Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Integra Corporation, had a dispute with the Florida Department of Revenue with respect to sales or use tax allegedly due in the amount of $605,305.70 on lease payments made on its rental of hotels from their owners. An assessment for taxes due was processed in the normal manner by the Department of Revenue. Integra Corporation filed a Protest of the assessment, and after the Department's Notice of Decision denied the Protest, Integra filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration. Ultimately the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration which rejected the arguments of Integra Corporation. Integra Corporation agrees that the Notice of Reconsideration was transmitted on April 24, 1990, for it alleges that fact in paragraph 3 of its Petition. The Department's final rejection of the arguments made by Integra Corporation against the assessment of sales and use tax made in the Notice of Reconsideration dated April 24, 1990, prompted Integra Corporation to mail by certified mail, return receipt #P796 304 819, to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 21, 1990, an original Petition challenging the Department's tax assessment. That petition was captioned Integra Corporation, Petitioner v. Department of Revenue, Respondent, and was filed by the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 25, 1990. No copy of the original Petition was served on the Department of Revenue, or its counsel. The opening paragraph states that Integra Corporation "hereby petitions the Department of Revenue for administrative proceedings. . ." The Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings realized that the Petition should not have been addressed to or filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings, and on that same day forwarded the Petition to the appropriate agency, the Department of Revenue, which received the Petition on June 27, 1990.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the petition filed by Integra Corporation be dismissed as untimely. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 10th day of September, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue here, Bellot Realty operated a real estate sales office in Inverness, Florida. The Department of Transportation was the state agency responsible for the operation of the state's relocation assistance payment program relating to business moves caused by road building operations of the Department or subordinate entities. Frank M. Bellot operated his real estate sales office and mortgage brokerage, under the name Bellot Realty, at property located at 209 W. Main Street in Inverness, Florida since July, 1979. He operated a barber shop in the same place from 1962 to 1979. He moved out in October, 1991 because of road construction and modification activities started by the Department in 1989. The office was located in a strip mall and the other tenants of the mall were moving out all through 1990. Mr. Bellot remained as long as he did because when the Department first indicated it would be working in the area, its representatives stated they would be taking only the back portion of the building. This would have let Mr. Bellot remain. As time went on, however, the Department took the whole building, including his leasehold, which forced him out. He received a compensation award from the Department but nothing from any other entity. Though the instant project is not a Federal Aid Project, the provisions of Section 24.306e, U.S.C. applies. That statute defined average annual net earnings as 1/2 of net earnings before federal, state and local income taxes during the two taxable years immediately prior to displacement. During 1988, Mr. Bellot's staff consisted of himself and between 3 and 5 other agents from whom he earned income just as had been the case for several prior years. In 1988 his Federal Corporate Income Tax return reflected gross income of $120,843.00 and his profit was reflected as $27,377.25. The Schedule C attached to his personal Form 1040 for that year reflected gross sales of $25,078.00 with deductions of $5,250.00 for a net income of $19,828.00. Two of his agents foresaw the downturn in business as a result of the road change and left his employ during 1989. A third got sick and her working ability, with its resultant income, was radically reduced. This agent was his biggest producer. For 1989, Petitioner's tax return reflected the company's gross receipts were down to $50,935.75 and his operating loss was $5,700.03. However, the Schedule C for the 1989 Form 1040 reflected gross revenue of $21,450 with a net profit of $14,503. In 1990, the Schedule C for the Form 1040 reflected gross receipts of $5,565.00 which, after deduction of expenses, resulted in a net profit of $1,665.00 for the year. The corporate return reflects gross receipts of $23,965.96 and a net income figure from operations of $1,282.21. Mr. Bellot contends that neither 1989 or 1990 were typical business years as far as earnings go. Aside from a loss of activity and a general decline in business in Inverness, his parents, who were always in the office due to a terminal illness, caused him lost work time as he was very busy with them. He was also involved in a move and in refurbishing a house. In 1990, Mr. Bellot decided he could no longer stay in his office location due to the fact that the Department decided to take his whole building. Even if the taking had been of only one-half the building, however, it still would have put him out of business because it would have taken his parking area. At that time, the Department was rushing Mr. Bellot to vacate the premises. He was in difficult financial straits, however, and it would not have been possible for him to move but for the Department's compensation payments. As it was, he claims, the compensation was after the fact, and he had to borrow $30,000.00 in his mother's name in order to rehabilitate the building he moved into. Instead of utilizing income figures from years in which business activity was normal, the Department chose to use the income figures from 1989 and 1990, both of which were, he claims, for one reason or another, extraordinary. In doing so, since the income in those years was much lower than normal, the compensation he received was also much lower, he claims, than it should have been. He received $8,725.50. Had the 1988 and 1989 years income been used, the payment would have been $20,000.00, the maximum. He also claims the Department used the incorrect operating expense figures concerning travel expense. The Schedule C reflects a higher deduction for automobile expense for both years, arrived at by the application of a standard mileage expense approved by the Internal Revenue Service. In actuality, the expense was considerably less and, if the real figures had been used, his income would have been increased substantially for both years. Mr. Bellot's appeal was reviewed by Ms. Long, the Department's administrator for relocation assistance who followed the provisions of departmental manual 575-040-003-c which, at paragraph (IV) on page 33 of 35, requires the displacee to furnish proof of income by tax returns or other acceptable evidence. At subparagraph (e) on page 31 of 35 of the manual, the requirement exists for the displaced business to "contribute materially" to the income of the displace person for the "two taxable years prior to the displacement." If those two years are not representative, the Department may approve an alternate two year period if "the proposed construction has already caused an outflow of residents, resulting in a decline of net income. " To grant an alternative period, then, the Department must insure that the loss of income is due to the Department's construction and not to other considerations. Here, the Department's District Administrator took the position it was not it's actions which caused the Petitioner's loss of income. Ms. Long took the same position. The Department's District 5 initially notified the people of Inverness of the proposed project somewhere around 1988. The project was to straighten Main Street out through downtown Inverness for approximately 2 miles. There is no evidence as to when the first affected party moved and Ms. Long does not know whether or not the project had an adverse effect on business in downtown Inverness. Petitioner's evidence does not show that it did.