The Issue The factual issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to disclose certain information, of which he had knowledge, which would have adversely impacted the consideration by the Board of his financial responsibility. The legal issue raised by the Administrative Complaint is whether the failure to disclose such information constitutes a violation of Section 489.127(1)(d) , and thereby a violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1979). However, neither allegation alleges fraud on an application. The case should be dismissed.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 26, 1980, the Respondent filed for a change of status as a certified general contractor from a company to operating as an individual. On his application, Respondent answered in the negative the following questions: Question 16 (b): Are there now any unpaid past-due bills or claims for labor, materials, or services, as a result of a construction operation of any person named in `(i) below' or any organizations in which any such person was a member of the personnel? Question 16(c): "Are there now any liens, suits, or judgments of record or pending as a result of a construction operation of any person named in `(i) below' or any organiation in which any such person was a member of the personnel?' Question 16(d): Are there now any liens of record by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service or the State of Florida Corporate Tax Division against any person named in `(i) below' or any organization in which any person was a member of the personnel? Evidence was received that a number of judgments and liens had been obtained against t Donald B. Richards personally or as a member or qualifier of a registered or certified company, specifically Acme Aluminum Sales and Service. There is no credible or substantial evidence that the judgment of Nu-Vue Industries, Inc. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7), arose from contracting operations in which Respondent was involved. There is no substantial and competent evidence that the notes upon which the judgment of Commercial National Bank (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) was obtained related to contracting operations. (Tr. 17, 19.) Tax liens for nonpayment of unemployment compensation were introduced. These liens were mailed to 2120 West Parker Street, Lakeland, Florida. Question 16(d) on the subject application limits tax liens to those of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the Corporate Tax Division of the State of Florida. See Petitioner's Exhibit 9 (Composite).] The custodian of the records for Florida Industries, Inc., could not recall what Respondent purchased from that company or why Respondent purchased it. The records custodian could only say that the items were probably building materials, and could not way whether the company's judgment had been satisfied. (See Deposition of Saul Rachelson; pages 5, 7.) The records of the judgment reflect that it was sent to 446 North Wabash, Lakeland, Florida. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 10.) The records of the Board do not reflect that Respondent ever resided or worked at 446 North Wabash, Lakeland, Florida. Said address is also listed within the judgment as the address of John Stinson, who was Respondent's business partner at the time. There is no substantial evidence that this judgment was related to contracting, that Respondent was aware of this judgment, or that the judgment was outstanding at the time Respondent made his application on March 26, 1980. The judgment obtained by Wells Carmel Aluminum, Inc., on May 4, 1977, was a default judgment. The attorney for Wells Carmel Aluminum did not know whether the items purchased, from which the default judgment arose, were construction materials and did not know why Respondent had purchased them. (Tr. 28.) There is no substantial and competent evidence that these materials were related to contracting. The judgment obtained by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company dated June 4, 1978, was related to Respondent's business. The business of Acme Aluminum Sales and Service was contracting. However, the judgment reflects on its face that it was sent to 2120 West Park Street, Lakeland, Florida 33001, on or about the date that it was entered. By said time, the business was no longer operating at that address, and said property had returned to the possession of the original owner, Arley Propes. The evidence indicates that Respondent had no knowledge of State Farm's judgment. The judgment obtained by the Pope Shopper Shopping News, Inc., on February 7, 1970, was related to Respondent's contracting business. A copy of the judgment was sent to Respondent's home address at 630 Candyce Avenue, Lakeland, Florida 33801. The Respondent had knowledge of this judgment and that it was related to his contracting activities. On November 3, 1977, Richard Allen obtained a judgment against Respondent arising from Respondent's failure to correct certain conditions on a contracting job which he had done for Allen. A copy of this judgment was sent to 2120 West Parker Street, Lakeland, Florida 33801. By that time, Respondent was no longer doing business at that address. The evidence indicates that Respondent had no knowledge of the judgment obtained by Allen.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board take no action against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald B. Richards 630 Candyce Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33801 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Petitioners are liable for sales and use tax, penalty, and interest as assessed by the Department of Revenue (the Department)?
Findings Of Fact Salma is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business at 2231 Del Prado Boulevard, Cape Coral, Florida, 33990. Gausia is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business at 11571 Gladiolus Drive, Fort Myers, Florida, 33908. Petitioners are in the business of operating gas stations with convenience stores. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida and is authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida. Petitioners were selected for audit because their reported gross sales were less than the total cost of items purchased (inventory) for the audit period. The Department issued Salma and Gausia each a Notice of Intent to Conduct a Limited Scope Audit or Self-Audit, dated April 26, 2013, for sales and use tax, for the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2013 (collectively referred to as the Notices). The Notices requested that Petitioners provide the Department: (a) a list of all their vendors for alcohol, tobacco, soda, chips, candy, etc.; (b) their total purchases of alcohol and tobacco, by vendor, for the period July 2010 to June 2011; (c) copies of their federal tax returns for the examination period; (d) purchase receipts for all purchases for the last complete calendar month; and (e) daily register (Z tapes) for the last complete calendar month. The Notices gave Petitioners 60 days to gather the requested documents before the audit was to commence. The Notices also requested that Petitioners complete an attached Questionnaire and Self Analysis Worksheet. In response to the Notices, Petitioners requested a 30- day extension of time until July 18, 2013, to provide the requested documents and to designate a Power of Attorney. Petitioners did not provide the Department any books and records for inspection, nor did they complete and return the questionnaire and self analysis worksheets. As a result, the Department's auditor determined the sales tax due based upon the best information available. To calculate an estimated assessment of sales tax, the Department used the purchase data of Petitioners' wholesalers and distributors of alcoholic beverages and tobacco, for July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011; the 2010 National Association