Findings Of Fact On July 14, 1982, Jimmy Haywood Nixon, an employee of petitioner, took samples of gasoline offered for sale at respondent's Beacon Store No. 7 in Milton, Florida, including a sample of regular gasoline mixed with alcohol, known as "regularhol." Pat Flanagan, a chemist employed by petitioner, performed various tests on the sample of regularhol, including ASTM method 86, and determined that the 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the mix as a whole was 150 F. His testimony to this effect was uncontroverted. When he learned the test results, Mr. Nixon locked the regularhol pump at respondent's store in Milton, only unlocking the pump to release the mixture when a thousand dollar bond was posted on July 16, 1982. Respondent began mixing regular gasoline with ethanol and selling it as regularhol in 1978 at the same price as regular gasoline. Until recently, Mocar made less on regularhol sales than on sales of regular gasoline. It originally offered regularhol as its way of helping to reduce the national consumption of petroleum. The Phillips' terminal in Pensacola was respondent's source of the regular gasoline it mixed to make regularhol. This gasoline reached Pensacola by barge, and petitioner's employees sampled and tested each barge's cargo. The 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the regular gas Mocar bought from Phillips varied over a range of more than 30 degrees Fahrenheit upwards from 180 F. Mixing ethanol with the gasoline lowered its distillation temperature, but until the batch sampled on July 14, 1982, Mocar's regularhol had passed the testing petitioner has regularly conducted.
Recommendation Respondent has not been shown to be more blameworthy than any of the fuel owners involved in the cases cited above, each of whom regained part of the bond that had been posted. It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner retain four hundred dollars ($400.00) and return six hundred dollars ($600.00) to the respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Milton Wilson, Esquire 201 East Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32598 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc., and its surety, Western Surety Company, are liable for funds due to Petitioner from the sale of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a producer of agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. Petitioner operates a nursery supply company that produces trees, plants, and other landscaping supplies at a location in Bunnell, Florida. Respondent is a dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. At the time of the transactions in question, Respondent was a licensed dealer in agricultural products supported by a surety bond provided by Western Surety Company. This matter arose over a Producer Complaint filed by Petitioner on June 24, 2005, in which it alleged that Respondent owed $20,512.97, based upon five invoices for nursery goods delivered to various job sites where Respondent was providing landscaping services. The five invoices set forth in the original Producer Complaint are as follows: Date of Sale Invoice # Amount Dec. 28, 2004 64679 $2,884.72 Jan. 11, 2005 64828 3,878.75 Jan. 11, 2005 64829 1,926.00 Feb. 1, 2005 65229 2,086.50 Feb. 3, 2005 65127 9,737.00 Petitioner later amended its Complaint to withdraw its claims under Invoice Nos. 65229 and 65127, as untimely filed, resulting in an amended amount due of $8,689.47. Respondent filed a Response to the Producer Complaint on August 15, 2005, admitting the amounts due under Invoice Nos. 64679 and 64828, totaling $6,763.47, and denying the amount claimed in Invoice No. 64829, $1,926.00, as never having been filled, resulting in Respondent's using another vendor to fill the order. Respondent admitted the amounts due under Invoice Nos. 64679 and 64828; therefore, no further discussion is necessary for those items, except to note that Delivery Receipt No. 17751, relating to Invoice No. 64828 contains the note "Reject 1 Live Oak." Therefore, the amount of Invoice No. 64828 must be reduced by $214.00 ($200 for the tree and 7 percent Florida Sales Tax). With respect to Invoice No. 64829, however, Petitioner produced at hearing only an unsigned invoice without either a sales order or a receipt for delivery of goods, as was its custom concerning deliveries of nursery goods. Accordingly, Petitioner provided no proof that the order under Invoice No. 64829 was actually delivered to Respondent. Respondent and its surety, Western Surety Company, currently owe Petitioner $2,884.72 under Invoice No. 64679, and $3,664.75 under Invoice No. 64828, for a total amount owed of $6,549.47.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc., or its surety, Respondent, Western Surety Company, to pay Petitioner $6,549.47 for unpaid invoices. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 25th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher E. Green, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Marketing 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Joseph Robbins, Jr. Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc. 11025 Southeast Highway 42 Summerfield, Florida 34491 Tom Snyder Western Surety Company Post Office Box 5077 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57117-5077 Donald M. DuMond Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 2970 Hartley Road, Suite 302 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Tom Robinson Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 13000 State Road 11 Bunnell, Florida 32110 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact On October 7, 1982, petitioner's employee took samples of gasoline offered for sale at respondent's Beacon Store No. 7 in Milton, Florida, including a sample of regular gasoline mixed with alcohol, known as "regularhol." The regularhol sample reached petitioner's laboratory in Tallahassee on October 11, 1982, and tests done the following day revealed that the 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the mix as a whole was 151 degrees Fahrenheit. Otherwise the tests revealed no problem with any of the gasolines sampled. A stop sale notice issued on October 13, 1982, and, after bond in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) was posted, in lieu of confiscation of 3,865 gallons, the "regularhol" was released on November 8, 1982. Respondent began mixing regular gasoline with ethanol and selling it as regularhol in 1978 at the same price as regular gasoline. Until recently, Mocar made less on regularhol sales than on sales of regular gasoline. It originally offered regularhol as its way of helping to reduce the national consumption of petroleum. It has now discontinued sales of regularhol. The Phillips' terminal in Pensacola was respondent's source of the regular gasoline it mixed to make regularhol. This gasoline reached Pensacola by barge, and petitioner's employees sampled and tested each barge's cargo. The 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the regular gas Mocar bought from Phillips varied over a range of more than 30 degrees Fahrenheit upwards from 181 degrees Fahrenheit. Mixing ethanol with the gasoline lowered its distillation temperature, but with the single exception of the batch sampled on July 14, 1982, Mocar's regularhol had passed the testing petitioner has regularly (once every three or four months) conducted. There had also been a problem with gasohol once before.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner retain five hundred dollars ($500.00) and return five hundred dollars ($500.00) to the respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 2nd day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Milton Wilson, Esquire 201 E. Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32598 Doyle Conner, Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether the Respondent Florida Lime Growers, Inc., is indebted to the Petitioner for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact On May 29, 1991, Petitioner entered into an agreement with Florida Lime Growers, Inc., for the handling of the sale of his fruit on consignment. The terms of that agreement included the following: Florida Lime Growers, Inc., agreed to grade Petitioner's fruit, pack that which met quality standards, and use its best efforts to sell the packed fruit for the benefit of Petitioner on a pooled basis at market price. No specified price was guaranteed by or agreed to be paid to Petitioner by Florida Lime Growers, Inc. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., was entitled to charge a fee for packing Petitioner's fruit and a commission on the sale of the fruit. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., agreed to pay to Petitioner that portion of the sale proceeds received attributable to Petitioner's share of the pool, less all expenses of sale. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., also agreed to pay Petitioner a portion of the anticipated return prior to actual receipt of payment by Florida Lime Growers, Inc., from the ultimate purchaser. At no time did Petitioner contract with Florida Lime Growers, Inc., for the outright purchase by it of all of Petitioner's mangos and avocados, regardless of quality. The terms of Petitioner's agreement with Florida Lime Growers, Inc., are substantially similar to the agreement he entered into with another packing house, Limeco, Inc., on May 28, 1991. When Petitioner or his employees delivered mangos or avocados to Florida Lime Growers, Inc., the load of fruit would be weighed and a receiving ticket would be given to the Petitioner or to his employee showing the date, type of produce, number of bin boxes brought, and the total weight expressed in pounds and bushels (55 pounds per bushel). Florida Lime Growers, Inc., would then take the fruit and grade it, that is, separate out the fruit of good enough quality to be packed and sold. Petitioner was offered the opportunity to pick up the culls (the fruit not good enough to be packed), so that he might attempt to sell them on his own, but he declined to do so as he felt it was too much of a bother to be worth the effort. