Ms. Haggerty was not in attendance. Warned by its counsel that the statutory time limit had expired on the application so that the applicants were deemed licensed, Respondent elected to take no action as to Ms. Haggerty's controlling person application and to deny Petitioner's application. Respondent's order concerning Petitioner, which was entered December 18, 1992, states that the application is denied due to the failure to submit a completed application for licensure, reflect all liabilities in the financial statements, disclose a disputed workers compensation premium in the financial statements, comply with the statute requiring the payment of workers compensation premiums, comply with Section 468.525(3)(c) and (d) regarding tangible accounting net worth and positive working capital, and comply with Section 468.531(1)(d) regarding providing Respondent with false or forged evidence of the purpose of obtaining a license. The final order also predicates the denial of the application on a misrepresentation of fact regarding the issue of disputed premiums. By stipulation, the parties have identified the specific issues for denial of the corporate application as the failure to identify and account for workers compensation premiums owed Hartford Insurance Company and the treatment of "related party items" in the financial statements. The application form contains an affidavit regarding workers compensation. A portion of the affidavit attests: "I further certify that . . . all premiums due as of this date have been fully paid to all Worker's Compensation insurance carriers except for disputed premiums listed below:". The form contains blanks for the name of any carriers and the disputed amounts. Signing the affidavit as president of Petitioner, Ms. Haggerty left blank the above-described portion of the application form, thereby attesting that there were no disputed workers compensation premiums. As of July 13, 1992, this representation was accurate and complete. As is typical with workers compensation, the carrier performs annual audits to determine if any premium arrearages exist. Petitioner's fiscal year- end with Hartford was November. The audit for fiscal year-end 1991 was not yet completed by July, 1992. It was only at the end of August, 1992, that Ms. Haggerty or anyone else at Petitioner learned that Hartford would be asserting a premium arrearage. After Hartford completed the audit and claimed an arrearage, Petitioner's auditor asserted that at least a portion of the arrearage, which was in the form of a surcharge, was unlawful. Ms. Haggerty fully discussed the matter with Petitioner's independent professional consultants. Petitioner's outside accountant ascertained the appropriate amount to be reserved for the contingent liability. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the accountant prepared the August, 1992, financial statement, in which the appropriate amount for the liability is recorded among other current liabilities totalling $265,450 and the contingent liability is discussed in a footnote. Tangible accounting net worth is calculated by taking the total assets, exclusive of intangible assets such as goodwill, and reducing the total adjusted assets by the total liabilities. The August, 1992, financial statement reveals total assets of $439,462 without any intangible assets. Reduced by the total liabilities of $388,426, the financial statement discloses a tangible accounting net worth of $51,036. Positive working capital, or net working capital, is calculated by taking current assets and reducing them by current liabilities. Current assets include cash, inventories, receivables to be paid within one year, work in progress, and related-party receivables to be paid within one year. The August, 1992, financial statement reveals current assets of $417,566 and current liabilities of $384,990, for a positive working capital of $32,566. The August, 1992, financial statement discloses a related-party item of a promissory note from Ms. Haggerty to the corporation in the amount of $68,867. The note was a demand note, which, under generally accepted accounting principles, is treated as a current asset and is properly includible in determining positive working capital. Likewise, the note is properly includible in determining tangible accounting net worth. In fact, Ms. Haggerty repaid $40,000 in October, 1992, and, by year end, the corporation cancelled the remaining balance of the note in compensation for sums due to Ms. Haggerty. Ms. Haggerty is of good moral character and meets all other requirements for licensure as a controlling person.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Employee Leasing Companies certify for licensure to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suncoast Resource Management, Inc. as an employee leasing company and Susan J. Haggerty as a controlling person of an employee leasing company. ENTERED on December 9, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 9, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-871 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3-4: rejected as irrelevant. 5-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-13: rejected as legal argument. 14-16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17-19: rejected as legal argument. 20-41: adopted or adopted in substance. 42: rejected as subordinate. 43: rejected as unnecessary. 44-47: rejected as not finding of fact. 48-50: rejected as unnecessary. 51-63, 70-79, and 82-92: rejected as irrelevant, repetitious, subordinate, and unnecessary. 64-69: adopted. 80-81: adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Anna Polk, Executive Director Board of Employee Leasing Companies 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0767 H. Richard Benchimol Benchimol, Hoft, and Strouse P.A. One Urban Centre 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard, Stuie 985 Tampa, Florida 33609 Michael A. Mone Office of the Attorney General Administrative Law Section Pl-10 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