of Convenience Stores average markups and in-store sales percentages of alcoholic beverage and tobacco products; and historical audit data. After reviewing the purchase data for July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, and for July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012, the Department's auditor determined that the data was missing a few vendors. As a result, the Department's auditor estimated the amount of Petitioners' cigarette purchases, based on historical audit data that shows that cigarette sales are generally 4.31 times more than beer sales. The Department's auditor and audit supervisor testified that the estimated gross sales seemed reasonable and consistent with the national averages and the purchase data for July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. The Department estimated gross sales (i.e., the retail sale value of the goods sold) by marking up the taxable sales and exempt sales reported on the sales and use tax returns submitted to the Department by Petitioners. For example, for July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, Salma purchased beer from its wholesalers and distributors for $148,826.15, and the Department marked up the purchase price by 27 percent for a retail value of $189,009.21. For July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, Gausia purchased beer from its wholesalers and distributors for $132,138.65, and the Department marked up the purchase price by 27 percent for a retail value of $167,816.09. The Department's markup on the alcoholic beverage and tobacco products is reasonable because the Department's auditor testified that he used a combination of 2010 National Association of Convenience Stores average markups and the competitive pricing and information from audits of other convenience stores. The Department determined that the exemption ratio reported on the sales and use tax returns submitted to the Department by Petitioners was extremely high for their industry. The Department used an exemption ratio of 15 percent, based on historical audit data for the industry, to calculate Petitioners' estimated taxable sales. A review of Petitioners' sales and use tax returns revealed that they did not apply the tax bracket system to their taxable sales transactions, as required under sections 212.12(9) and (10), Florida Statutes. Instead, Petitioners remitted sales tax on their taxable sales based on their gross receipts at a flat tax rate. The Department's auditor testified that this method of reporting tax is inappropriate and does not accurately reflect the sales activity of the business. The Department calculated the average effective tax rate of 6.0856 percent, based on historical audit data for the industry. To calculate the estimated tax due, the Department multiplied the effective tax rate by the estimated taxable sales and gave Petitioners credit for any tax remitted with their tax returns. The Department issued Salma a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, dated August 8, 2013, for audit number 200149872. The Department issued Gausia a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, dated August 8, 2013, for audit number 200149749. The Department assessed Petitioners sales tax on their sales of alcoholic beverages and tobacco. The Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes gave Petitioners 30 days to request a conference with the auditor or audit supervisor, to dispute the proposed changes. Petitioners did not make such a request. The Department issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment (NOPA) to Salma on March 6, 2014, for tax in the sum of $159,282.26; for penalty in the sum of $39,820.57; and interest as of March 6, 2013, in the sum of $27,772.36. The Department issued a NOPA to Gausia on March 6, 2014, for tax in the sum of $213,754.46; for penalty in the sum of $53,438.62; and interest as of March 6, 2013, in the sum of $36,921.79. Additional interest accrues at $30.55 per day until the tax is paid. The NOPAs became final assessments on May 5, 2014. After filing a request for an administrative hearing, Petitioners completed the Questionnaire and Self Analysis Worksheet and produced the following documents to the Department: (a) a list of all of their vendors for alcohol, tobacco, soda, chips, candy, etc.; (b) a list of vendors for alcohol and tobacco, for the examination period of July 2010 to June 2011; (c) a summary of their taxable sales, for the period February 2010 through December 2012; (d) copies of their federal tax returns, for the tax years 2010 through 2013; (e) copies of its purchase receipts for the months of July 2013; and (f) copies of their daily register (Z-tapes) for the month of July 2013. The Department's auditor testified that aside from being untimely, the records and information provided by Petitioners during these proceedings were not reliable because Petitioners did not provide any source documents that would allow the Department to reconcile the reported figures and confirm the supplied information. In addition, the purchase receipts and Z- tapes were not relevant because they were from outside of the audit period. The Z-tapes are also unreliable because the manager of the convenience store testified at the final hearing that employees purposely and routinely entered taxable sales into the cash registers as tax exempt sales. Petitioners argue that the Department did not use the best information available when estimating the taxes due. Petitioners claim that because their businesses are combination gas station/convenience stores, the national data for standalone convenience stores is inapplicable. However, notably absent from Petitioners' testimony or evidence was any alternative data upon which the Department could have relied for more accurate estimates.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying Petitioners' requests for relief and assessing, in full, the Department's assessments of sales tax, penalty, and interest against both Salma and Gausia. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Clarke Engineering Company submitted a bid and was awarded a contract on 19 October 1978 by the City of Pompano Beach for the construction of storm drainage improvements in the City of Pompano Beach. In addition to the normal provisions of public works contracts such as prevailing wage rates, bonds, subcontractors, etc., this contract included the following provision: PRICES BID- The prices are to include selling directly to the City and delivering all materials, equipment supplies, [sic] including applicable taxes, and all other facilities at agreed prices, and the performance of all labor and services necessary or proper for the installation and completion of the work at additional agreed prices except as may be otherwise expressly provided in the contract documents. Under the present interpretation of statutes and rules of the Department of Revenue, items involving materials, equipment and supplies sold and delivered to the City of Pompano Beach, are exempt from sales tax, provided the Contractor meets the requirements of the Department of Revenue. Bid items involving labor and installation are not exempt from the Florida State Sales Tax. The Contractor will be responsible for reviewing the pertinent State Statutes and Florida Department of Revenue Rules and Regulations and any other applicable regulations or codes involving the sales tax and complying with all requirements. Item No. 1 on this contract provided for the Contractor to sell and deliver to the City eight items of personal property at the bid price per unit. These items comprised 15", 18", 24", 27" and 42" diameter corrugated steel pipe; type "C" inlets; type "E" inlets; and manholes. The total bid submitted by Petitioner for Item No. 1 was $69,466.00. Although this is an estimated total and not the dollar amount actually delivered to City, it is the sales tax on Item 1 that is in dispute. The exact amount of supplies and materials