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., would then sort Petitioner's fruit by size and pack it for sale. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., kept a record of the quantity of Matthews' fruit, by type and size, as well as the proportion of the pool of fruit available for sale which Petitioner's fruit represented. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., sold Petitioner's mangos and avocados at market price. Market prices fluctuate, which is why Florida Lime Growers, Inc., as well as Petitioner's other dealer, Limeco, did not guarantee a rate of return or agree to pay a specified price. Petitioner's rates of return per bushel for sales of his packed mangos and avocados by Florida Lime Growers, Inc., can be determined by dividing the net return by the total weight packed (in pounds) to get a per pound return, then multiplying the result by 55 to arrive at the per bushel return. Applying this formula to the information contained in the account sales reports contained in Respondent's Composite Exhibit 8, the rates of return to Petitioner were as follows: Type of Fruit To be Packed Receipt # Total Weight Packed Total Net Return Per Bushel Return Mango 610 8,280 2,584.58 17.05 Mango 617 4,600 1,435.88 17.05 Mango 623 8,987 3,303.23 20.35 Mango 630 3,102 1,073.95 19.25 Mango 635 2,629 935.79 19.80 Mango 641 3,597 1,311.14 19.80 Mango 651 3,680 1,201.16 15.40 Mango 654 6,083 1,138.35 10.45 Mango 676 1,540 340.14 12.10 Avocado 689 3,800 2,783.91 40.15 Mango 692 220 50.44 12.65 Avocado 696 925 692.56 41.25 Mango 727 15,455 1,666.98 6.05 Mango 740 13,728 2,002.61 8.25 Mango 747 10,021 1,399.91 7.70 Mango 753 7,953 1,159.16 8.25 Petitioner presented no evidence to show that the prices obtained for his fruit by Florida Lime Growers, Inc., were below the market. The only evidence of price other than Respondents' sales was the net return paid to Petitioner by Limeco for mangos delivered by him to that dealer on May 28 and 29, 1991, and after July 1, 1991. That evidence shows that there was a substantial decrease in sales price between May 28, 1991, and July 1, 1991. For instance, Exhibit 2 reflects a net return for mangos delivered at the end of May of $17.85 per bushel. Exhibit 5 reflects a net return for mangos delivered on July 3, 1991, of $9.78 per bushel, with $6.20 per bushel for "No. 2's." Exhibit 4 reflects a net return for mangos delivered between July 5 and July 11 of $6.08 per bushel, with $4.59 per bushel for "No. 2's." The last sale of mangos by Florida Lime Growers, Inc., which included those of the Petitioner, was to Amerifresh, a broker. Amerifresh selected and arranged for the trucking company to transport the shipment to Seattle, Washington. Upon arrival, the shipment of mangos was rejected as a "failed" shipment. The shipment was inspected by a U.S.D.A. inspector and a copy of the U.S.D.A. inspection certificate was obtained by Florida Lime Growers, Inc., maintained in its records, and offered to Petitioner. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., received payment for only the small portion of the shipment which was salvageable. The funds received representing that portion of the shipment comprised of Petitioner's mangos, less his proportionate share of the expenses of sale, were paid to Petitioner. Petitioner presented no evidence to show that Florida Lime Growers, Inc., received any money for his mangos and avocados that it did not pay to him, after deducting the costs of sale and the advances or prepayments made in accordance with their agreement. Petitioner was provided with an accounting with the final check issued for payment from each pool. With respect to the final payment on September 10, 1991, in the amount of $233.07, Matthews received an accounting, including a letter of explanation, and the opportunity to review the records of Florida Lime Growers, Inc. Petitioner spoke with both William Planes and Rachel Trant of Florida Lime Growers, Inc., at unspecified times, but he was not satisfied with the information that either of them provided. The computerized accounting system used by Florida Lime Growers, Inc., is also used by several other businesses in the produce industry. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., employees have offered to explain the printed reports to its customers and have done so on request. 