Findings Of Fact Wet 'N Wild operates a water-oriented recreational amusement park known by the same name. The park is situated on about twelve acres of land, including a portion of a small lake, in Orange County, Florida. The park consists primarily of several in-ground pools and waterslides, as well as a beach on the lake. By a Purchase and Lease Agreement dated March 15, 1976, Wet 'N Wild agreed to sell to Mark IV Properties, Inc. (hereafter Mark IV), a California corporation, the subject twelve acres of land, including all buildings, improvements and fixtures attached to that land. Mark IV simultaneously agreed to lease the improved land back to Wet 'N Wild for a period of twenty years with an option to renew the lease for an additional ten years. The conveyance subsequently took place, pursuant to the terms of the Purchase and Lease Agreement. By a Lease Agreement dated February 28, 1977, Mark IV then leased the park to Wet 'N Wild, as had been agreed. The Lease Agreement requires that Wet 'N Wild pay rent in accordance with a monthly rental schedule incorporated as an exhibit to the Lease Agreement. Additionally, the Lease Agreement requires Wet 'N Wild to pay the ad valorem taxes on the land. Wet 'N Wild leases the park from Mark IV on a turnkey basis. All of the pools and the waterslides now present on the land were conveyed by Wet 'N Wild to Mark IV pursuant to the Purchase and Lease Agreement. The only significant addition to the park since that conveyance is the so-called Kamikaze Slide. This waterslide was separately conveyed to Mark IV upon its completion in November 1978. Two provisions in the Lease Agreement at least implicitly acknowledge Mark IV's ownership interest in the pools and waterslides. First, the lease requires Wet 'N Wild to maintain fire and extended hazard insurance on the improvements. Second, Mark IV is obligated to replace or repair the improvements in the event of their partial or total destruction, and, pending completion of the repairs or replacements, the rent is proportionately reduced. All of the pools and waterslides are fixed to the land in such a fashion that their removal would cause substantial injury to the premises. For example, the Kamikaze Slide is a six-story high waterslide emptying into a concrete pool of water built into the ground. The slide is supported by large steel beams and poles anchored deeply into the ground. The other pools and waterslides, all of similar physical dimensions, are equally affixed to the property. Wet 'N Wild derives its primary source of income from entrance fees which guests pay to enter, use and occupy the park. Once having paid this fee, a guest is entitled to the use and occupancy of the park without further charge. The sole exception is a rental fee paid for the use of small boats on the lake, for which rental of tangible personal property Wet 'N Wild collects and remits to the DOR a separate tax. The guest is denied access to incidental areas of the park, such as those reserved for operating machinery or maintenance. From its inception, Wet 'N Wild has duly collected and remitted to the Department an excise tax on entrance fees. The revised proposed assessment is computed exclusively on the basis of the lease payments, including ad valorem tax payments, made by Wet 'N Wild under the Lease Agreement.
Recommendation DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL R. N. McDONNELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Kelly Smith, Esquire Robert E. Meale, Esquire Suite 1444, CNA Tower 255 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Barbara Staros Harmon, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Room LL04, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, the Respondent entered a sales tax assessment in the amount of one thousand four hundred sixty-one and eighty-two one hundredths dollars ($1,461.82) against the Petitioner. In support thereof, Respondent takes the position that payments of $300.00 per charter hour of flying time by the Petitioner to owners of aircraft in order that Petitioner may use said aircraft to provide charter services to third parties are payments for the rental of tangible personal property and therefore subject to a sales tax pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Petitioner on the other hand, takes the position that it is the agent of the owners of the aircraft and as such, provides services which are exempt from taxation pursuant to Department of Revenue Rule 12A-1.71(8), Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Robert Capen, President of the Petitioner, testified that Petitioner has verbal arrangements to utilize the services of two jet aircraft to further its charter services. As a charter service, Petitioner transports third persons to a certain destination and provides the fuel and crew in return for an amount ranging from $300.00 to $750.00 per charter hour, depending on the length of the flight. The amount for services paid by third persons are made payable by check or other credit memos to Petitioner and said amounts are reported as income to the Internal Revenue Service. Pursuant to the verbal agreement with the aircraft owners, Petitioner guarantees that the aircraft will be chartered to third persons three hundred (300) hours annually. In return therefor, Petitioner pays the aircraft owners $300.00 per charter hour on a monthly basis. In addition thereto, Petitioner provides crews, maintains, schedules and operates the aircraft for the owners and is responsible for the proper licensing and certification of the aircraft for charter flights. For these services, Petitioner received a management fee in the total amount of $7,500.00 per month from the two owners of the aircraft. Based on the $300.00 per charter hour fee which is paid by Petitioner to the owners, Respondent entered its assessment claiming that the services provided by Petitioner constitute a "lease or rental" as provided in Section 212.02(2)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent also points out that the legislative intent as enunciated by the state is that every person is exercising a taxable privilege when leasing or renting tangible property within Florida as set forth in Chapter 212.05, Florida Statutes, and that a tax therefore must be imposed on the gross proceeds of all rentals or leases of tangible personal Property, citing Section 212.11(3), Florida Statutes and Department of Revenue Rule 12A-1.71(1), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the facts adduced at the hearing including the testimony of Messrs. Capen, Nelson Brown and James Santimaw, President, Secretary and Treasurer respectively, it appears that this case is governed by the statutory authority contained in Section 212, Florida Statutes, as implemented by Respondent's Rule 12A-1.71, Florida Administrative Code. Although Petitioner urges that its services amount to the creation of an agency relationship between the aircraft owners, the relevant facts tend to show otherwise. For example, Petitioner provides fuel and crew while third persons did not take possession of nor exert any control over the aircraft. As stated, Petitioner charges and receives an amount ranging from $500.00 to $750.00 per charter hour directly from third persons who have no dealings whatsoever with the aircraft owners. In the absence of any evidence tending to show that any type of agency relationship existed other than the statements advanced by Mr. Robert Brown during the course of the hearing, I hereby conclude that the Petitioner's contention that the services which it renders to third parties amount to a rental of tangible property and is therefore a taxable service within the meaning of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's final argument that its charter service amounts to a brokerage arrangement was also considered however this argument must also fall as there was no credible evidence tending to establish that the Petitioner was in any manner acting as broker for anyone other than itself.