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's appeal of the Department's decision to refuse to use alternate tax years or actual mileage deduction in its calculation of a relocation assistance payment be denied. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 29th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and, in part, incorporated herein. Rejected as not proven by competent, non-hearsay, evidence. Accepted. Not proven. Merely a statement of Petitioner's position. Accepted that Petitioner's business income dropped. It cannot be said that the road project's were the primary cause of the decline in Petitioner's business. There is no independent evidence of this. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted. Balance not based on independent evidence of record. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of and attempted justification of Petitioner's position. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as argument and not Finding of Fact. Not a Finding of Fact but a recapitulation of the evidence. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted. & 3. Accepted. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 10. Accepted. 11. & 12. Accepted. 13. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 James R. Clodfelter Acquisitions Consultant Enterprises, Inc. P.O. Box 1199 Deerfield Beach, Florida 33443 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton Jpp. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Gardinier Big River is a New Jersey corporation authorized to transact business within the State of Florida. Gardinier is a Delaware corporation authorized to transact business within the State of Florida. Gardinier is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gardinier Big River. Petitioners were subject to the corporate income tax imposed by Chapter 220, Florida Statutes, for the tax years 1974 through 1981. For the tax years 1974 and 1975, Gardinier and Gardinier Big River each filed separate annual corporate income tax returns. Beginning with the tax year 1976, and continuing through the tax year 1981, Petitioners filed consolidated annual corporate income tax returns as authorized by Section 220.131, Florida Statutes. Annual corporate income tax returns were filed by Petitioners as follows: (a) Gardinier timely filed on April 1, 1975, an annual corporate income tax return for its tax year ending June 30, 1974; (b) Gardinier Big River timely filed on January 1, 1976, an annual corporate income tax return for its tax year ending March 31, 1975; (c) Gardinier timely filed on April 1, 1976, an annual corporate income tax return for its tax year ending June 30, 1975; (d) Petitioners timely filed on January 3, 1977, a consolidated annual corporate income tax return for their tax year ending March 31, 1976; (e) Petitioners timely filed on March 30, 1977, a consolidated annual corporate income tax return for their tax year ending June 30, 1976; (f) Petitioners timely filed on March 21, 1978, a consolidated annual corporate income tax return for their tax year ending June 30, 1977; (g) Petitioners timely filed on March 27, 1979, a consolidated annual corporate income tax return for their tax year ending June 30, 1978; (h) Petitioners timely filed on April 1, 1980, a consolidated annual corporate income tax return for their tax year ending June 30, 1979; (i) Petitioners timely filed on April 1, 1981, a consolidated annual corporate income tax return for their tax year ending June 30, 1980; (j) Petitioners timely filed on December 8, 1981, a consolidated annual corporate income tax return for their tax year ending June 30, 1981. For each of the years 1974 through 1981, Petitioners, either individually or jointly, timely paid the corporate income tax which Petitioners determined to be due pursuant to Chapter 220, Florida Statutes (1983), by the return date specified in Section 220.222, Florida Statutes (1983), without regard for extensions. Specifically, corporate income taxes were paid by the Petitioners on the following dates for the following tax years: (a) tax year ending June 30, 1975--taxes paid by October 1, 1975; (b) tax year ending March 31, 1975--taxes paid by July 1, 1976; and (c) tax year ending June 30, 1980-- taxes paid by October 1, 1980. On several occasions, the latest of which was April 5, 1983, Petitioners and the Department agreed, for the tax years 1974 through 1981, to extensions of the assessment and refund limitation provisions found at Sections 214.09 and 214.16, Florida Statutes. On or about February 21, 1983, the Department commenced a corporate income tax audit of the Petitioners for the tax years 1974 through 1981. On or about April 23, 1983, as a result of the foregoing audit, the Department issued to Gardinier a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes indicating an overpayment of corporate income taxes for the tax year ending June 30, 1975, and an underpayment of corporate income taxes for the tax year ending June 30, 1974. On that same date, the Department issued to Petitioners jointly two separate Notices of Intent to Make Audit Changes indicating overpayments of corporate income taxes for the tax years ending March 31, 1976, and June 30, 1980, and underpayments of corporate income taxes for the tax years ending March 31, 1975, and June 30, 1979. In addition, these Notices indicated that penalty and interest assessments would be made against Gardinier for the alleged late payment of estimated taxes for the tax year ending June 30, 1975, and against Petitioners jointly for the alleged late payment of estimated taxes for the tax year ending March 31, 1976. A Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes is a form used by the Department to advise taxpayers of overpayments or underpayments of taxes determined by the Department in an audit of the taxpayers' books and records. The notice forms are also referred to by the reference "DR 802." If the taxpayer agrees with the results set forth in the notice, it is instructed by the Department to sign the notice at the space indicated thereon and return it to the Department. By letters dated July 11, 1983, the Department advised Petitioners of its receipt of an unagreed Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes from the Department's audit staff. The letters further stated that the audit resulted in a refund of taxes to Petitioners' account and that signed agreements to the refunds were required to be reviewed by the Department by September 12, 1983. By letter dated July 21, 1983, Petitioners notified the Department of their disagreement with certain aspects of the Notices of Intent to Make Audit Changes. Specifically, Petitioners disagreed with the assessment of penalty and interest for the alleged late payment of corporate income taxes for the tax years 1975 and 1976. In addition, Petitioners indicated their disagreement with the Department's failure to provide for the payment of interest on Petitioners' overpayments of corporate income taxes for the tax years 1975, 1976, and 1980. By letter dated August 4, 1983, the Department advised Petitioners of its agreement that penalty and interest assessments should not have been made for the tax years 1975 and 1976. In addition, the Department advised Petitioners that interest would not be paid upon the overpayments of corporate income taxes for the tax years 1975, 1976, and 1980. On August 16, 1983, Petitioners