charged to the City pursuant to this item was not presented at the hearing but is obviously not in dispute. On all other supplies and materials used by the Contractor in connection with this contract, Clarke paid the sales tax without protest. Upon acceptance of Clarke's bid by the City, Clarke, on 19 October 1978 submitted and application for a certificate of registration to conduct business as a dealer involving sales and use tax. (Exhibit 2). A copy of his contract with the City was forwarded with the application. This application was forwarded by the local revenue office in Tallahassee on 14 November 1978 for review and appropriate action. (Exhibit 2). By letter dated 20 November 1978 Respondent's Chief, Sales Tax Bureau, denied Petitioner's application for sales tax registration on the ground that in his opinion the contract did not "clearly meet the definition of Rule 12A- 1.52(2)(d)." Additional correspondence between Clarke and the Department of Revenue (DOR) failed to modify Respondent's position and by letter dated April 26, 1979, DOR advised Petitioner it could consult with an attorney if deemed aggrieved by the action of DOR. By letter dated May 17, 1979, Clarke requested an administrative hearing to review this determination and this proceeding followed.
Findings Of Fact The facts in this cause are essentially undisputed. The Pen Haven Company was a Subchapter "S" corporation for federal income tax purposes and therefore incurred no State income tax liability. It was formed in 1960 and retained its Subchapter "S" status thorough 1976 for federal income tax purposes. In December of 1977, the capital stock of Pen Haven Sanitation Company was sold to the Board of County Commissioners of Escambia County. Inasmuch as the sole corporate stock holder then was no longer an individual, but rather a governmental entity, the corporation Subchapter "S" election for federal income tax purposes was terminated. Escambia County did not wish to own stock in a private corporation so it accordingly liquidated Pen Haven and its assets were distributed to the County's direct ownership. Thereafter the Corporation filed a final corporate income tax return for 1977 which reflected capital gains on the assets of the corporation which had been distributed. Some of those assets had tax bases which had been reduced to zero through reduction by depreciation, most of which had been charged off prior to January 1, 1972, the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax code. All of the depreciation deductions had been taken prior to the termination of the Subchapter "S" status of the Pen Haven Company. On disposition of the Pen Haven assets however, a gain was reported equal to the fair market value or salvage value, less the basis. This gain was accordingly reported on Pen Haven's federal income tax return, and on the 1977 Florida corporate income tax return, albeit under the protest as to the Florida tax return. Inasmuch as Pen Haven had previously deducted depreciation since its inception, and had the benefit thereof for federal tax purposes, it was required by the Internal Revenue Service to recapture the depreciation for federal tax purposes upon its sale and the filing of its tax return in 1977. The same recapture of depreciation treatment was required of West Florida Utilities. Thereafter an application was made by the Petitioner corporations for Florida Corporate Income Tax Refunds asserting that they should have not paid taxes on the amount of gains which represented a recapture of depreciation which had been taken as a deduction prior to the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax on January 1, 1972. In effect the Petitioner is contending that the so- called "income" which is the subject of the tax in question was not realized in 1977, but rather merely "recognized" in that year by the federal tax law and that it represented income actually "realized" during the years when the depreciation was taken as a deduction prior to January 1, 1972. The Petitioners contend that "realization" for federal income tax purposes occurs when the taxpayer actually receives an economic gain. "Recognition" on the other hand refers only to that time when the tax itself becomes actually due and payable. The Petitioners maintain that when the tax became due and payable in 1977 that was merely the point of "recognition" of the subject taxable gain and not "realization" in that the gain was actually realized prior to the Florida Jurisdictional date of January 1, 1972, in the form of the economic benefit derived from those depreciation deductions applied to federal tax liability prior to that date. The Petitioners cite SRG Corporation vs. Department of Revenue, 365 So2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), for the proposition that Florida could not tax those gains accruing to the taxpayer prior to Florida's having the constitutional and statutory power to impose a corporate income tax. The Respondent in essence agrees that the question of when the economic benefit to the Petitioners was received by them or was "realized" is the key question in this cause. The Respondent contends, however, that "realization" of a taxable gain occurred when the assets were disposed of by the Petitioners in 1977, well after the date when Florida's power to tax such a gain was enacted. The underlying facts in the case of West Florida Utilities are substantially similar. This corporation, however, was organized in 1962 and has never been clothed with Subchapter "S" corporate status. The only grounds upon which it can therefore claim a refund is its assertion that Florida does not have authority to tax that portion of the capital gains attributable to recapture of depreciation which was originally charged off as a deduction prior to January 1, 1972. The Department of Revenue and the Comptroller of the State of Florida both denied the refund claim made on behalf of the Petitioners, and thereafter they seasonably petitioned for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witness and pleadings and arguments of counsel it is, therefore RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Thurston A. Shell Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32578 Robert A. Pierce, Esquire General Counsel Department of Revenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Basile, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Office of Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wilson Crump, II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32310
The Issue Broadly stated, the issue in this proceeding the validity of the proposed deficiency in petitioner's corporate income in the amount of $25,712.80 for the 1972 fiscal year. More specifically, the issue is whether Florida may lawfully tax for the gain it realized on the sale of securities in the of $941,418.00. Included within this issue is the question of whether the apportionment formula set forth in Florida Statutes is applicable to petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the pleadings, the stipulations the parties and the record in this proceeding, the following relevant During the calendar year 1972, petitioner was a foreign " Corporation subject to the Florida Corporate Income Tax, imposed Chapter 220, Florida Statutes. Petitioner also operated a business in St. Louis, Missouri. January 1, 1972, petitioner held a 95 percent interest in Bal Harbour Joint Venture, which owned and operated the Ivanhoe Hotel and Restaurant in Bal Harbour, Florida. On December 15, 1972, petitioner was the sole owner of the Ivanhoe Hotel and Restaurant. November 16, 1972, the petitioner acquired by merger 100 percent interest in the Clearwater Beach Hilton, a motel and restaurant business located in Clearwater, Florida, and continued to own this interest on December 31, 1972. The Clearwater and Ivanhoe hotel and restaurant businesses in Florida and the petitioner's business in Missouri have separate, individual general managers. There is no