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law as recited above, it is recommended that the assessment referred to herein he upheld as a valid assessment. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia S. Turner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Rod Tennyson, Esquire Ombres, Powell & Tennyson, P.A. Suite 600, Clematis Building 208 Clematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Robert L. Shevin Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Is Petitioner Haas Publishing Company liable for the taxes and interest assessed under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, specifically the sales and use tax and related surtaxes, pursuant to Section 212.031, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.070, for the audit period June 1, 1995 through May 31, 2000, and if so, to what extent?
Findings Of Fact Haas is a Delaware corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida. It is a subsidiary of Primedia, Inc. Haas publishes free consumer guides to apartments and homes and is paid by the apartment owners, realtors, and homeowners who advertise in the publications. One of Haas' divisions, Distributech, distributes the guides to retail stores. Haas negotiates with retailers for an appropriate site for its display of publications at each retail location. Nationwide, Haas distributes its publications from approximately 42,000 locations. Nationwide, Haas paid for the exclusive right to distribute, under contracts, in approximately 20,000 locations. Otherwise, it distributes in "free" locations. As required by Section 72.011(1)(b), Florida Statutes, Haas has complied with all applicable registration requirements with respect to the taxes at issue herein. DOR is the agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of Florida's tax laws, including sales and use tax and various local surtaxes. DOR conducted an audit of Haas for the period of June 1, 1995 through May 31, 2000. The audit resulted in an assessment of sales and use tax and associated surtaxes, interest, and penalties (Assessment). After protest and petition for reconsideration, DOR issued its Notice of Reconsideration (NOR) to Haas on May 16, 2003, wherein DOR sustained the Assessment in full, but offered to waive all penalties, without prejudicing Haas' right to challenge the remainder of the Assessment in full. Haas accepted the Department's offer to waive all penalties in their entirety, making a payment on the Assessment at the time the Petition herein was filed. In other words, Haas paid certain uncontested amounts in order to pursue the instant challenge to the remainder of the Assessment of all taxes and all interest, and in order to take advantage of an unrelated "extended amnesty" provided by DOR. This formal proceeding followed. The auditor who actually performed the work of the audit did not testify at the disputed-fact hearing. DOR's only witness, Ms. Gifford, did not participate in the original audit. However, Ms. Gifford reviewed the audit documents in detail and professionally consulted with the auditor and other reviewers to review the auditor's methods against the paperwork of the audit. She also reviewed the audit with input from Haas and its representative in the course of the Technical Assistance and Dispute Resolution (TADR) process, and throughout the informal challenges preceding this formal proceeding. She also reviewed all of the de novo material presented at the deposition of Haas' principal, Mr. Sullender, for purposes of her testimony. She is an expert capable of assisting the trier of fact, in that she is a Florida-licensed certified public accountant (CPA), and the undersigned is satisfied with the accuracy of her explanation of DOR's policies and procedures and of her predecessor's methodology and calculations. Also, her interpretations of rules and statutes are entitled to great weight where they purport to be the interpretation of the agency, but they do not constitute "factual" testimony and are not binding in this de novo proceeding. Ms. Gifford's analysis of case law is not entitled to that same deference. At the disputed-fact hearing, Haas challenged both the timeliness of the audit and the methodology of the audit. It is axiomatic that the amount assessed depends upon the methodology employed by the auditor, but DOR contended herein that because Haas protested only that an assessment had been made and because Haas had accepted all available offers of mitigation, Haas could not protest, at hearing, the amount calculated for the Assessment, whether the audit's calculations were correct, or whether the audit had been conducted in a timely manner. The following allegations of the Petition herein are relevant to these issues: No payment made by Haas to a retailer in Florida constituted payment for a lease of real property; No payment made by Haas to a retailer in Florida constituted payment for a license to use real property; The payments made by Haas to retailers were for distribution rights and/or intrinsically valuable personal property rights; The payments made by Haas to retailers were not subject to Florida sales and use taxes and other surtaxes; Alternatively, the payments made by Haas to retailers should have been apportioned by DOR, pursuant to Section 212.031, Florida Statutes; Some or all of the taxes that the Department claims that Haas owes have been paid by the retailers with whom Haas had agreements; The Department was without statutory authority to impose the Assessment for taxes and interest as set forth in Exhibit A; and The Assessment that is the subject of this proceeding is unlawful and violates the provisions of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes; Petitioner is entitled to relief under Sections 72.011 and Section 120.80, Florida Statutes. Section 212.031, Florida Statutes, dictates that the payments made by Haas to Florida retailers were not subject to Florida tax and therefore requires that the Assessment by DOR be stricken or modified. The auditor sent Form DR-840, the Notice of Intent to Audit (NOI), to Haas on May 30, 2000. This item informed the Taxpayer that the period of the audit would be June 1, 1995 through May 30, 2000, and that the audit would commence before July 29, 2000 (within 60 days) unless an attached waiver was signed and returned. The audit file does not reflect a signed waiver within 60 days. Ms. Gifford, on behalf of DOR, testified that the purpose of this NOI was to warn the Taxpayer that the audit would begin within 60 days unless the Taxpayer waived the timeline and that with a waiver, the audit would begin within 120 days. Ms. Gifford further testified that DOR considers itself limited to going back only five years