submitted to the Department signed Notices of Intent to Make Audit Changes indicating Petitioners' agreement and entitlement to a refund of the net overpayments of corporate income taxes for the tax years 1974 through 1981. By letter dated August 16, 1983, Petitioners protested the Department's failure to pay interest upon the overpayments of corporate income taxes and made a formal claim for payment pursuant to Section 214.14, Florida Statutes (1983), for said interest. On November 10, 1983, the Department issued to Petitioners a Notice of Decision denying Petitioners' claim for interest upon the overpayments of corporate income taxes. Petitioners did not request reconsideration of this Notice of Decision. The overpayment of corporate income taxes by Gardinier for the tax year ending June 30, 1975, was $204,277.61. The overpayment of corporate income taxes by Petitioners for the tax year ending March 31, 1976, was $109,658.00. The overpayment of corporate income taxes by Petitioners for the tax year ending June 30, 1980, was $222,021.00. Total overpayments of corporate income taxes by Petitioners, either individually or jointly, for the tax years 1975, 1976, and 1980 were $535,956.61. Total underpayments of corporate income taxes by Petitioners for the tax years 1974, 1975, and 1979, including penalties and interest assessed thereon, were $153,595.92. The Department refunded to Petitioners, by checks dated October 13 and November 16, 1983, $382,360.69 which amount represented the difference between total overpayments and underpayments by Petitioners of corporate income taxes for the tax years 1974 through 1981. The provisions of Chapters 214 and 220, Florida Statutes (1983), are applicable to the circumstances of this action. The parties hereby agree that the Joint Exhibits are true and accurate copies of the original documents. It is the intent of the parties hereto that this stipulation resolve all material facts necessary for a determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties in this action.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent abused its discretion in failing to settle or compromise the outstanding tax assessment against Petitioner, based on Petitioner's inability to pay, pursuant to Section 213.21, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation, engaged in the business of painting and repairing damaged automobiles and other vehicles. Petitioner's principal place of business and home office is located at 100 Northwest 9th Terrace, Hallandale, Florida. Respondent is the agency charged with administering the tax laws of the State of Florida, pursuant to, among other provisions, Section 213.05, Florida Statutes. Respondent is authorized to conduct audits of taxpayers. It is further authorized to request information to ascertain the tax liability of taxpayers, if any, pursuant to Section 213.34, Florida Statutes. It is undisputed that Petitioner is a taxpayer. From September 2, 1997 through March 12, 1999, Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner to determine whether Petitioner had been properly collecting and remitting sales and use tax and whether any additional sales and use tax amounts were due. On September 2, 1997, Respondent forwarded its form DR-840, Notice of Intent to Audit Books and Records, to Petitioner. The period of time being audited was from August 1, 1992 through July 31, 1997. For part of the audit period, Petitioner's records were inadequate. Petitioner's record keeping was poor. For the remainder of the audit period, Petitioner's records were voluminous. A higher amount of gross sales were reported on Petitioner's federal tax return than on Florida's tax return. Petitioner could not document 95 percent of its exempt sales reported to the State of Florida. Petitioner reported a ratio of 35 percent for exempt sales on its filed Florida sales and use tax returns. Because of the two factors of inadequate and voluminous records, sampling was required by Respondent. On January 12, 1998, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a written audit sampling agreement. On June 5, 1998, Respondent provided its Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes to Petitioner. On July 21, 1998, Respondent issued its Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (revised), which was the first revision, to Petitioner. On January 12, 1999, Respondent issued its Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (revised), which was the second revision, to Petitioner. On March 12, 1999, Respondent issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment to Petitioner. This notice indicated that Petitioner owed additional sales and use tax in the amount of $166,306.93, penalty in the amount of $81,443.38, and interest through March 12, 1999, in the amount of $77,468.37. Consequently, the notice further indicated that the total amount of the assessment against Petitioner was $325,218.68. A compromise of the assessed tax, interest, or penalty can be performed at Respondent's field level after an audit is completed and the case is still in Respondent's field office. However, the field office's authority is limited in that affected taxpayer must agree to the amount of the tax assessed. In the present case, Petitioner did not agree to the amount of the tax assessed and, therefore, Respondent's field office could not compromise the assessed tax, interest, or penalty against Petitioner. On September 17, 1999, Respondent issued its Notice of Decision. Respondent notified Petitioner that the assessment would not be changed. Petitioner requested a reconsideration as to whether Respondent should compromise the tax, interest, and penalty, based on grounds of doubt of collectibility. By Notice of Reconsideration issued January 7, 2000, Respondent notified Petitioner of Petitioner's failure to establish an inability to pay the assessment in full. Petitioner timely challenged Respondent's determination of Petitioner's inability to pay the assessment and requested a hearing. It is undisputed that Respondent has the discretion to compromise an assessment. Respondent may compromise tax or interest based on doubt of collectibility of the tax or interest. The taxpayer bears the burden of providing documentation to support the taxpayer's position that it cannot pay the tax or interest. Respondent examines whether a compromise is in the best interests of the State of Florida in determining whether to compromise an assessment. Respondent considers a compromise to be in the best interests of the State and may compromise the assessment under the following circumstances: (1) on the basis of the taxpayer providing documentation of the taxpayer's inability to pay the assessment in full but having the cash flow to make payments in installments; or (2) when a taxpayer's business or the taxpayer-corporation is insolvent and the taxpayer's or corporation's assets were used to satisfy legitimate liabilities and not used to enrich any person closely related to the taxpayer or corporation; or (3) when a taxpayer is gravely ill and the cash flow of the taxpayer's business is poor. When it considers compromising any tax, interest, or penalty, Respondent reviews several factors, including the audit file, financial information, and any other factors or circumstances which may affect collectibility. The financial information considered includes positive and negative sales trends, cost of goods sold, profitability, and net worth. Additionally, any changes in assets, in particular fixed assets, and liabilities are taken into account. Other factors or circumstances considered include the fair market value of a taxpayer's assets, the future prospects of a taxpayer's business, and the solvency or insolvency of a taxpayer's business. Respondent does not consider the liquidation value of a taxpayer's business. Petitioner was, and is, not familiar with the State of Florida's sales and use tax