central purchasing by the hotels and no centralized operating records are maintained by petitioner. There are no central reservation services available between the hotels and the hotels advertise separately and unilaterally in local publications in the cities in which they are located. No standardized product lines exist. On November 2, 1972, petitioner sold certain securities which resulted in a realized gain to petitioner for federal income tax purposes of $941,418.00. Said securities were purchased, located and sold in the State of Missouri, and had no relationship to petitioner's Florida transactions. Petitioner timely filed its 1972 Florida corporate income tax return on which it subtracted from its federal taxable income the gain realized from the sale of the securities. Its "Florida net income" and its "total tax due" were thus reported as "none." On or about May 8, 1974, respondent advised petitioner of a proposed deficiency in petitioner's 1972 tax in the amount of $29,392.00. In accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes Sec. 214.11, petitioner timely filed with respondent its protest of the proposed deficiency assessment. After a hearing, respondent issued to petitioner its Notice of Decision in which the proposed, deficiency was reduced to $25,712.80, and the reasons therefor were set forth. Petitioner requested reconsideration by respondent. On March 11, 1975, the parties stipulated that further proceedings in this cause would be, processed under the Florida Administrative Procedures Act. The petition for hearing was forwarded by respondent to the Division of Administrative Hearings, the undersigned was duly assigned as the Hearing Officer.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that: the proposed deficiency assessment in the amount of $25,712.80 be vacated and set aside; and The respondent permit petitioner to file an amended 1972 return utilizing, within the discretion of the respondent, the employment of either separate accounting, a monthly averaging formula or another method which would effectuate an equitable apportionment of petitioner's income to the State of Florida. Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Pleasants Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings and Evans Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601 Louis de la Parte, Jr. 725 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Patricia S. Turner Assistant General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner was properly enrolled in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) Hybrid Option Plan (Hybrid Option) in 2002, and whether he should be retroactively re-enrolled in the Florida 1 All statutory references are to the 2019 version of the Florida Statutes, except where indicated otherwise. Retirement System Pension Plan (Pension Plan) without having to pay a “buy-in” amount.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Marinak began employment with the Marion County Public School System, an FRS-participating employer, in 1989. At that time, the Pension Plan was the only retirement program available for eligible employees, and, thus, Petitioner was enrolled in the Pension Plan. The Pension Plan is administered by the Florida Division of Retirement (Division of Retirement), which is housed within the Department of Management Services. The Pension Plan is a defined benefit plan; the benefit is formula-based. The formula used for calculating a pension plan benefit is based on total years of service at the time of retirement, membership class, and average final compensation. Mr. Marinak has been continuously employed by an FRS-participating employer from 1989 to present. In 2002, the FRS Investment Plan (Investment Plan) became available to employees participating in FRS. The Investment Plan is administered by Respondent. The Investment Plan is a defined contribution plan; the benefit is based on gains and losses due to market performance. Mr. Marinak was provided a choice window of September 1, 2002, through November 30, 2002, to remain in the Pension Plan or switch to the Investment Plan. The parties stipulate that the Plan Choice Administrator at the time, now doing business as Voya, has records indicating Mr. Marinak elected the Hybrid Option by means of a telephone call on November 27, 2002. Voya no longer has a recording of the call. SBA does not have a recording of the telephone call either. The Hybrid Option is as its name indicates—it is a hybrid of the Pension Plan and the Investment Plan. When the Investment Plan was introduced in 2002, Pension Plan participants, with at least five years of service, could elect to enroll in the Investment Plan with a zero balance. With the election of the Hybrid Option, retirement funds from all years of service prior to the election remain in the Pension Plan; everything from the election forward is administered under the Investment Plan. Hybrid Option participants will receive the resulting defined benefit from the Pension Plan (earned prior to the election) upon retirement, plus the benefits from the investments in the Investment Plan after the election. The Pension Plan portion of the Hybrid Option remains with, and continues to be administered by, the Division of Retirement. The Investment Plan portion is administered by Respondent. Mr. Marinak disputes electing to enter the Hybrid Option. He credibly testified that he did not desire to transfer to the Investment Plan and has no recollection of authorizing such a transfer. Beginning at least as early as 2005, Respondent sent or otherwise made available to Mr. Marinak quarterly “FRS Investment Plan” statements. Mr. Marinak testified that he received these statements, but did not know what they meant. The earliest FRS Investment Plan statement documented by Respondent as having been sent to Mr. Marinak covered the period of January 1, 2005, to March 31, 2005. Mr. Marinak did not inquire about the statement or file a complaint with Respondent after receiving this statement. Beginning at least as early as 2008, the Department of Management Services sent or otherwise made available to Mr. Marinak annual “FRS Pension Plan – Hybrid Option” statements. These statements were sent to Mr. Marinak’s address of record at the time the statements were mailed. Mr. Marinak testified that the addresses where the statements were sent were, indeed, his addresses. Since the transfer in 2002, Mr. Marinak has updated his beneficiary designations for both the Pension Plan and Investment Plan portions of his Hybrid Option. In November 2008, Mr. Marinak communicated by e-mail with personnel at the Division of Retirement about the status of the Pension Plan and the years of service used to calculate his benefits. In December 2008, in response to his inquiry, the Division of Retirement prepared and provided to Mr. Marinak an Estimate of Retirement Benefit. The “Comments” section of the Estimate of Retirement Benefit stated as follows: This estimate is based on retirement at 30 years of service. It represents your 13.40 years of service in the Florida Retirement Pension Plan (8/1989 through 11/2002). You will have to terminate all employment with FRS employer to receive this benefit. You have an additional 6.00 years in the Hybrid Investment Plan through 11/2008; the years in the Hybrid Option are not used in calculating your monthly retirement benefit from the pension plan, which is why they are not reflected in your Member Annual Statement. Mr. Marinak did not inquire about the comment or file a complaint after receiving the Estimate of Retirement Benefit.2 Mr. Marinak testified that he saw the comment, but not being an expert in retirement financing, he did not comprehend what it meant. Mr. Marinak did not present documentary evidence or an audio recording demonstrating that he did not elect to transfer from the Pension Plan to the Hybrid Option. In early 2019, Mr. Marinak, nearing retirement, reviewed his retirement account and recognized that he was