from the date the auditor begins to review a taxpayer's records and that the Agency interprets Section 213.335, Florida Statutes, to require completion of the audit within one year of the initial letter. Ms. Gifford asserted that with a waiver, DOR would interpret the several applicable statutes and rules to provide the auditor with 120 days to begin an audit to encompass the whole of June 1, 1995 to May 30, 2000. However, if an audit is not begun within 120 days, DOR understands that the statutory audit period is not tolled and DOR usually removes the delay period from the front end (i.e., DOR starts the audit period the delayed number of days after June 1, 1995) and adds it to the back end (ends the audit period the delayed number of days after May 30, 2000) so that a five-year period of audit occurs, but the audit period starts some date later than June 1, 1995, and ends some date later than May 30, 2000. DOR considers the start of the audit to be when the auditor begins looking at records of the taxpayer. Haas provided pertinent, but incomplete, records on August 29, 2000, which was more than 60 days and less than 90 days after the May 30, 2000, NOI. Haas requested several extensions to review work papers received from the auditor. All were honored by DOR. A lot of correspondence ensued between the auditor and Haas and between DOR and Haas' designated representative(s)/accountants, but DOR's auditor did not record any time spent on the audit file until he met with Haas or its representative on October 23, 2000, more than 120 days after May 30, 2000. On the basis of the auditor's work record/timesheet, Haas contends that October 23, 2000, which was more than 120 days after the May 30, 2000 NOI, is when the audit actually began. Exchanges of records, work papers, and information continued, and on or about May 29, 2001, a vice-president of Haas signed and FAXED to DOR's auditor a consent to extend the statute of limitations for sales and use tax assessments through March 29, 2002. However, he did not affix the corporate seal in the designated part of the consent form. The consent form had been prepared by the auditor and mailed to Haas on or about March 25, 2001. It only listed "sales and use tax" as a reference. It did not identify any other tax, which ultimately made up the Assessment, including Charter Transit System Tax, Local Government Infrastructure Tax, Indigent Care Tax, or School Capital Outlay Tax, which, although related to sales and use tax, have separate designations. These surtax audits are based on the same facts, circumstances, and records as the sales and use tax audit herein but DOR lists and computes them separately from the sales and use tax on some of its forms. (See Finding of Fact 19.) The validity and timeliness, vel non, of the foregoing consent to extension was not raised by Petitioner until the disputed-fact hearing. A Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (also called an NOI) was dated September 21, 2001. The Notice of Proposed Assessment (NOPA) was issued December 5, 2001. DOR considers this document to be the completion of the audit. After the audit was completed, it was submitted to DOR's TADR, a dispute resolution process. A Notice of Decision (NOD) was entered July 30, 2002. Haas petitioned for reconsideration, alleging additional facts. By a May 16, 2003, Notice of Reconsideration (NOR), the audit was upheld. The NOR and NOIA lump all Chapter 212, Florida Statutes' taxes together. The NOPA lists each surtax separately. The compromise of amounts and this formal proceeding followed, as described above in Findings of Fact 5-6. Many contracts and other records were not provided by Haas to DOR until TADR, until the informal proceedings, or until after the Petition for this formal proceeding had been filed. Among other things, DOR had upheld the auditor's initial decision with regard to calculating Haas' 1997 tax. The auditor had not tested or sampled Haas' records for the full of the audit period in order to arrive at a tax figure for 1997. Because Haas had not provided certain records (RDAs) for 1997, Haas' figures for December 1996 were "extrapolated" by the auditor to the first six months of 1997, while the figures for January 1998 were "extrapolated" back to the last six months of 1997. Ms. Gifford felt this method constituted a legitimate estimate of the taxes due where a taxpayer had failed to provide adequate records. For the audit period, Haas published and distributed, free of charge to the public, apartment and home guides. The distribution was accomplished through contracts, on a regional and national level, with major retail store chains such as K-Mart, Blockbuster, Eckerd's, and Winn-Dixie Stores. The tax-assessment problems herein are compounded by Haas' choice not to use uniform contractual arrangements with all retailers; by its failure to designate within its contracts and/or accounting records what, if any, intangible uses it believed it was paying for; and its failure to allocate within its contracts and/or accounting records the amounts it believed it was paying for each alleged intangible use. Some of the contracts state that there is no corporate relation between Haas and the retailer. Haas has one major and several smaller competitors who distribute their own publications at retail store chains. Haas' contracts with the retail store chains guarantee to Haas the exclusive right to distribute apartment and home guides from the retail stores' locations and usually include the right to use the retail chains' respective logos and trademarks in Haas' promotional/sales materials and publications. One exception is Seven-Eleven, which limits to a greater degree use of its trademark and logo than do some of the other retailers. Not every contract contains a reference to a retailer's trademark or logo. Haas used its exclusive rights to distribute with certain retail store chains as an inducement to sell advertising to the apartment owners, realtors, and others who advertise in its publications. It was valuable to Haas to be able to tell potential print advertisers that its apartment/home guide was the only one allowed to be distributed from the particular retail chains. It was valuable to Haas to be able to show potential print advertisers the logo of retailers in Haas' promotional materials and publications. In most places, the exclusive right to distribute from the specified retail locations distinguished Haas from its competitors and allowed it to charge more for its advertising than they did. Mr. Sullender, Haas' principal, is credible that in each instance where Haas' contracts do not mention the use of trademarks and logos, each retail chain otherwise gave permission or provided Haas with its logo and trademark materials to use, as a result of the contracts. However, Haas provided nothing to DOR prior to instituting this formal case, by which DOR could have determined that such permission had been provided outside the contracts. Haas' right to place the retailers' logo or trademark on Haas' publication racks was a valuable right and every Haas rack displayed logos. Yet, the contracts do not obligate Haas to use the retailers' logos or trademarks, and Haas can still distribute from the racks without a logo. The contracts made no specific allocation of payments by Haas to the retailers for use of the retailers' logos and