law, as the law relates to Petitioner's business. Petitioner's president has no prior experience in maintaining the books and records of a company or in completing financial statements of a company. Petitioner's president never attended a seminar, presented or sponsored by Respondent, on Florida's sales and use tax, or read any of Respondent's pamphlets on sales and use tax. Petitioner has a New York accountant, who never provided Petitioner's president or treasurer with any instructions regarding Florida's sales and use tax. During the audit period, Petitioner never requested written advice from Respondent regarding the application of Florida's sales and use tax to its business. For the last three years, Petitioner's sales have been a little less than $1,000,000. For the years 1996 and 1997, Petitioner's federal tax returns showed cash balances at the beginning of each year even though the cash balance for 1997, $51,431, was less than for 1996, $93,497. Petitioner's federal tax returns for 1996 through 1998 indicate a loss for each year during that time period. However, a comparison between Petitioner's sales income in its federal tax returns and its state tax returns shows that Petitioner's sales income was grossly underreported. Respondent's analysis worksheet, referred to as Doubt as to Collectibility Analysis Worksheet, indicated a negative dollar figure as to cash available by Petitioner to pay Respondent. Inconsistencies existed between the information reported in Petitioner's tax returns and information provided by Petitioner during the protest period. Petitioner's sales figure as of August 31, 1999, an eight-month sales period for 1999, stated in its Petition for Reconsideration, dated October 6, 1999, was substantially less than the sales figure reported on Petitioner's sales and use tax returns filed during the same time period. Additionally, Petitioner overstated the cost of goods sold in one of its federal tax returns, which resulted in an overstated net loss. The fair market value of Petitioner's assets indicated in its Petition for Reconsideration, $30,000, was more than 100 percent of the value reflected on Petitioner's county tangible personal property return, $13,000. Also, further areas of inconsistencies existed between the information provided by Petitioner and the information reported on Petitioner's tax returns. Petitioner indicated that its former treasurer received a deferred compensation payment of $60,000, but neither Petitioner's tax returns nor financial statements reflected a payment for the expense. Petitioner showed a loss on its 1996 federal tax return, which, according to Petitioner, was a result of moving expenses and expenses in the construction business; however, no expense unique to moving or the construction business was reflected on Petitioner's tax return or financial statement. Petitioner's financial data, including federal tax returns and state wage reports, showed trends and deficiencies. A trend of an increase in gross sales for Petitioner was shown for the years 1997 through 1999, in Petitioner's federal tax returns for the same years and in Petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration, regarding its gross sales as of August 31, 1999. Additionally, the same federal tax returns showed a trend of an increase in net income for the same years in that deductions in relation to sales were less than the previous years. For the years 1994 through 1997, as reported on Petitioner's federal tax returns, Petitioner's depreciable assets increased each year. Respondent's analysis worksheet also showed a negative dollar figure as to Petitioner's adjusted net worth. As of August 31, 1999, the first eight months of 1999, Petitioner's total assets were $40,814 and its total loans, payable to banks, were $90,000. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, Petitioner failed to provide Respondent with adequate and complete documentation and information in order for Respondent to make a determination of collectibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining the assessment of tax, penalty, and interest against Copo Paint and Body Shop, Inc., and sustaining the refusal to compromise the tax, penalty, or interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 4th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph C. Moffa, Esquire Moffa & Moffa, P.A. One Financial Plaza, Suite 2202 100 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Nicholas Bykowsky, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera, 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
Findings Of Fact Modern Tool and Die, (MTD), is a privately held corporation engaged in manufacturing equipment. In 1965 they started the manufacture of bumper guards which required electroplating. They entered into agreements with MPC pursuant to which MTD erected two buildings adjacent to their plant which they leased to MPC in which to do the electroplating of the bumper guards. MPC is also a privately held corporation and there is no common ownership of these two companies. The two buildings built for MPC's occupancy were partitioned, compartmented and wired as desired by MPC and at its expense. Florida Power Corporation supplied electricity to the complex through the main transformer of MTD. In 1965 and to a lesser extent now, electricity rates per kilowatt-hour (kwh) were lowered with increased usage of electricity. Since both MTD and MPC are large users of electricity they obtain a cheaper rate if all electricity used is billed from the master meter serving MTD. Accordingly, and at the recommendation of the power company, additional transformers and meters were placed at the two buildings occupied by MPC and read monthly at or about the same time the master meter is read by the power company. The kw used at the two buildings is forwarded by MPC to MTD each month. The latter, upon receipt of the power company bill, computes the cost of the power per kwh and in turn bills MPC for its portion of the bill based upon the usage forwarded by MPC to MTD. Upon the commencement of this working agreement between these two companies in 1965 MPC, pursuant to an oral lease, has paid rent to MTD monthly at the rate of approximately $2,400 per month. It has also paid to MTD its pro rata cost for the electricity used each month. The rent is invoiced each month on the first of the month as in Exhibit 3 and paid by the 10th by MPC. Sales tax is added to the rent and remitted to DOR. Electricity usage is also invoiced by MTD to MPC on or about the 20th of the month and paid by MPC on or about the first of the following month. (Exhibit 4). Sales tax on the electricity used is paid by MTD to Florida Power Company who presumably remits this to DOR. During the 15 years these two companies have shared the cost of electric power they have been audited numerous times; the arrangement was made known to the auditors; and no auditor, prior to the present, suggested that the cost of electricity was part of the rent paid by MPC upon which sales tax was due. Notice of Proposed Assessment (Exhibit 1) in the amount of $9,747.34 is based upon the cost of electricity billed to MPC during the period of the audit December 1, 1976 through November 30, 1979 multiplied by 4 percent sales tax plus penalties and interest. The parties stipulated to the accuracy of this amount. They differ only as to whether the tax is owed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner's business records for the period July 1, 1985, through June 30, 1990. Respondent determined a deficiency in sales tax of $174,823.96, including penalty and interest through August 22, 1990. Petitioner objected to the deficiency. Respondent reviewed the audit, and made audit changes that are the subject of this proceeding. The audit changes determined a deficiency in use tax of $76,035.60, including tax ($47,910.10), penalty ($11,977.68), and interest through March 12, 1991 ($16,147.60). Interest accrues daily in the amount of $15.75. A First Revised Notice Of Intent To Make Sales Tax Changes, for the reduced assessment of $76,035.60, was issued on March 21, 1991. A Notice Of Proposed Assessment was issued on July 2, 1991. The Notice Of Proposed Assessment became a Final Assessment on August 31, 1991. Respondent made a prima facie showing of the factual and legal basis for the use tax assessment. Section 120.575(2), Florida Statutes. 