2/ Although he had the opportunity to do, Petitioner never requested assistance or an explanation from the employee of Florida Lime Growers, Inc., who ran the computerized accounting system and who calculated the adjustments and final return to be made on the Amerifresh shipment. Petitioner made no attempt to communicate with anyone from Florida Lime Growers, Inc., after he received his final payment on September 10, 1991. July 1, 1991, was the last date on which Petitioner brought mangos to Florida Lime Growers, Inc., which were accepted by the latter. The last load of Petitioner's mangos brought to Florida Lime Growers, Inc., was refused due to the poor quality. Petitioner's first effort at filing a complaint was on November 18, 1991, when he filed a complaint against "Bill Planes d/b/a Florida Lime Growers, Inc." William "Bill" Planes is the president of, and is one of two directors of, Florida Lime Growers, Inc. Mr. Planes is the person with whom the Petitioner had most of his dealings involving Florida Lime Growers, Inc. Mr. Planes, in his individual capacity, was not a dealer pursuant to Chapter 604, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was notified by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services by letter dated January 7, 1992, that his complaint could not be processed until he amended it to name Florida Lime Growers, Inc., as the Respondent. The actual date Petitioner filed the amendment to his complaint is unclear from the documents, but it was not until some time after March 2, 1991, the date on which it was notarized. The first notice of Petitioner's complaint that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services sent to Respondent, Florida Lime Growers, Inc., was on March 11, 1992.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order in this case dismissing the Petitioner's complaint, as amended, and denying the relief requested by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of September 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September 1992.
Findings Of Fact On June 3, 1982, William Cate, an inspector for Petitioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, obtained a sample of the product identified as 500 Ethohol from a pump at the United 500 station owned by Respondent in Brooksville, Florida. The sample was shipped to Petitioner's laboratory in Tallahassee where it was analyzed under the supervision of John Whitton, Chief Bureau of Petroleum Inspection, using standard methods, and found to be in violation of Petitioner's Rule 5F-2.01(c)2 in that the 50 percent evaporated temperature of the product was 1580F which did not comply with the rule's requirement that such temperature not be less than 1700F. On June 11, 1982, a stop sale notice was issued against Respondent directing it to immediately stop the sale of the product listed below pending further instructions from Petitioner. Inspector Cate sealed the pump in question, and Respondent elected to post a $1,000 cash bond in order that he could return the product for upgrading in lieu of confiscation and sale. The stop sale notice was directed to 2475 gallons of the product which had a value of over $1,000. "Ethohol" is a blend of regular leaded gasoline which contains a percentage of alcohol, and sometimes is known as "gasohol." (Testimony of Cate, Whitton, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1) On June 14, 1982, Curtis E. Hardee, an inspector for Petitioner, took samples of 500 Ethohol from a pump located at Respondent's United 500 station at 6815 Sheldon Road, Tampa, Florida. The samples were sealed and shipped to Petitioner's laboratory in Tallahassee where they were analyzed under the supervision of John Whitton, Chief Bureau of Petroleum Inspection, and found to be in violation of Rule 5F-2.01(-1)(c)2, Florida Administrative Code, in that the 50 percent evaporated temperature of the product was l520F, and therefore violated the rule's requirement that such temperature not be less than l700F. A stop sale notice was issued against sale of the product on June 17, 1982, and Respondent elected to post a cash bond in lieu of confiscation or sale of 3,449 gallons of the product. The amount of the bond was $625 which represented 481 gallons of the product that had been sold since the last time a load of gas had been delivered to the station. Under the provisions of the release notice, Respondent agreed to pump the remaining product out of its storage tank and return it to their bulk plant for upgrading. (Testimony of Hardee, Whitton, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2) Although Respondent's representative did not dispute the foregoing facts, he maintained that forfeiture of the entire amount of the cash bonds would be excessive. (Testimony of McRae)