trademarks. The issue of whether payment for use of a logo or trademark should have been separately allocated from Haas' payment to the retailer in its contracts was not taken into consideration by DOR because this issue, in those terms, was not raised during the audit or subsequent informal protest/review procedures. However, the issue of allocation based on fair rental value of the space utilized in connection with prior audits of some of the respective retailers was raised. This is largely an issue of semantics. (See Findings of Fact 55-56.) All except one of the contracts at issue guarantee Haas the exclusive right to distribute its publications from the particular retail chains' locations. Exclusivity of the rights accruing to Haas is singularly important to Haas' business. However, Haas has been known to charge its competitors for space on its racks. Haas also is free to enter into partnerships with its competitors. In order to secure the exclusive right to distribute its publications from the retail locations and the right to use the retailers' trademarks and logos, Haas pays fees to the retail store chains under the contracts. Typically, Haas has to "outbid" at least one other competitor to obtain the foregoing exclusive rights. The payments under the contracts were typically made "per store," per month, and did not vary depending on the location of the store within the State. Part of Haas' negotiating strategy and ultimate success in securing exclusive use of most of its locations is the judicious use of "signing bonuses." Signing bonuses are specifically allocated in some, but not all, of Haas' contracts. In some contracts, they are directly linked to the right of exclusivity. They can be substantial amounts. However, according to Ms. Gifford, signing bonuses have never been part of DOR's Assessment in this case. (TR-62-63) Because the exclusive right to distribute its print materials was so valuable to Haas, it paid up to $375 per month per store under one contract. When Haas did not secure the exclusive right to distribute from a retail chain, it would not pay for the right to distribute, but distributed its publications from "free" locations. Nationwide, this compares at 20,000 paid to 22,000 unpaid locations. (See Finding of Fact 1.) The amount Haas paid a retail chain did not vary by particular store location within the chain nor by the size of the rack that Haas placed in a particular store. Haas' racks take up from two to four-feet worth of floor space. Haas supplied the racks, but, in general, the retail chains had control over the size, type, and color of the racks placed in its stores and limited Haas' access to the racks. Haas was solely responsible for set-up, replenishing, and maintenance of its racks on the retailer's property. Haas purchases liability insurance. Haas is always assigned covered space by the retailer. Haas considers space near an entrance/exit of the retailer's covered premises to be premium space. Retailers consider this same space to be "dead space," beyond its cash registers, which is essentially useless for display or sale of their retail goods. However, some retailers park carts or post notices in these areas. Haas does not sell or distribute any goods of, or for, the retailer. It merely stocks its own publications in its own racks in the retailer's space. Haas has no other contact with the retailers' business. Under the contracts, retailers have no obligation to market Haas' publications. They do not buy or sell them or pay to advertise in them. Retailers pay nothing to Haas. If Haas uses a retailer's logo and/or trademark in Haas' own advertising or in its publications per their negotiated arrangement, it is for the purpose of promoting Haas' publications. Use of the retailers' logos and trademarks has a benefit to the retailer, but a purely incidental one, since the retail customer who picks up a Haas publication from the Haas rack has already made the decision to enter the retail store in the first place. None of the retail chains ever attempted to charge sales or use taxes to Haas based on the payments made under the contracts. There is no evidence that Haas or any retailer, on Haas' behalf, tendered sales or use taxes to the State on the contracts at issue herein. Although some contracts acknowledge that a retailer is a franchisee of a third party, none of the contracts refer to the relationship between Haas and the retailer as a "franchise" or acknowledge Haas as a franchisee. Ms. Gifford did not equate Haas' use of a retailer's logo or trademark to market Haas' publications, not the retailer's goods, with all the accoutrements of a franchise, as she understood those accoutrements. DOR issued to a different taxpayer (not Haas) Technical Assistance Advisement No. 03A-002 (the TAA), concerning real property lease agreements. Although this advisory letter from a DOR attorney is not binding, except between DOR and the party to whom it is addressed, and although it is limited to the specific facts discussed within it, the legal conclusions therein are instructive, if not conclusive, of DOR's official interpretation of the statutes and rules it administers and of its agency policy with regard to when allocations are appropriate between intangible rights and real property rights. TAA 03A-002 cites, with approval, paragraphs 56 through 59 of the Final Order in Airport Limousine Service of Orlando, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, DOAH Case No. 94-1790, et seq., (March 23, 1995)1/ and State ex rel. N/S Associates v. Board of Review of the Village of Greendale, 473 N.W. 2d 554 (Wisc. App. 1991), and states, "The test for isolating intangible business value is as simple as asking whether the disputed value is appended to the property, and thus transferable with the property, or is it independent of the property so that it either stays with the seller or dissipates upon sale." This TAA also states that DOR will view the reasonableness of allocations of payments made pursuant to a lease agreement on a case-by-case basis in reference to whether the allocation is made in good faith or lacks any basis. It further cites with approval Bystrom v. Union Land Investment, Inc., 477 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985) ("Good faith for property tax valuation purposes will mean 'real, actual, and of a genuine nature as opposed to a sham or deception.'") The TAA anticipates that DOR would require that the taxpayer make reasonable allocations, within the taxpayer's own records, of lease payments to rent and other items not subject to tax, and that the taxpayer would also be required to otherwise maintain records adequate to establish how the taxpayer determined that each allocation was reasonable, and further, that if DOR auditors were satisfied with the taxpayer's records, an appraisal would not be required by DOR. The TAA does not foreclose the requirement of an appraisal to test the taxpayer's records. Synopsized, the TAA opines that separate payments by a tenant to a landlord for trademark, service mark, or logo rights of the landlord are subject to the tax on real property rentals unless the allocation of payments made by the taxpayer is reasonable, and further, that the allocation is not reasonable where no substantial, competent, and persuasive evidence is provided to establish the value of the trademark, service mark, or