1/ The audit and assessment are procedurally correct. Tax, interest, and penalty are correctly computed. Formation Petitioner was incorporated in Florida, in January, 1983, by Mr. B. Theodore Troy, president and sole shareholder. Petitioner's principal place of business is 101 Wymore Road, Suite 224, Altamonte Springs, Florida. Petitioner conducted business as American Advertising Distributors of Central Florida. Mr. Troy and his wife operated the business until liquidating Petitioner's assets in 1992. Operation Petitioner sold direct mail advertising to Florida businesses. Petitioner operated pursuant to a franchise agreement with American Advertising Distributors, Inc., of Mesa, Arizona ("AAD"). AAD was Petitioner's franchisor until AAD filed for bankruptcy in 1990. Petitioner solicited orders from Florida businesses 2/ for advertising coupons designed and printed by AAD in Arizona. AAD mailed the advertising coupons to addressees in Florida who were potential customers for Florida businesses. Florida businesses placed orders with Petitioner on written contracts, or sales agreements, labeled "advertising orders." AAD was not a party to advertising orders. Advertising orders identified "AAD" as American Advertising Distributors of Central Florida, and were imprinted with the name and address of "AAD" in Central Florida. Advertising orders specified the total charges, color and stock of paper, number of addressees, and areas of distribution. Petitioner assisted businesses with rough layout for art work. The rough layout was forwarded to AAD. AAD prepared finished art work and sent copies back to Petitioner for approval by Florida businesses. AAD then printed, collated, and mailed advertising coupons to addressees in Florida, without charge to addressees. Florida businesses paid non-refundable deposits when placing advertising orders. The remaining balance was paid upon approval of final art work. AAD did not submit invoices to Florida businesses. AAD submitted invoices to Petitioner for the amount due from Petitioner. 3/ Petitioner paid AAD 10 days before advertising coupons were mailed. Some advertising coupons were produced by Laberge Printers, Inc., in Orlando, Florida ("Laberge"). Coupons from Laberge were designed, printed, and distributed in the same manner as coupons from AAD. Two types of advertising coupons were provided by AAD and Laberge. The majority of coupons were distributed in coop mailings, or "bonus express" envelopes, containing coupons for up to 20 businesses. Bonus express envelopes were mailed approximately eight times a year. Advertising coupons were also distributed in "solo" mailings. A solo mailing was an individualized, custom printed coupon, or flyer, mailed to individual addressees. The total charges stated in advertising orders included the cost of services provided by Petitioner, AAD, and Laberge. Services included typesetting, art work, printing, inserting envelopes, and mailing. Florida imposed a tax on services, from July 1, 1987, through December 31, 1987. Petitioner collected and remitted tax imposed on the cost of services included in the total charges stated on advertising orders. Except for the services tax, neither Petitioner, AAD, nor Laberge collected and remitted sales or use tax to Florida or to Arizona. Petitioner never utilized resale certificates for any tax other than the tax on services. Collectibility Petitioner was financially able to pay the use tax assessment during 1990 and 1991. No later than August 22, 1990, Mr. Troy knew of the sales tax deficiency of $174,823.96. By March 21, 1991, Mr. Troy knew of the reduced use tax assessment of $76,035.60. During 1990 and 1991, Petitioner made discretionary payments to Mr. Troy of $110,389. Petitioner reported federal taxable income of $58,279 in 1990 and 1991. 4/ In arriving at taxable income, Petitioner deducted payments to Mr. Troy of $59,430 for compensation to officers, management fees, and salary. 5/ From taxable income of $58,279, Petitioner paid approximately $50,959 to Mr. Troy in nondeductible shareholder loans. 6/ Discretionary payments of $110,389, 7/ made to Mr. Troy in 1990 and 1991, were more than adequate to pay the use tax assessment of $76,036.60. At the end of 1991, Petitioner reported fixed assets with a book value of $14,933, a customer list valued at $104,447.72, and retained earnings of $102,605. The book value of intangible assets was $82,943, comprised primarily of the franchise, valued at $35,000, and goodwill of $45,000. Termination Of Operations But Continued Existence AAD petitioned for bankruptcy in 1990. Petitioner subsequently determined that its franchise and goodwill were worthless. In 1992, Petitioner reported a loss of $99,726 for federal tax purposes. All of Petitioner's assets, including its customer lists, were sold or transferred for $1,330 to Florida Mail, Inc. ("Florida Mail"). Florida Mail is a Florida corporation wholly owned by Mr. Troy. Florida Mail sells direct mail advertising; and shares Petitioner's principal place of business. Since 1992, Petitioner has been a shell corporation with $579 in assets.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order upholding the assessment of tax and interest and waive all of the penalty included in the assessment. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of June, 1994. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1994.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this case are what amount of federal income tax expense is properly included as an expense in Premier's excessive profits filings for the years 2005-2007, and in light of that deduction, how much Petitioner must refund as excessive profits pursuant to section 627.215, Florida Statutes (2009)?
Findings Of Fact Premier is a foreign insurer authorized to write workers' compensation insurance in the State of Florida. As a workers' compensation insurer, Premier is subject to the jurisdiction of the Office. Premier began writing workers' compensation insurance coverage in Florida on January 1, 2005. The Office is a subdivision of the Financial Services Commission responsible for the administration of the Insurance Code, including section 627.215. Section 627.215(1)(a) requires that insurer groups writing workers' compensation insurance file with the Office on a form prescribed by the Commission, the calendar-year earned premium; accident-year incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses; the administrative and selling expenses incurred in or allocated to Florida for the calendar year; and policyholder dividends applicable to the calendar year. Insurer groups writing types of insurance other than workers' compensation insurance are also governed by section 627.215. Its purpose is to determine whether insurers have realized an excessive profit and if so, to provide a mechanism for determining the profit and ordering its return to consumers. Insurer groups are also required to file a schedule of Florida loss and loss adjustment experience for each of the three years prior to the most recent accident year. Section 627.215(2) provides that "[t]he incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses shall be valued as of December 31 of the first year following the latest accident year to be reported, developed to an ultimate basis, and at two 12-month intervals thereafter, each developed to an ultimate basis, so that a total of three evaluations will be provided for each accident year." Section 