enrolled in the Hybrid Option. He contacted the Division of Retirement for guidance on how to switch back into the Pension Plan. The Division of Retirement informed Mr. Marinak that he may utilize a one-time “second election” to move back into the Pension Plan, but must pay a sum of approximately $160,000 as a “buy-in” amount to do so. This sum is derived from an actuarial calculation conducted by the Division of Retirement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Florida Retirement System Investment Plan Petition for Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JODI-ANN V. LIVINGSTONE 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 27th day of July, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruth E. Vafek, Esquire Ausley McMullen 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Herbert M. Hill Law Office of Herbert M. Hill, P.A. Post Office Box 2431 Orlando, Florida 32802 (eServed) Robert John Marinak 16531 Swan View Circle Odessa, Florida 33556 (eServed) Ash Williams, Executive Director and Chief Investment Officer State Board of Administration 1801 Hermitage Boulevard, Suite 100 Post Office Box 13300 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-3300
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue (DOR) has properly issued an assessment against Petitioner for sales and use tax, interest, and penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida resident. In 1996, Petitioner began doing business as a sole proprietor under the name of "Duraline Industries" and registered with DOR as a sales tax dealer. Later, this entity was called "Dura Steel." Petitioner also operated as a corporation, Steel Engineered Design Systems, Inc. Petitioner's Florida sales tax numbers are 42-11-009271-63 and 40-00-003416- For purposes of these consolidated cases, Petitioner has been audited and charged individually as "Charles R. Bielinski," because the audit revealed that no checks were made out to the corporation(s) and that the monies received were received by Mr. Bielinski as a sole proprietor in one or more "doing business as" categories. Petitioner engaged in the business of fabricating items of tangible personal property, i.e., prefabricated steel buildings, many of which later became improvements to real property in Florida. Petitioner used some of the steel buildings in the performance of real property contracts by installing the buildings as improvements to real property. Petitioner also engaged in the business of selling buildings and steel component parts such as sheets and trim in Florida. Petitioner sold buildings and component parts in over- the-counter retail sales, also. On October 7, 2002, DOR issued Petitioner a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records for the period of September 1, 1999 through August 31, 2002. This audit was assigned number AO226920428. In 2002, Petitioner provided DOR's auditor with his sales activity records, such as contracts and job information. A telephone conversation/interview of Petitioner was conducted by the auditor. Over a period of several months, the auditor attempted to get Petitioner to provide additional records, but none were forthcoming. DOR deemed the contracts and job information provided by Petitioner to be an incomplete record of his sales activity for the audit period. Petitioner claimed that most of his sales activity records had been lost or destroyed. Due to the absence of complete records, DOR sampled Petitioner's available records and other information related to his sales in order to conduct and complete its audit. Petitioner purchased materials used to fabricate his steel buildings. Petitioner sometimes would erect the buildings on real property. Petitioner fabricated main frames for smaller buildings at a shop that he maintained at the Bonifay Airport. Otherwise, Petitioner subcontracted with like companies to fabricate main frames for larger buildings. Petitioner made some sales to exempt buyers, such as religious institutions and government entities. When he purchased the materials he used to fabricate the buildings, Petitioner occasionally provided his vendors with his resale certificate, in lieu of paying sales tax. Petitioner did not pay sales tax on the materials he purchased to fabricate buildings when such buildings were being fabricated for exempt buyers such as churches and governmental entities. On June 23, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (Form DR-840), for audit number AO226920428, covering the period of November 1, 1997 through August 31, 2002. DOR has assessed Petitioner sales tax on the buildings, sheets, and trim he sold over-the-counter in Florida. DOR has assessed Petitioner use tax on sales of the materials used in performing real property contracts in Florida. The auditor calculated a method of estimating taxes based on the limited documentation that had been provided by Petitioner. She used a sampling method based on Petitioner's contract numbering system; isolated the Florida contracts; and divided the Florida contracts between the actual sale of tangible property (sale of just the buildings themselves) and real property contracts (where Petitioner not only provided the building but also provided installation or erection services). The auditor scheduled the real property contracts and assessed only the material amounts as taxable in Florida. Since she had only 19 out of 47 probable contracts, or 40 percent, she projected up to what the taxable amount should be and applied the sales tax and surtax at the rate of seven percent, as provided by law. She then divided that tax for the entire audit period by the 58 months in the audit period, to arrive at a monthly tax amount. This monthly tax amount was broken out into sales and discretionary sales tax. Florida levies a six percent State sales tax. Each county has the discretion to levy a discretionary sales tax. Counties have similar discretion as to a surtax. The auditor determined that Petitioner collected roughly $22,000.00 dollars in tax from one of his sales tax registrations which had not been remitted to DOR. During the five-year audit period, Petitioner only remitted tax in May 1998. DOR gave Petitioner credit for the taxes he did remit to DOR during the audit period. The foregoing audit processes resulted in the initial assessment(s) of August 28, 2003, which are set out in Findings of Fact 25-31, infra. On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR-832/833), for additional discretionary surtax, in the sum of $2,582.19; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $782.55; and penalty, in the sum of $1,289.91; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.50 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0008) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional sales and use tax in the sum of $154,653.32; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $50,500.06; and penalty, in the sum of $77,324.54, plus additional interest that accrues at $31.54 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0009) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional local governmental infrastructure surtax, in the sum of $7,001.82; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $2,352.09; and penalty in the sum of $3,497.35; plus additional interest that accrues at $1.45 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0010) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional indigent care surtax, in the sum of $513.08; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $156.33; and penalty, in the sum of $256.24; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.10 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0011) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional school capital outlay surtax in the sum of $3,084.49; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $922.23; and penalty, in the sum of $1,540.98; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.60 