logo rights of the landlord received by the tenant and a legitimate business purpose for the tenant to acquire those rights is not demonstrated. Herein, Haas had not allocated rent and intangibles within its own contracts/records. It was Ms. Gifford's view that if the Taxpayer herein had not allocated the value of the trademarks, etc. and the real property value of its contracts, it was not up to DOR to do so in the course of an audit. Nonetheless, during the protest period, DOR had considered allocating the payments made by Haas under its contracts, into taxable and non-taxable payments, by reviewing the market rate rental for the space occupied and obtaining a valuation of the identifiable intangible property. Ultimately, DOR did not use this method on the basis that Haas had not submitted sufficient records. At hearing, Haas attempted to present evidence of the fair market value of the real estate involved and of the so- called intangible rights through an intangible property appraiser and a Florida-certified real estate appraiser. Lee Waronker is a Florida-certified real estate appraiser who was accepted as an expert in real estate appraisal. Mr. Waronker prepared a report which made a comparison of Haas' contracts with allegedly comparable rental properties, but he only used three "comparables," none of which included racks owned by similar advertising businesses. He did not consider what Petitioner's real competitors paid for similar space. Thus, when he arrives at an average fair rental value of Haas' space in all the retailers' locations as $25-50 per square foot, his base figures are suspect. Therefore, when he concluded that since Haas was paying an average of $355 per square foot and all the remainder of the contract payments should be allocated to intangible rights, such as trademarks and exclusivity, he was not credible or persuasive. His figures also apply only to the date of his appraisal in 2003, and admittedly would not be representative of the value of the rental property during the audit period. Therefore, his analysis that only 11.3 percent, plus or minus, of the contract prices constituted rent or a license to use is discounted and not accepted. Petitioner also presented the testimony and report of James N. Volkman, an intangible property appraiser who was accepted as an expert in that field. Mr. Volkman obtained all of his data from either the Securities and Exchange Commission filings of eighty-three percent of the retailers involved, from Haas, or from information compiled by DOR. These are legitimate appraisal sources. He performed his appraisal within the professional standards of the Financial Accounting Standards Board. He concluded that Haas' contracts could best be described as "distribution agreements," "because they are the means by which Haas distributes its publications" and because anyone familiar with the operations of a publisher would understand a line item on a balance sheet of a "distribution agreement" and not everyone would understand the term "license to use real property." It is noted that "distribution agreements" are not listed in the statute, but this, by itself, is not a fatal flaw. He maintained that the Haas contracts could not reasonably be characterized as a license to use real property, because the amount paid was well in excess of the fair rental value of the space. However, as part of his analysis, Mr. Volkman did not rely on Mr. Waronker's independent real estate appraisal, but conducted his own analysis as to the amount a retailer would likely charge a party seeking to utilize the floor space taken up by the approximate size of a single Haas rack. In doing so, Mr. Volkman was admittedly outside his realm of expertise. Mr. Volkman allocated the amounts Haas was paying as twelve percent to the "right to use real property"; twenty-four percent to "non-compete rights" (his term for exclusivity); fourteen percent to "trademark rights"; thirty-five percent to "distribution cost savings" (a term which seems to describe Haas not having to identify and mail its publications to interested persons or use a retailer's magazine rack);2/ and fifteen percent to "market penetration premium."3/ The last two calculations are not credible and undermine the entire allocations summary he presented. The distribution cost savings figure contains too many assumptions not fully documented. Mr. Volkman also arrived at his calculation of the "market penetration premium" merely by selecting the residual percentage sufficient to make up the difference, so that his other figures added up to 100 percent of the total fee paid by Haas to retailers. His reason for doing this is not plausible. He assumed that just because the growth rate of Haas' business far exceeded the growth rate in multi- family units, it must be that Haas substantially increased its market share during the audit period due to exclusivity. Ultimately, he could not explain the fifteen percent calculation for "market penetration" by the documents he relied on for calculating the other three categories. More damaging to the weight and credibility of his report is that Mr. Volkman did not consider Haas' signing bonuses as having anything to do with the exclusivity rights accruing to Haas. He considered the signing bonuses not to be an intangible right but only "compensation to retailers for negotiating these agreements." However, signing bonus rights seem to be the only intangible rights allocated in any of the contracts and were inherently recognized as such by DOR when it chose not to address them in the Assessment. There are also a number of other questionable portions of his report and opinion which cause it to be discounted and not accepted here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order finding the Assessment factually and legally correct and sustaining the Assessment plus interest to date. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 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 18th day of June, 2004.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in this Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was licensed as a registered real estate broker in the State of Florida. In the early part of 1982, Respondent entered into a partnership agreement for the purchase and operation of the Cleveland Street Apartments with several individuals including Mr. Bradwell, Mr. Boulson, Mr. Crouse, and Mr. Tafton (sp). Respondent was to be managing partner because of his status as a real estate broker responsible for the operation of the facility and the payment of all expenses including taxes. Periodically, the Respondent would notify the other partners of the status of their investment. This generally indicated a negative cash flow and required additional contributions from the partners in order to meet the expenses incurred in the operation. Specifically, among the obligations to be paid were county real estate taxes for the years 1983 and 1984. In response to Respondent's notification to the partners of the taxes due, each partner periodically forwarded his pro rata share of the expenses, including taxes, to the Respondent with the anticipation that these expenses would be met and the taxes would be paid. As it happened, however, when Mr. Boulson, one of the partners, went to the Palm Beach County Court House at some time in 1985 to inquire as to what the