627.215 contains definitions that are critical to understanding the method for determining excess profits. Those definitions are as follows: "Underwriting gain or loss" is computed as follows: "the sum of the accident-year incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses as of December 31 of the year, developed to an ultimate basis, plus the administrative and selling expenses incurred in the calendar year, plus policyholder dividends applicable to the calendar year, shall be subtracted from the calendar-year earned premium." § 627.215(4). While the sum of the accident-year losses and loss adjustment expenses are required by the statute to be developed to an ultimate basis, the administrative and selling expenses are not. "Anticipated underwriting profit" means "the sum of the dollar amounts obtained by multiplying, for each rate filing of the insurer group in effect during such period, the earned premium applicable to such rate filing during such period by the percentage factor included in such rate filing for profit and contingencies, such percentage factor having been determined with due recognition to investment income from funds generated by Florida business, except that the anticipated underwriting profit . . . shall be calculated using a profit and contingencies factor that is not less than zero." § 627.215(8). Section 627.215 requires that the underwriting gain or loss be compared to the anticipated underwriting profit, which, as previously stated, is tied to the applicable rate filing for the insurer. Rate filings represent a forecast of expected results, while the excess profits filing is based on actual expenses for the same timeframe. The actual calculation for determining whether an insurer has reaped excess profits is included in section 627.215(7)(a): Beginning with the July 1, 1991, report for workers' compensation insurance, employer's liability insurance, and commercial casualty insurance, an excessive profit has been realized if the net aggregate underwriting gain for all these lines combined is greater than the net aggregate anticipated underwriting profit for these lines plus 5 percent of earned premiums for the 3 most recent calendar years for which data is filed under this section. . . Should the Office determine, using this calculation, that an excess profit has been realized, the Office is required to order a return of those excess profits after affording the insurer group an opportunity for hearing pursuant to chapter 120. OIR B1-15 (Form F) is a form that the Office has adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69O-189.007, which was promulgated pursuant to the authority in section 627.215. The information submitted by an insurer group on Form F is used by the Office to calculate the amount of excessive profits, if any, that a company has realized for the three calendar-accident years reported. The terms "loss adjustment expenses," and "administrative and selling expenses," are not defined by statute. Nor are they defined in rule 69O-189.007 or the instructions for Form F. Form F's first page includes section four, under which calendar-year administrative and selling expenses are listed. Section four has five subparts: A) commissions and brokerage expenses; B) other acquisition, field supervision, and collection expense; C) general expenses incurred; D) taxes, licenses, and fees incurred; and E) other expenses not included above. No guidance is provided in section 627.215, in rule 60O-189.007, or in the instructions for Form F, to identify what expenses may properly be included in the Form F filing. There is no indication in any of these three sources, or in any other document identified by the Office, that identifies whether federal income taxes are to be included or excluded from expenses to be reported in a Form F filing. While the form clearly references taxes, licenses, and fees incurred under section 4(D), the instructions do not delineate what types of taxes, licenses, and fees should be included. The instructions simply state: "for each of the expenses in item 4, please provide an explanation of the methodology used in deriving the expenses, including supporting data." On or about June 30, 2009, Premier filed its original Form F Filing with the Office pursuant to section 627.215 and rule 69O-189.007. Rule 69O-189.007 requires that a Form F be filed each year on or before July 1. On March 19, 2010, the Office issued a Notice of Intent, directing Premier to return $7,673,945.00 in "excessive profits" pursuant to section 627.215. Premier filed a petition challenging the Office's determination with respect to the amount to be refunded, based in part on its position that federal income tax expense is appropriately included as an expense for calculation of excess profits. The parties attempted to resolve their differences over the next year or so. As part of their exchange of information, Premier subsequently filed three amendments to its Form F filing on December 11, 2009; on June 21, 2010; and on January 13, 2012. In each of its amended filings, Premier included the federal income tax expense attributable to underwriting profit it earned during the 2005-2007 period. These expenses were included under section 4(E). As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, Premier filed a challenge to the Office's policy of not allowing federal income taxes to be used as an expense for excess profits filings as an unadopted rule. On July 5, 2012, a Final Order was issued in Case No. 12-1201, finding that the Office's Policy regarding the inability to deduct federal income taxes as an expense for excess profits filings met the definition of a rule and had not been adopted as a rule, in violation of section 120.54(a). The Final Order in Case No. 12-1201 directed the Office to discontinue immediately all reliance upon the statement or any substantially similar statement as a basis for agency action. At this point, the parties have resolved their differences with respect to all of the calculations related to the determination of excess profits, with one exception. The sole issue remaining is the amount, if any, that should be deducted as an administrative expense for payment of federal income tax. The parties have also stipulated that, before any adjustment to federal income tax is made, Premier's underwriting profit for 2005 was $2,923,157 and for 2006 was $2,119,115. For 2008, Premier suffered an underwriting loss of $785,170. Premier's federal income tax rate for all three years was 35%. The maximum amount of underwriting profit that a company can retain is the net aggregate anticipated profit, plus five percent of earned premiums for the calendar years reported on workers' compensation business. For the 2005-2007 reporting years, Premier's maximum underwriting profit is stipulated to be $1,189,892. Anything over this amount is considered excessive profits which must be returned to policyholders. The parties also agree that, prior to any deduction for federal income tax paid by Premier, the amount of excess profit earned by Petitioner and subject to return to policyholders is $3,067,220. Premier has filed a fourth amended Form F, which incorporated all of the stipulations of the parties to date. The fourth amended Form F also includes an allocation of federal income tax expense based upon the statutory allocation methodology outlined in section 220.151, Florida Statutes (2009). Section 220.151 provides the statutory method for allocating federal income tax expenses for purpose of paying Florida corporate income taxes. This section directs that insurance companies shall allocate federal taxable income based on the ratio of direct written premium the insurance company has written in Florida for the relevant period, divided by the direct written premium anywhere. Premier paid its Florida corporate income tax based upon this statutory methodology. Consistent with the methodology in section 