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0012) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), for additional charter transit system surtax, in the sum of $2,049.22; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $766.07; and penalty, in the sum of $1,023.27; plus additional interest that accrues at $0.46 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0013) On August 28, 2003, DOR issued Petitioner a Notice of Proposed Assessment (Form DR 832/833), additional small county surtax, in the sum of $10,544.51; interest through August 28, 2003, in the sum of $3,437.85; and penalty in the sum of $5,282.30; plus additional interest that accrues at $2.15 per day. (DOAH Case No. 04-0014) However, the auditor testified at the May 13, 2004, hearing that she attended Petitioner's deposition on March 18, 2004. At that time, Petitioner provided additional documentation which permitted the auditor to recalculate the amount of tax due. The auditor further testified that she separated out the contracts newly provided at that time and any information which clarified the prior contracts she had received. She then isolated the contracts that would affect the Florida taxes due. Despite some of the new information increasing the tax on some of Petitioner's individual Florida contracts, the result of the auditor's new review was that overall, the contracts, now totaling 33, resulted in a reduction in total tax due from Petitioner. These changes were recorded in Revision No. 1 which was attached to the old June 23, 2003, Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, which was sent by certified mail to Petitioner. The certified mail receipt was returned to DOR as unclaimed. The auditor's calculations reducing Petitioner's overall tax are set out in Respondent's Exhibit 16 (Revision No. 1). That exhibit appears to now show that taxes are owed by Petitioner as follows in Findings of Fact 34-40 infra. For DOAH Case No. 04-0008, discretionary surtax (tax code 013), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $1,937.37, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0009, sales and use tax (tax code 010), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $111,811.04, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0010, local governmental infrastructure surtax (tax code 016), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $5,211.00, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0011, indigent care surtax (tax code 230), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $317.39, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0012, school capital outlay tax (tax code 530), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $2,398.68, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0013, charter transit system surtax (tax code 015), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $1,558.66, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law. For DOAH Case No. 04-0014, small county surtax (tax code 270), Petitioner only owes in the amount of $7,211.83, plus penalties and interest to run on a daily basis as provided by law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order upholding the amount of tax calculated against Petitioner in its June 21, 2003, Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, Revision No. 1, in the principal amounts as set forth in Findings of Fact Nos. 34-40, plus interest and penalty accruing per day as provided by law, until such time as the tax is paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of July, 2004.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, John Obrzut, should be terminated from his employment for reasons of incompetence and his alleged failure to advise the Superintendent of the Franklin County School District time and filing requirements under the above-cited Statute, because of failure to submit required monthly reports to the School Board as well as for unauthorized absences.
Findings Of Fact On May 6, 1985, the Respondent entered into an employment contract with the Franklin County School Board for employment in the position of Finance Officer and Business Manager. The contract's term continued through June 30, 1986, with a commencing date of July 1, 1985. The contract provided for a probationary status for Respondent. The Respondent was provided with a copy of the job description for the Finance Officer/Business Manager position he accepted and contracted for at the time of his employment. That job description established that the individual directly responsible to the Superintendent and the School Board for all activities concerned with the financial operations of the school system was the Finance Officer/Business Manager, Dr. Obrzut. Superintendent Gloria Tucker interviewed Dr. Obrzut for this position and was especially concerned that he understand the duties he would have in that office because the School Board was experiencing financial difficulties at that time, primarily related to the disheveled condition of its records for the past several fiscal years due at least in part to previous mismanagement by those with Dr. Obrzut's responsibilities. The Respondent was informed that it would be necessary for him, as Finance Officer, to reconstruct portions of those records. Dr. Obrzut did not inquire regarding the specific status of the records during the time of his employment interview and once he became employed he found the problem to be considerably worse than he had expected. Ms. Tucker informed the Respondent that his duties would include keeping her advised of the "TRIM Bill" time requirements in order to meet the budget publication date of July 25, 1985, as required by that law. His job description also required him to prepare a monthly financial statement showing receipts, disbursements and the balance of funds available in the district budget. Additionally, on June 24, 1985, after he was hired, the Respondent was given the various task assignments, in writing, from the Superintendent. These involved: (1) gathering necessary data and preparing the budget amendment for the June 27, 1985 School Board meeting; (2) develop with Mr. Johnson's help the baseline data that would establish the "time-line" for reconciliation of the 1982-1983 and 1983-1984 budgets, which was one of the Respondent's two major priorities for June and July of 1985 because, given the disarray of its financial records, the Board had an immediate necessity to know what cash reserves it truly had on hand; (3) set up a time schedule concerning when final reports were due on each federal and State project and when that information would be available to the Superintendent, as well as to give the Superintendent a written report as to how the "time-line" would operate during July and August of 1985. (4) The Respondent was required to set up a written time schedule as when Department of Education reports were due so that no reports would be filed late. Assignment number 5 involved reviewing the requirements for budget preparation as stated in the law regarding time requirements (i.e. the "TRIM Bill"). The Respondent was to directly contact the County property appraiser concerning when tax millage information from his office would be ready for the budgeting process. The Respondent's past employment history involved various clerical, accounting and financial analyst positions for most of the last two decades, as well as substantial periods of time spent obtaining graduate degrees. His longest period of employment was four years with the Department of Transportation, where he supervised a clerical unit with a number of employees reporting to him. Prior to his employment with the Franklin County School Board, he had no experience as the overall supervisor of financial operations of any agency of government or a private enterprise. He had no experience with school finance procedures established under Chapter 237, Florida Statutes. On June 24, 1985, the Respondent was given the assignment involving task number 5 mentioned above, whereby he was to review