taxes for that year would be, he was advised that the 1983 and 1984 real property taxes on the property had not been paid and were delinquent. This came as a complete surprise to him, and he and the other partners were required to contribute additional funds to pay both the 1983 and 1984 property taxes and the interest accrued thereon. Respondent admits that he did not pay the 1983 and 1984 taxes as they were due. He contends, however, that because of the fact that the apartment was operated with a negative cash flow, and because of the fact that the other partners repeatedly made their makeup contributions after the fact and slowly, he was forced to advance the money for other expenses as far as he could and utilized the money when paid by the other partners for taxes, to make up the other expense shortfall that he could not or did not make. Respondent contends that if the other partners had paid their assessments in a timely fashion, the other bills could have been paid on time and it would not have been necessary for him to utilize the money contributed for tax payments for the payment of these other expenses. This argument is without merit. The accountant's testimony clearly shows that sufficient money was paid in by the partners to pay the expenses and that the inflow/outflow was in balance, assuming the taxes had been paid on time as required. The evidence is overwhelming that Respondent was derelict in his responses to his partners and in his availability to them when they attempted to contact him regarding apartment business. In addition, Mr. Sonderholm, the individual from whom Respondent and the other partners bought the property, and who held a purchase money mortgage on it, indicates that for the first year, Respondent faithfully made the mortgage payments on time. However, thereafter, he began to be delinquent in the payments and on at least five occasions, issued checks in payment of the monthly mortgage payment which were returned dishonored for non-sufficient funds. Each of these checks was in an amount in excess of two thousand dollars. Toward the end of the relationship, in August, 1985, Respondent submitted his last property operating statement to the partners which showed a net operating loss in excess of $800.00 for the period covered, along with a request that that sum be forwarded to Respondent for reimbursement of expenses. By the admission of Mr. Bradwell, this money was not paid to the Respondent because it was extremely difficult to contact him and repeated efforts by phone, mail, and in person at his office were unsuccessful. By this time, however, the property was being managed for the partnership by a different management agent and after Respondent stopped handling the property for the partnership, he was no longer furnished any statements regarding the partnership operations though he was officially still a partner. This was because, according to Mr. Bradwell, it was impossible to reach Respondent and no one knew where he was. There is, however, a letter from Mrs. Crouse, dated in October, 1985, which is addressed to Respondent at his address of record which he received. There is also evidence to indicate that other letters sent to him at this address by certified mail were returned undelivered. These letters were not offered into evidence, however, and there is no way to know if the nondelivery was due to an inadequate address or whether Respondent refused delivery. Respondent was not furnished tax form K-1 for his share of the partnership for 1985 in early 1986 because the other partners felt, after consultation with their attorney, that his unavailability, coupled with his failure to properly manage the funds of the partnership and his alleged misapplication thereof was sufficient to deprive him of his partnership interest. There is no evidence to indicate that Respondent failed to make 1985 tax payments as required. In 1984, Respondent entered into a partnership with James M. VanSleet to purchase and operate an apartment building in Lake Worth, Florida. Because Respondent was in the real estate brokerage business and operated a property management concern, he was given, as a part of his partnership function, the tasks of manager and rental agent for the building. This arrangement was, however, a partnership rather than a broker-client relationship. In his capacity as rental agent in May, 1984, Respondent rented a unit in the building to Anthony Grieco and received a check from Mr. Grieco in the amount of $900.00 which represented a $500.00 security deposit and the first month's rent in advance. Mr. Grieco occupied the premises until May, 1985 and upon moving out, requested that his security deposit be refunded. He was advised by the Respondent that an inspection was necessary and that if the inspection revealed no damage, the deposit would be refunded. Several days later, he was notified that the inspection was satisfactory and that the $500.00 would be refunded, however, repeated contacts both by Mr. Grieco and his father, as well as others on his behalf, failed to result in return of the deposit which has not been returned as of the date of hearing. In his efforts to secure the return of the deposit, Mr. Grieco was subjected to numerous delaying tactics such as being required to call back week after week because the refund check was not ready; a failure of Respondent to return calls left for him; and references to the other partner, Mr. VanSleet as the source of refund. Notwithstanding the fact that the $500.00 security deposit has not been returned to Mr. Grieco, there is no evidence as to what was done with it or whether it was misappropriated to Respondent's own use as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Toward the end of 1985, Mr. VanSleet turned the operation of this building over to another rental agent. At that time, he had received several requests for the return of deposits which had been paid to Respondent and which Respondent had failed to reimburse. Mr. VanSleet's practice was to allow the tenant to remain an extra month in the unit without rent rather than pay back the cash deposit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a registered real estate broker in Florida be suspended for a period of two years; that he be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Division of Real Estate his continuing education in the ethics of the real estate profession; and that he pay an administrative fine of $2,500.00. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 16th day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 John E. Knowles 755 Huff Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact In 1971, the Okaloosa Island Authority, a governmental agency, leased certain real property on Santa Rosa Island in Okaloosa County to the Okaloosa Development Corporation for a term of 99 years. Certain ultimate sub-lessees under the Okaloosa Island Authority lease mortgaged their leaseholds as security for the payment of promissory notes held by petitioner First National Bank of Birmingham. Two such notes are involved, both of which were executed and recorded in Florida during 1974. Petitioner is the payee on both notes, and kept them both at its headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama. The maker of the larger note is U.R.S., Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation. The U.R.S. note is in the face amount of $2,500,000.00, although only $347,867.91 of the principal obligation was still outstanding on January 1, 1975; the note was paid in full on January 27, 1975. The makers of the second note were Phillip F. Zeidman and his wife, Nancy L. Zeidman. The Zeidman note is in the face amount of $45,000.00. On January 1, 1975, $44,000.00 of the principal obligation remained outstanding; and on January 1, 1976, $29,286.83 of the principal obligation was still outstanding. No intangible personal property tax was paid when the U.R.S. and Zeidman notes, together with the mortgages which secured their Payment, were recorded by the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County. Statement Required By Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) Petitioner's proposed fact findings have been adopted, in substance, except as to what the First National Bank of Birmingham relied on, as to which no evidence was adduced. Respondent's proposed fact findings have been adopted, in substance, except that the face amount of the U.R.S. note was $2,500,000.00, not $500,000.00; and the real property leased by the Okaloosa Island Authority is situated in Okaloosa, not Escambia County.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's substantive tax liability for 1975 and 1976 be set, with respect to the Zeidman note, at seventy-three and twenty-nine hundredths dollars ($73.29 = 44.00 + 29.29). That petitioner's substantive tax liability for 1975 and 1976 be set, with respect to the U.R.S. note, at three hundred forty-seven and eighty-seven hundredths dollars ($347.87 = 347.87 + 0.00). DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Wilson Crump, II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William Guy Davis, Jr., Esquire Beggs and Lane 700 Brent Building Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576
The Issue Whether the Respondent violated Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by failing to reconcile his accounts, having monies stolen from him by an employee, and withdrawing money from his escrow account as commissions. Whether the Respondent violated Subsection 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by failing to maintain funds paid to him as deposits for rentals, sales taxes, and security deposits in his escrow account until after the date of the rental.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed real estate broker and was so licensed at all times relevant to the events which are a part of the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent holds license number 0177110 issued as a broker, t/a Sunspot Realty, 16428 West Highway 98A, Panama City, Florida 32407. On February 10, 1989, Elaine Brantley, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, visited the Respondent's office for the purpose of conducting a financial audit of the records of the business. The Respondent was not present; and Teresa Tuno, the Respondent's secretary and wife, stated she would prefer that Brantley not review the records in her husband's absence. On February 14, 1989, Brantley telephoned the Respondent and made arrangements to audit Respondent's books on February 15, 1989. A review of the records by Brantley on February 15, 1989 revealed that the records were in a state of disarray and the ledgers were not posted. At that time, Brantley advised the Respondent that the records had to be put in order, the ledgers posted, and accounts reconciled by February 17, 1989, when she would reinspect the records. Brantley reinspected the records on February 17, 1989, and all the ledgers had been posted and the accounts had been reconciled through January. The audit revealed that Tuno had received $47,961.45 in security deposits, sales taxes, and rental deposits which were not refundable under the lease agreement. The audit revealed that the balance of the Respondent's escrow account was $33,321.45. The difference between the balance of the escrow account and the money received by the Respondent includes $8,000 which the Respondent paid to himself with checks drawn on the account for "commissions", and $6,540 which had been stolen by an employee of the Respondent. The monies stolen included cash deposits paid by rental customers to the employee and one check on the escrow account endorsed in blank and given to the employee to pay for items purchased for one of the rental units which the employee cashed and converted to his own use. The theft was reported to the local police and their investigation revealed that the employee had disappeared under suspicious circumstances, indicating foul play. The lease agreement states that a deposit of 50% of the rental rate was required to reserve a property and the deposit was refundable only if another tenant could be found for the same period. The Respondent's agreement with the owner of the property called for a commission of 30% of the rental receipts. However, there was no mention of when the commission was earned and under what circumstances it would be paid in the original rental agreement. Upon being criticized for this practice by Brantley, the Respondent repaid the total amount of the draws. Subsequently, he had a new agreement drawn purporting to authorize early payment of management fees. The new agreement states in pertinent part: Owner agrees to compensate Agent a commission of 30% of rental receipts with the exception of long term winter rentals which will be at a rate of 20%. Agent is authorized to draw management fees upon receipt of tenant's non-refundable reservation deposit. The balance of the escrow account was sufficient to meet any potential demands against it. Had the property been leased to another renter for the same period of time, the second renter's deposit would have been deposited to the account making up the funds refunded to the first renter. The audit also revealed that the Respondent had paid monies from the escrow account to a maintenance company operated by the Respondent for work performed on various of the properties. However, the Respondent had not debited the individual property accounts at the time the check was drawn. Each of the properties had a sufficient individual balance to pay for work charged against the property. The appropriate entries were made eventually in the ledgers for the property by the Respondent. The Respondent has amended his agreement with property owners to permit him to bill for repairs on their property on a cost-plus-10% basis to eliminate this problem. None of the actions by the Respondent resulted in financial loss to any of his clients, and the Respondent was cooperative and candid with the auditor.