220.151, Premier allocated its federal taxable income to the State of Florida based upon the percentage of direct premium written on risks in Florida, and reduced the amount of its federal taxable income by the amount investment income reflected on its federal tax return. Premier then multiplied the Florida portion of its taxable income by its 35% federal tax rate, resulting in the federal income tax expense allocated to Florida. For the year 2005, Premier's federal taxable income according to its tax return is $7,614,512.89. After subtracting investment income listed on the tax return of $969,051.97, the taxable income attributable to premium is $6,645,460.92. For 2006, Premier's federal taxable income according to its tax return is $6,577,534.06. After subtracting investment income of $2,011,614.86, the taxable income attributable to premium is $4,565,919.20. For 2007, Premier's federal taxable income according to its tax return was $4,359,742.88. After subtracting investment income of $2,266,291.99, the taxable income attributable to premium is $2,093,450.89. For the three years combined, the federal taxable income was $18,551,789.83. The amount of investment income subtracted was $5,246,958.82, leaving a balance of taxable income attributable to premium as $13,304,831.01. For the years 2005 through 2007, Premier paid $2,665,079.51; $2,302,136.92; and $1,525,910.01 respectively, in federal income tax. During those same years, Premier wrote 58.8388%; 51.2514%; and 29.8536%, respectively, of its direct premium in Florida. Allocating a portion of Premier's federal tax income and income tax liability to Florida, consistent with section 220.151, results in a calculation of Florida's portion of taxable underwriting income. For 2005, this amount is $3,910,109.46; for 2006, $2,340,097.51; and for 2007, $624,970.45. The total amount of federal taxable income allocated to Florida for the three-year period of $6,875,177.42. The taxable income is then multiplied by the applicable tax rate of 35%, which results in a federal income tax expense allocated to Florida of $1,368,538.46 for 2005; $819,034.13 for 2006; and $218,739.45 for 2007, totaling $2,406,312.10 for the three-year period at issue. The undersigned notes that Premier only writes workers' compensation insurance. It does not write other lines of insurance, which makes the allocation of earned premium much simpler than it would be for a company writing multiple lines of insurance. Under the methodology described above, Premier determined that $2,406,312.10 is the appropriate amount of federal income tax expense to be deducted for calendar years 2005-2007, resulting in an excess profit pursuant to section 627.215, of $660,907. Mr. Hester, a certified public accountant and president of Premier, testified that this methodology was used by Premier in determining its Florida corporate income tax liability. The methodology described above uses the amounts that Premier actually paid in taxes, and therefore reflects the actual expense experienced by Premier. It is accepted as a reasonable method. According to Mr. Watford, the Office does not determine the methodology that must be used in allocating expenses. The insurance company provides the methodology and the data to support it, and then the Office determines whether, in a given case, the methodology is appropriate. Premier points out that the Office has provided no guidance on how to allocate federal income tax expense for excess profits reporting. That no guidance has been offered is understandable, inasmuch as the Office holds firmly to the belief that no allowance for federal income tax expense should be made. Nonetheless, the Office reviewed the method provided by Premier and did not find it to be reasonable. Premier included in its Form F filing for the years 2005-2007 a deduction for the portion of Florida corporate income tax expense not related to investment income. The Office accepted the Florida corporate income tax deduction, which is calculated using the same allocation method Premier used to allocate federal income tax expense. Indeed, the Office acknowledged at hearing that it has permitted the methodology of direct written premium in Florida divided by direct written premium written everywhere for the determination of other expenses for excess profits filings, and has only rejected the methodology on one occasion. However, it has not accepted this same methodology for determining the appropriate amount of federal income tax expense and does not believe it to be a reasonable methodology. The rationale for this distinction is that, in Mr. Watford's view, federal income tax is "a totally different type of expense." Mr. Watford did not consult an accountant or certified public accountant in making the determination that the methodology used was impermissible. Mr. Watford opined that in order to determine that a proposed methodology is reasonable, the insurance company would need to have an adjustment in the profit factor, i.e., submit a new rate filing for the years in question; have a projected tax expense that did not exceed the expense he calculated, based on the effect on future tax expenses caused by the return of excess profits; and submit a methodology that was "appropriate for the insurance company." This approach is rejected. First, the rate filing is supposed to be a forecast, and the Office cited to no authority for adjusting the forecast in light of actual events. Further, Mr. Watford admitted that in this instance, the profit and contingencies factor is already at zero for the years at issue, and section 627.125 provides that no factor less than zero can be used to determine excess profits. Second, the excess profits statute specifies that the deduction for administrative and selling expenses is for those expenses incurred in Florida or allocated to Florida for the current year. Unlike incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses, administrative and selling expenses are not developed to an ultimate basis, which appears to be what the Office is attempting to require. Administrative expenses are incurred by calendar year.1/ Other than the net cost of re-insurance, the Office has not permitted any expense that is to be valued at a date that is later than the end of the calendar year(s) at issue in the excess profits filing. The future effect of these expenses would be considered in the year that effect is realized. Third, allowing whatever is "appropriate for the insurance company" is simply too nebulous a standard, to the extent it is a standard at all, to apply.2/ As noted by Mr. Hester, federal income tax liabilities are governed by the Internal Revenue Code and its attendant regulations, and not tied specifically to underwriting gain or loss.3/ Similarly, Florida corporate income tax liabilities are governed by Florida's taxing statutes. The fact that their calculation is not governed by the Florida Insurance Code does not change the fact that they are administrative expenses borne by the insurance company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office enter a Final Order finding that $2,406,312.10 may be deducted for federal income tax expense incurred or allocated to Florida for purposes of section 627.215, and that Premier must return $660,907.90 in excessive profits to its policyholders. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 2012.