the requirements for budget preparation as stated in the above- cited Statute regarding time requirements. He contacted the property appraiser concerning when the Superintendent and the Board might expect tax millage information from his office required for the budget process. The Respondent was also verbally instructed by the Superintendent at this same time to keep her informed of all specific dates required by the law concerning budget events. In the course of these verbal instructions, the Superintendent advised Dr. Obrzut that she was especially concerned about this because this was her first time to be involved in the budgeting process as a Superintendent of Schools. On June 25, 1985, Dr. Obrzut advised the Superintendent that he had called the Franklin County property appraiser's office and it provided him no information on the requirements for the budget process at that time, in the form of the tax millage information, but he expected advice from them on this subject on June 27, 1985. He also advised the Superintendent at this time that he expected to receive a planning document, with the time requirements for the budgeting process, in the mail from the Department of Education and also expected to receive a copy of it personally at a school financial officer's meeting in Tampa. Dr. Obrzut reviewed Section 200.065, Florida Statutes (the "TRIM Bill"), as requested by the Superintendent, but his testimony establishes that he has no recollection of making any notes or recollection concerning the sequence of events required by the Statute as deadlines in the budget preparation process. In any event, the Respondent had no further communication with the Superintendent concerning the budget time requirements. He subsequently learned that a copy of the planning document would also be mailed to the Superintendent and therefore simply assumed she would monitor the State's various budget planning event time requirements herself. He took no further steps to advise her of the various critical time deadlines. In fact, no one in the Franklin County School District administration was monitoring the budget time schedule of events because the Superintendent, whom the financial officer, Dr. Obrzut, directly reported to, was relying on Obrzut to do this. This fact, however, was discovered accidentally by Mr. David Johnson, a contract certified public accountant, who was performing an audit of the internal accounts of the various district schools. Mr. Johnson was meeting with the Superintendent concerning matters about the internal audit on a Wednesday in July 1985, when he inquired of her as to the status of the district's advertising of its forthcoming budget, as required by law. The Superintendent advised him that Dr. Obrzut was monitoring the schedule of events and deadlines concerning the budget preparation and advertising process. Mr. Johnson thereupon visited Dr. Obrzut at his office and retrieved from him the planning document that Obrzut had received from the Department of Education. Mr. Johnson informed the Superintendent that the budget must be completed and ready for advertising prior to the following Tuesday. This was the first time the Superintendent had learned of the immediately impending deadline for budget advertising as required by the above Statute. The Franklin County School District employees responsible for preparation of the budget then had to work through the entire weekend that ensued in order to timely complete the budget in time for the advertising deadline on Tuesday. The testimony of the Superintendent as well as Mr. Johnson, who has extensive experience in the field of educational finance and was accepted as an expert in that field, established that had that deadline been missed the Franklin County School District would have lost approximately $500,000 in tax revenues needed to fund its $3,000,000 operating budget. Dr. Obrzut acknowledged that he was responsible for ensuring that the federal cash advance reports were sent to the Department of Education in a timely fashion in order to ensure the continuous flow of funds to the district for the district's federally funded projects. He established that he prepared one of these reports himself and delegated the task of preparing the September 1985 report to one of his subordinate employees, Donna Ward. He admitted he did not monitor her work and ensure that the report was timely filed and did not learn of the fact that it had not been filed until the Superintendent informed him of that fact at the time she informed him she would recommend his dismissal. The report was delinquent at that time and the district had already ceased to receive federal funds because of that delinquency. David Johnson was accepted as an expert witness in the areas of accounting and Florida school finance. He worked for the Office of the Auditor General for three years and then spent several years in the capacity of a school Finance Officer. He is a certified public accountant and currently operates an accounting firm that renders accounting assistance to four school districts in Florida. Additionally, he serves as chairman of the Walton County School Board. Mr. Johnson was retained to assist Dr. Obrzut in reconstructing the ledgers and records for the fiscal years 1982- 83 and 1983-84. He was also asked to school Dr. Obrzut in the legal and regulatory requirements and accounting procedures attendant to the peculiarities of Florida school finance. Mr. Johnson established that he had great difficulty explaining to Dr. Obrzut the nuances and peculiarities of the Florida school finance law, reporting requirements and accounting procedures. He spent more than one full day in attempting to explain these duties of Dr. Obrzut's position to him. Dr. Obrzut would indicate that he understood, but later conversation revealed that he did not in fact understand what had been explained to him. Further, Dr. Obrzut showed a penchant for discussing tangential or even unrelated matters with great Verbosity during Mr. Johnson's attempts to explain his financial duties to him. This may have frustrated Dr. Obrzut's opportunity to understand the explanation of his financial duties and the requirements of his position and doubtless frustrated Mr. Johnson's efforts to explain them. In any event, Mr. Johnson established that, based upon his association with Dr. Obrzut over a period of several months, that Dr. Obrzut did not possess the knowledge and skills necessary to enable him to serve as a School District Finance Officer, even in view of his educational degrees in the areas of finance. This opinion was unrebutted.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Respondent John Obrzut be terminated from his position of employment with the School Board of Franklin County. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1775 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not for the material import sought to be conveyed. Rejected as to its overall import as not in accordance with the greater weight of the testimony and evidence presented. Accepted to the extent that the Petitioner failed to present evidence of any unauthorized absences, but the remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as not comporting with the greater weight of the material evidence presented. Rejected as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented, except that the record does not reflect that he ever received any written reprimand or warning. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Van P. Russell, Esquire WATKINS & RUSSELL 41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Edward S. Stafman, Esquire 317 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Brechner, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gloria H. Tucker, Superintendent Franklin County School District 155 Avenue E Apalachicola, Florida 32320