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent: Be required to pay an administrative fine of $1,000 for violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by distributing commissions to himself; Be required to pay an administrative fine of $1,000 for violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by distributing payments to a maintenance company which he owned without debiting individual property accounts; and Be required to enroll and satisfactorily complete a course on maintenance of escrow funds and accounts. DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 6th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX A TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2681 The Respondent filed a letter in place of proposed findings which contained legal argument which was read and considered. It did not contain any findings. The Petitioner filed proposed findings which were read and considered as follows: Paragraphs 1-3 Adopted Paragraph 4, 1st sentence Adopted Paragraph 4, 2nd sentence Rejected as irrelevant Paragraphs 5-7 Adopted Paragraphs 8-10 Rejected. The terms of the contracts do not address when Tuno was entitled to his commission. Under the terms of the contracts the renters were not entitled to a refund of their advance deposit after a reservation was made unless a new renter could be found for the same time, in which case that renter would have to make a deposit. When Tuno was entitled to his commission was not addressed in the contracts. While findings that Tuno violated the provisions of statute relating to maintenance of funds in his escrow account; this failure was based upon the lack of clarity in the contracts and the high standard of conduct in maintaining escrow accounts which is required of licensees. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. 0. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Robert P. Tuno 16428 West Highway 98A Panama City, Florida 32407
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent properly conducted a sales and use tax audit of Petitioner's books and records; and, if so, whether Petitioner is liable for tax and interest on its purchases of materials used for improvements to real property.
Findings Of Fact During the audit period, Petitioner was a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located at 7820 Professional Place, Suite 2, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner's Florida sales tax number was 39-00-154675-58, and Petitioner's federal employer identification number was 59-3089046. After the audit period, the Florida Department of State administratively dissolved Petitioner for failure to file statutorily required annual reports and filing fees. Petitioner engaged in the business of providing engineering services and fabricating control panels. Petitioner fabricated control panels in a shop Petitioner maintained on its business premises. Petitioner sold some of the control panels in over-the- counter sales. Petitioner properly collected and remitted sales tax on the control panels that Petitioner sold over-the-counter. Petitioner used other control panels in the performance of real property contracts by installing the panels as improvements to real property (contested panels). Petitioner was the ultimate consumer of the materials that Petitioner purchased and used to fabricate the contested panels. At the time that Petitioner installed the contested panels into real property, the contested panels became improvements to the real property. Petitioner failed to pay sales tax at the time Petitioner purchased materials used to fabricate the contested panels. Petitioner provided vendors with Petitioner's resale certificate, in lieu of paying sales tax, when Petitioner purchased the materials used to fabricate the contested panels. None of the purchase transactions for materials used to fabricate the contested panels were tax exempt. The audit is procedurally correct. The amount of the assessment is accurate. On October 23, 2000, Respondent issued a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records (form DR-840), for audit number A0027213470, for the period of October 1, 1995, through September 30, 2000. During an opening interview, the parties discussed the audit procedures and sampling method to be employed and the records to be examined. Based upon the opening interview, Respondent prepared an Audit Agreement and presented it to an officer and owner of the taxpayer. Respondent began the audit of Petitioner's books and records on January 22, 2001. On March 9, 2001, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (original Notice of Intent). At Petitioner's request, Respondent conducted an audit conference with Petitioner. At the audit conference, Petitioner provided documentation that the assessed transactions involved improvements to real property. At Petitioner's request, Respondent conducted a second audit conference with Petitioner's former legal counsel. Petitioner authorized its former legal counsel to act on its behalf during the audit. At the second audit conference, the parties discussed audit procedures and sampling methods, Florida use tax, fabricated items, and fabrication costs. Respondent revised the audit findings based upon additional information from Petitioner that the assessed transactions involved fabricated items of tangible personal property that became improvements to real property. Respondent assessed use tax on the materials used to fabricate control panels in those instances where Petitioner failed to document that Petitioner paid sales tax at the time of the purchase. Respondent also assessed use tax on fabrication costs including the direct labor and the overhead costs associated with the fabrication process, for the period of October 1, 1995, through June 30, 1999. Respondent eliminated use tax assessed on cleaning services in the original Notice of Intent because the amount of tax was de minimis. On August 29, 2001, Respondent issued a Revised Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (Revised Notice of Intent). On September 18, 2001, Petitioner executed a Consent to Extend the Time to Issue an Assessment to File a Claim for Refund until January 25, 2002. On October 18, 2001, Petitioner executed a second Consent to Extend the Time to Issue an Assessment to File a Claim for Refund until April 25, 2002. On February 6, 2002, Respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment for additional sales and use tax, in the amount of $21,822.27; interest through February 6, 2002, in the amount of $10,774.64; penalty in the amount of $10,831.12; and additional interest that accrues at $6.97 per diem. Petitioner exhausted the informal remedies available from Respondent. On April 29, 2002, Petitioner filed a formal written protest that, in substantial part, objected to the audit procedures and sampling method employed in the audit. Respondent issued a Notice of Decision sustaining the assessment of tax, penalty, and interest. Respondent correctly determined that the audit procedures and sampling method employed in the audit were appropriate and consistent with Respondent's statutes and regulations. Respondent concluded that the assessment was correct based upon the best available information and that Petitioner failed to provide any documentation to refute the audit findings. Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration that did not provide any additional facts, arguments, or records to support its position. On May 16, 2003, Respondent issued a Notice of Reconsideration sustaining the assessment of tax and interest in full, but compromising all penalties based upon reasonable cause.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for relief and sustaining Respondent's assessment of taxes and interest in full. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Revenue Litigation Section The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Michael E. Ferguson Control Design Engineering, Inc. 809 East Bloomingdale Avenue, PMB 433 Brandon, Florida 33511 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