Findings Of Fact The parties agreed at the hearing that there were no issues of fact which remained to be determined. The parties stipulated that the relevant facts are as set out in paragraph 5 of the Petition for Administrative Hearing. The following findings are quoted directly from paragraph 5 of the Petition. Petitioner is a federally chartered savings and loan association. Petitioner initially employed the cash receipts and disbursements method of accounting for Federal Income Tax purposes. In a desire to more clearly reflect income, Petitioner applied for and received permission from the Internal Revenue Service allowing Petitioner to change its method of tax accounting from the cash to the accrual method, pursuant to Revenue Procedure 70-27. This change was to commence with the calendar year 1971. Consistent with this accounting method change, all net accrued income as of January 1, 1971, was recorded in its entirety in Petitioner's financial statements as of December 31, 1970. The total net adjustment required to convert to the accrual method was $758,911.00. Pursuant to an agreement entered into with the Internal Revenue Service, an annual adjustment of $75,891.00 was required. The annual adjustment spread the effect of the accounting change over a 10-year period, despite the fact that all the income was realized prior to January 1, 1971. On January 1, 1972, the Florida Income Tax Code became effective. Petitioner timely filed its 1970 and 1971 Florida Intangible Personal Property Tax Returns. Upon subsequent review of Petitioner's records, it became apparent that the intangible tax had been overpaid and a refund claim was submitted. The refund was issued to Petitioner by the State of Florida during the calendar year 1973 and reported in Petitioner's 1973 Federal Corporate Income Tax Return. On December 16, 1975, Respondent notified Petitioner that Petitioner was deficient in its payment of Florida Corporate Income Tax in the amount of $25,386.84. The total deficiency consisted of $3,267.00 for the year ended December 31, 1972; $19,202.00 for the year ended December 31, 1973; and $2,916.84 for the year ended December 31, 1974. Included in the alleged total deficiency of $25,386.84 is a tax in the amount of $14,696.70 for the year 1973. This tax is attributable to Petitioner's apportionment of a part of its 1973 income to sources outside of the State of Florida. Petitioner is no longer protesting this deficiency. On February 9, 1976, Petitioner filed its protest against Respondent's determination that a deficiency in tax existed. By letter dated March 9, 1976, Respondent denied Petitioner's protest filed on February 9, 1976.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the agreement of the parties as to the relevant facts in this case, the following facts are found: For the calendar years ending December 31, 1972 and 1973, petitioner filed its federal corporate income tax returns reporting gross income from dividends in excess of its taxable income before the special deduction of 85 percent of the dividends received, limited to 85 percent of taxable income. As a result, a maximum of 15 percent of its net income was included in its taxable income on the federal tax returns. The federal returns for calendar years ending December 31, 1972 and 1973 reflected the deduction of net capital losses incurred and carried forward from years ending prior to January 1, 1972, the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax code. For its calendar years 1972 and 1973, petitioner filed its Florida corporation income tax returns reporting no Florida net income. The respondent examined the returns and determined deficiencies of $374.49 for 1972 and $566.40 for 1973. Such determination was based primarily on the additions to income of net capital losses carried forward from years ending prior to January 1, 1972.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that there is no basis for affording petitioner relief from the proposed deficiency and that said deficiencies of corporate income tax of $374.49 and $556.40 for 1972 and 1973 respectively, be sustained. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. T.H. Swindal Chief, Corporate Income Tax Bureau Department of Revenue Post Office Box 3906 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Mr. Robert Fried Suite 210, Professional Centre 9000 Southwest 87th Court Miami, Florida 33176 Attorney for Petitioner Mr. Stephen E. Mitchell Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Attorney for Respondent
The Issue The issue presented is what is Peaches' basis in the Sterling stock?
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute as to the material facts in the instant case, Exhibit 1 presented at the hearing is a composite exhibit which is comprised of the Petitioner's U.S. Corporate Income Tax Return and Florida Corporate Income Tax Return for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973. Exhibit 3 is the Respondent's document entitled "Income Tax Audit Changes" which reflects the adjustments made by the Respondent based upon a review of the Petitioner's return and the reasons for assessing the deficiency. Exhibit 2 is a composite exhibit comprised of the Petitioner's Amended Protest of the proposed deficiency and the Respondent's letter denying the same. Petitioner's federal return (Exhibit 1) Schedule D, Part II, reflects the 31,500 shares were acquired in 1958 at a cost basis of $10,191.00. These shares were subsequently sold by Peaches in 1972 for $1,160,131.00 or a gain of $1,149,940.00. This gain was reported on line 9(a) of the federal tax return as a portion of the "net capital gains." On its 1973 Florida Corporate Income Tax Return, Petitioner computed the income using the basis for the stock as of January 2, 1972, thereby reducing its reported income by $1,013,040.00 from the federal tax. The $1,013,040.00 reflects the amount of appreciation in the value of the stock between the transferrer's acquisition and January 1, 1972, the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax code. The shares of stock of Sterling Drugs were acquired by Peaches in 1971 from the controlling stockholder who made a contribution to capital to the corporation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Petitioner's petition be denied and that the assessment against the Petitioner in the amount of $29,435.00 together with interest be assessed. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin J. Stacker Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James S. Moody, Jr., Esquire Trinkle and Redman, P.A. 306 West Reynolds Street Plant City, Florida 33566 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA PEACHES OF FLORIDA, INC. Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-1433 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. / NOTICE TO: JAMES S. MOODY, JR., ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER TRINKLE AND REDMAN, P. A. 306 WEST REYNOLDS STREET PLANT CITY, FLORIDA 33566 E. WILSON CRUMP, II, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE BOX 5557 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304 You will please take notice that the Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida, acting as head of the Department of Revenue, at its meeting on the 5th day of April, 1979, approved the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer dated January 22, 1979, with paragraph 3 of the "Findings of Fact" therein amended to read as follows: "The shares of stock of Sterling Drugs were acquired by Peaches in 1972 from the controlling stockholder who made a contribution to capital to the corporation", in accordance with Stipulation of the Petitioner and Respondent filed in the case on March 1, 1979. This constitutes final agency action by the Department of Revenue. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF FLORIDA ROOM 104, CARLTON BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice was furnished by mail to James S. Moody, Jr., Esquire, Trinkle and Redman, P. A., 306 West Reynolds Street, Plant City, Florida 33566, Attorney for Petitioner; by hand delivery to Wilson Crump, II, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Post Office fox 5557, Tallahassee, Florida 32304, Attorney for Respondent and Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings; Room 530, Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida this 5th day of April, 1979. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY