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in her employment based on her gender or race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Janet Cartwright is a white female who formerly worked at the Department of Revenue (DOR or the Department) as a tax auditor. Ms. Cartwright began employment with the Department of Revenue May 1, 2000, as a tax auditor at the Atlanta Service Center. During her employment with DOR, she had four supervisors: Emmanuel Minta, Ron Lee-Owen, Glynn Walters and Evonne Jones Schultz. The function of a tax auditor is to audit all pertinent books and records of taxpayers assigned to them. Auditors are required to maintain a working knowledge of the taxes within their area of responsibility; to travel to the site of the taxpayer's books to perform their audit duties; to review all records during an audit for potential non-compliance with Florida tax statutes; to gather pertinent tax records to support their findings; and to prepare supporting work papers. Ms. Cartwright went on medical leave in September 2003 and did not return to work. On January 2, 2004, she notified her supervisor that she would be applying for early retirement based on a disability, and requested that her medical leave without pay status be extended until her retirement date was established. On or about March 29, 2004, her request for disability retirement benefits was denied. On April 19, 2004, a recommendation was made to terminate her employment based on Petitioner's inability to perform her duties. On July 13, 2004, Petitioner was advised by certified letter that the Department was proposing to terminate her from the position as Tax Auditor II, effective August 31, 2004. Ms. Cartwright acknowledged receiving the July 13, 2004, letter. The July 13, 2004, letter stated: You began employment with the Department of Revenue effective May 1, 2000, as a Tax Auditor I, and on July 12, 2000, you were promoted to a TA II position. You are currently a TA II, which is a field audit position that requires the auditor to independently travel to the taxpayer's location to audit the company's information for Florida taxes. You have been on Leave Without Pay (LWOP) status since September 18, 2003. Further, in a letter dated September 29, 2003, from your physician, Dr. Daniel Goodman, M.D., he indicates that due to your medical condition of narcolepsy, cataplexy and sleep apnea, you are chronically exhausted and always at a risk of falling asleep at any time and have difficulty operating a car at all times. Additionally, Dr. Goodman recommended that you look into getting long-term disability. On January 2, 2004, you provided a letter to your supervisor, Eve Jones, Process Group Manager, requesting that your LWOP status be extended until your retirement benefits are established. However, on March 29, 2004, you were denied disability benefits. The July 13, 2004 letter identified the disciplinary standard upon which the Department relied and the documents considered by the Department in making its decision. It concluded: Your continuing inability to perform your duties has caused not only a concern for your well being, but has also imposed a hardship on the other staff that have had to handle your job duties and responsibilities in addition to their regular duties. Your Program Director and I agree that because of your continuing inability to perform the duties of your position, with no indication of when you might be able to begin performing your normal work duties, dismissal for inability to perform assigned job duties [is] the only appropriate action in your case. No evidence was presented that Ms. Cartwright's termination was based upon her race or gender. The letter contained a notification of Petitioner's right to appeal the action to the Public Employees Relations Commission or to file a grievance pursuant to Section 447.401, Florida Statutes. Ms. Cartwright did not pursue either remedy. Instead she continued to pursue approval of her request for disability retirement, which was successful. On August 30, 2004, the day before her termination would be effective, she faxed to the Department a letter which stated: Last week I received the "Order of Remand," the final document necessary to process my disability retirement effective September 1, 2004. Therefore, after what was an extraordinary amount of time to apply for, and be approved for, disability retirement, I will be terminating employment as a Tax Auditor II effective August 31, 2004. I thank the Department for allowing me to remain on a leave of absence without pay during this process. On August 30, 2005, she filed a complaint against the Department with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging racial and gender discrimination. Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was denied training essential to her position; that she was denied a flex schedule; that she was asked to perform clerical and janitorial duties not required of her male counterparts; and that she was not allowed to drive her own car to field audit locations. The more credible evidence indicates that Ms. Cartwright received formal training in Tallahassee a few months after she was hired, received computer based training and on-the-job training. No credible evidence was received that other similarly situated employees received training denied to Ms. Cartwright. Her claim that she was denied training involved events occurring before she began medical leave without pay, well over a year before she filed her complaint with the Commission. Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was denied a flex time schedule. To the contrary, while there was a delay in approval of flex time during part of her tenure, Ms. Cartwright was approved for flex time schedules on May 2, 2000 (the day after beginning work with the Department) and on August 13, 2002. Ms. Cartwright admitted that the issue regarding flex time was resolved over three years before she filed her complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ms. Cartwright, along with other members of the staff, was asked to perform clerical duties when the office was short- handed. Ms. Cartwright did not identify any person on the staff who was not asked to perform such functions. Likewise, members of the staff were asked to take shifts on a volunteer basis with respect to "coffee duty." Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was asked to clean out the refrigerator, but did not testify when this request was made. As she did not return to work after September 18, 2003, it would have been well over a year before she filed her complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations August 30, 2005. Finally, Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was not allowed to drive her own car to field audits. The more credible evidence indicates that Ms. Cartwright was never prohibited from driving her own car, but that office policy provided that when more than one auditor went to an audit location, only the senior auditor would be paid for mileage when using a personally owned vehicle. Ms. Cartwright did not identify any other employee who was not a senior auditor who was paid mileage when accompanying a senior auditor in the field. Moreover, the trips for which mileage was not approved occurred during the period covering September through December 2002. These trips occurred well over two years before Ms. Cartwright filed her complaint with the Commission on Human Relations. The issues raised in her complaint, i.e., lack of training, denial of flex schedule, performance of clerical or janitorial duties and not being compensated for driving her own car, are separate incidents and do not constitute a continuing violation tied to her proposed termination. All of the incidents identified in her complaint, including the proposed termination, occurred more than 365 days before Petitioner filed her complaint with the Commission on Human Relations.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 2007, 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 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 January, 2007.