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be issued assessing Respondent the sum of $625 to be effected by forfeiture of the bond posted in the same amount pursuant to stop sale notice issued on June 17, 1982 at Tampa, Florida, and that the $1,000 bond posted by Respondent to gain release of the gasoline product which was the subject of the stop sale notice of June 11, 1902 at Brooksville, Florida also be forfeited. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 T.D. McRae, President United Petroleum, Inc. 680 South May Avenue Brooksville, Florida 33512 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Was the amendment to Section 12B-5.01, Florida Administrative Code adopted on November 8, 1978, adopted in violation of the procedural requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes? Is the amendment to Section 12B-5.01, Florida Administrative Code an invalid exercise of the Department's delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact Miami Tiresoles, Inc. sells both new and retreaded tires for cars and trucks. The company also sells gasoline and diesel fuel. It is licensed by the Department as a dealer in special fuels. As far as this case is concerned special fuel is number 2 diesel oil. Unless an exemption is met each gallon of special fuel sold by MTS is taxed by the Department at a rate of 8 cents per gallon. The Department has given MTS a revised notice of proposed assessment of tax for the sale of special fuel in the amount of $4,551.88 plus a penalty of $455.48 and interest in the amount of $735.11 (through April 21, 1980). The tax figure on the assessment appears to reflect a typographical error. The Department's records (Exhibit A) indicate that for the period in question 2/ MTS sold 56,936 gallons of special fuel subject to tax according to the Department's interpretation of the law. If a tax at a rate of 8 cents per gallon is due, then the amount due should be $4,554.88 and not $4,551.88. The correct tax figure is reflected on the Department's work sheets but was probably misread when the figure was transferred to the revised Notice of Assessment issued on April 21, 1980. The foregoing assessment is based on MTS' invoices which reflect sales of special fuel to customers in amounts of more than 110 gallons at one time. Those sales were made to MTS customers who have filed with MTS a document called "Purchaser's Exemption Certificate". A typical example of such a certificate states: PURCHASER'S EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE The undersigned hereby certifies that the motor duel (sic) and/or special fuel pur- chased on 1-19-79 is for the following purpose as checked in the space provided. (X) Purchased for home, industrial, com- mercial, agricultural or marine purposes for consumption other than for the propul- sion of a motor vehicle. ( ) Purchased at bulk plant or terminal in volumes of not more than 110 gallons for delivery into a receptacle not connected to the fuel supply system of a motor vehicle for consumption other than for the pro- pulsion of a motor vehicle. Purchaser is aware that if this exemption if (sic) falsely claimed, or if this certi- ficate is not rescinded at the time he fails to quality (sic) for the exemption, he shall be liable for the taxes imposed under Chapter 206, F.S. Furthermore, by issuing this certificate the purchaser also certifies that he does not have any motor vehicles which use special fuel for propulsion. This certificate is to continue in force until revoked by written notice to MIAMI TIRESOLES, INC. Purchaser: Trade Name: A ACME SANDBLASTING, INC. Street Address: 9521 W. Oakmont Dr., Hialeah, Fla. 33015 BY: /s/ The industrial customers of MTS (that is those who have filed an exemption certificate) are engaged in the construction business. They use the diesel fuel to operate bulldozers, front-end loaders, back hoes, sandblasters and similar equipment. None of the fuel is used for the operation of motor vehicles on the public highways of Florida. All the fuel in question is sold on the premises of MTS. At the time of sale it is placed either in the fuel tank of a particular piece of equipment such as a back hoe, or it is placed in a fuel storage tank mounted on the back of a truck. The storage tanks are not connected so they can provide fuel for the propulsion of the truck. They are used to transport fuel to the purchaser's particular job site. The storage tanks have a capacity of between 100 to 300 gallons. MTS does not have delivery trucks of its own and has no facilities for taking fuel to its customers job sites. A single invoice of MTS which indicates a sale of 110 gallons of special fuel to an individual customer is frequently the result of a sale where multiple fuel tanks are filled at one time. For instance, the customer may have a back hoe sitting on the rear of a flat-bed truck. He will fill the fuel tank in his back hoe and then perhaps fill an additional 55 gallon drum or two which would be on the truck. This would occur all in one transaction. The reason why the Department seeks to tax special fuel sold by MTS to its industrial customers in an amount exceeding 110 gallons is because the fuel was placed in the customers' own fuel tanks on the premises of MTS and not on the premises of the customer or at the customer's job site. The amendment to Section 12B-5.01, Florida Administrative Code challenged by Petitioner here was adopted by the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the head of the Department of Revenue, on November 8, 1978. No hearing was held on the amendment's adoption because no person requested one. Notice of the Department's intent to adopt the rule was given in the October 13, 1978 issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly. At the time the notice was published a copy of the amendment was available for inspection and copying by the public. The notice published in the Florida Administrative Weekly stated: DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, DIVISION OF MISCELLANEOUS TAX, MOTOR FUEL TAX Rule 12B-5.01 TITLE: Specific Exemption PURPOSE AND EFFECT: To amend the rule which implements Subsection 206.87(4)(a) & (b), F.S. to clarify interpretation of the law. SUMMARY: Provides specifically the requirements necessary in order for the licensed dealer of special fuel to make an exempt sale for home, industrial, commercial, agricultural, or marine purposes and exempt sales of not more than 110 gallons at his place of business, and by cross reference, the records needed to be maintained by the licensed dealer to substantiate the sale. SPECIFIC LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH THE ADOPTION IS AUTHORIZED AND THE LAW BEING IMPLEMENTED, INTERPRETED OR MADE SPECIFIC: SPECIFIC AUTHORITY: 206.14(1), 206.59, FS. LAW IMPLEMENTED: 206.87(4)(a)(b), FS. ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ON ALL AFFECTED PERSONS: There will be no significant economic impact. IF REQUESTED, A HEARING WILL BE HELD AT: TIME: 10:00 A.M. PLACE: The New Capitol, Lower Level 3 DATE: November 9, 1978 A COPY OF THE PROPOSED RULE AND THE ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT MAY BE OBTAINED BY WRITING TO: L. N. Thomas, Chief, Motor Fuel Tax Bureau, Department of Revenue, Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Individual notices of the proposed rule making were not sent to licensed special fuel dealers in Florida. On October 10, 1978, the Department sent the following items to the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee: A copy of the proposed amendment to Rule l2B-5.01. The notice to appear in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The Economic Impact Statement. The "Summary and Justification Sheet" (apparently the Department's term for the facts and circumstances justifying the proposed rules). The following shows how the Department's amendment adopted on November 8, 1978, changed Section 12B-5.01, Florida Administrative Code. Words stricken were deleted; words underlined were added. 12B-5.01 Specific Exemptions. (1) - (2) - No change. HOMES, INDUSTRIAL. COMMERCIAL, AGRICULTURAL OR MARINE. Any sale of special fuel by a licensed dealer, regardless of quantity, when such fuel is to be consumed exclusively for home, industrial, commercial, agricultural, or marine purposes, is exempt from tax, provided the sale is made by a licensed dealer who delivers the fuel into the customer's storage facility, which must be located on the customer's premises, place of business, or job site. (Cross Reference - Rule 12B-5.03(1). (7)(b) - (6) - No change. (7) SALES OF 110 GALLONS OR LESS. A licensed dealer may deliver, at his place of business, tax free, not more than 110 gallons of special fuel to a person who is not a licensed dealer of special fuel, provided the fuel is placed into a receptacle which is furnished by the purchaser and which is not connected to the fuel supply system of a motor vehicle. (Cross Reference - Rule 12B-5.03(1), (7)(b) Any licensed dealer of special fuel who, at his place of business, delivers more than 110 gallons of special fuel to a person who is not a licensed dealer of special fuel, shall be liable for and shall pay to the state taxes, penalties and interest on the total quantity sold even though the fuel may not be ultimately used to propel a motor vehicle on the highway.
Findings Of Fact On June 8, 1982, a super ethanol enriched regular gas sample taken from Car-Go station No. 9840 owned by Respondent was subsequently tested and found to be below the 50 percent distillation temperature specified by the regulations. A Stop Sale Notice was issued on June 11, 1982, and on June 14, 1982, Respondent posted a $1,000 bond and the gasoline was released to Respondent to be upgraded and again offered for sale. On June 9, 1982, a similar sample taken from Eastern station No. 2108 was tested, with similar results. Again a Stop Sale Notice and bond followed. On June 11, 1982, similar samples taken from Eastern station No. 2104 and San Ann No. 171981 were tested, with similar results. As a result of these samples showing nonconformity with prescribed standards, Respondent posted a $1,000 bond for each station. Accordingly, a total of $4,000 was posted for the four stations so the gasoline could be returned to the plant for upgrading to meet requirements. Respondent does not contest any of the above facts and contends only that it was ignorant of the requirements and did not intend to violate the law.
