The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to the repayment of funds paid to the State Treasury through overpayment or error, in relation to use taxes? The refund claim is $37,837.91. See Section 215.26, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Rathon Corporation, formerly known as Diversey Corporation, is a Delaware Corporation authorized to do business in Florida. It manufactures various detergents, cleaners, and soaps, and the equipment to dispense those products. The products are marketed in Florida and other states. The customers of the products include hotels, hospitals, factories, and restaurants. The devices that dispense the detergents, cleaners, and soaps are referred to as "feeders." Those feeders can range from simple hand soap dispensers to electronically regulated machines that inject soap into commercial dishwashers. The feeders are loaned to Petitioner's customers at no additional charge for the period of time that the customer continues to purchase the product(s) dispensed by the feeder. These circumstances existed in the period of July 1993 through March 1995. In the period of July 1993 through March 1995, Diversey Corporation, now Rathon Corporation, paid the State of Florida $58,969.22 in use tax associated with the feeders. During the period in question, the Petitioner manufactured the feeders at a facility in Santa Cruz, California. The feeders were not warehoused in the Santa Cruz facility for an extended period. They were prepared for shipment and shipped to customers in the various states, to include Florida and California customers, to be used in the places of business operated by the customers. The feeders being shipped were not packaged with other products. During the period July 1993 through March 1995, the Petitioner not only paid use tax to Florida for the feeders, it paid use tax in forty-four other states and the District of Columbia, based upon the costs of manufacturing the feeders. California was among the other forty-four states. During the period in question, Petitioner accrued and paid use taxes to Florida and California limited to the feeders used by customers in those states, based upon the product sales allocation method it used in relation to the forty-three other states and the District of Columbia. The feeders that were provided to Florida customers were shipped by common carrier. Upon their arrival in Florida no tax had been paid to California pertaining to those feeders. When the feeders arrived in Florida during the period at issue, use tax would be remitted to Florida. Subsequently, the Petitioner paid the State of California a use tax associated with the feeders that had been shipped to Florida customers and upon which a use tax had been imposed by the State of Florida and paid. The California payment is described in detail below. Petitioner had paid Florida use tax on the feeders shipped to Florida customers based on the total manufactured cost of the feeders to Petitioner, including materials, labor, and overhead. The additional use tax paid to California for those feeders was based only on the cost of materials. The overall costs of feeders allocated to Florida for the refund period was $982,803.00. Petitioner remitted a 6% use tax to Florida totaling $58,969.22 for the period in question. In 1996, Petitioner was audited for sales and use tax compliance by the State of California. That audit process included the refund period that is in question in this case, July 1993 through March 1995. Following the audit, the State of California issued a Notice of Determination asserting additional liability for tax and interest that totaled $355,753.95. Petitioner paid that assessment. The California auditor had arrived at the assessment by concluding that Petitioner owed California for 44.57% of all feeders manufactured at Petitioner's Santa Cruz facility. The 44.57% represented all newly manufactured feeders that had been loaned by Petitioner to its customers during the refund period over the entire United States. As a consequence, the assessment of use tax by the State of California included tax on feeders for which Petitioner had paid Florida $58,969.22 in use tax prior to the California assessment of $355,753.95. Petitioner did not apply for credit in California for the portion of the $355,753.95 that would relate to the feeders brought to Florida during the period in question. Petitioner took no action to obtain a credit on the amount paid to Florida as a means to reduce the California tax obligation pursuant to the 1996 audit, because Petitioner had been told that the use tax for the feeders used by Florida customers was legally due in California and not in Florida. In arriving at the determination that 44.57% of the feeders manufactured during the period in question had been loaned to customers within the continental United States, the California auditor took into account that 21.8% of the feeders and feeder parts were sold for export, leaving 78.2% to be used in the United States. Of the 78.2% remaining for the United States, 57% were complete feeders sent to customers within the United States, and 43% were repair parts that were sent to Petitioner's Cambridge Division in Maryland, where those repair parts were being stored for future use. The percentage of 44.57% was arrived at by multiplying 57% times 78.2%, representing the percent of total feeders manufactured for use in the United States that were sent to customers within the United States and not held in inventory as repair parts. Again, California based its use tax for tangible personal property manufactured in that state to include only the cost of materials. Consequently, when the California auditor computed use tax to be collected by California using the 44.57% of total feeders manufactured to be used in the United States by Petitioner's customers in the United States, the California auditor used a cost factor of 55% of overall costs which was attributable to the cost of materials only. The total cost of feeders manufactured by Petitioner in California during the period in question, as related in the California tax audit, was $19,028,714.00. The total cost manufactured for use in the United States was $8,481,098.00, representing 44.57% of the overall cost of manufacturing. When the $8,481.098.00 is multiplied by 55%, representing the cost of materials only, the total costs of the goods subject to the use tax for the period in question is $4,664,604.00. A use tax rate of 7% was applied against the amount of $4,664,604.00. To attribute the portion of use tax paid to California following the 1996 audit associated with feeders that had been sent to Florida during the period in question, the answer is derived by multiplying $982,803.00 by 55% for a total of $540,542.00, and in turn multiplying that amount by 7%, the rate of tax imposed by California. That total is $37,837.91 in use tax that was subsequently paid to California after $58,962.22 had been paid to Florida for use tax on the same feeders. Diversey Corporation sought a tax refund in the amount of $58,977.00, through an application dated August 8, 1996, in relation to the period July 1993 through March. Eventually through the decision by the Respondent in its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial dated July 16, 1997, Respondent refused to grant the refund of $58,977.00. At present, Petitioner requests that it be given a refund of $37,837.91, which represents the portion of use tax paid to Florida that has been duplicated in a payment of use tax to California. Respondent, in its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial entered on July 16, 1997, and based upon the facts adduced at the final hearing, premises its proposed agency action denying the refund request upon the language set for in Section 212.06(1)(a) and (7), Florida Statutes. The determination to deny the refund request was not based upon reliance on Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code. The theory for denying the refund is premised upon Respondent's argument that use tax was due to Florida, "as of the moment" feeders arrived in Florida for use in Petitioner's business operations associated with its customers. Petitioner then paid the use tax to Florida at the time the feeders arrived in Florida. Having not paid California Use Tax prior to paying Florida Use Tax, Respondent concludes, through its proposed agency action, that it need not refund to Petitioner the use taxes it paid to California at a later date. Petitioner had referred to Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, following receipt of the Notice of Proposed Refund Denial issued on December 9, 1996, possibly creating the impression that Petitioner believed that Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, would support its claim for refund. It later developed that Petitioner did not have in mind reliance upon Rule 12A-1.091, Florida Administrative Code, to support its claim for refund. Instead, Petitioner made reference to that rule and specifically Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, as a means to perfect a challenge to Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 15, 1997, claiming that the challenged rule was an invalid exercise of authority. That challenge was assigned DOAH Case No. 97-5908RX. In summary, notwithstanding Petitioner's argument to the contrary, Respondent has never relied upon Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, or any other part of that rule in its proposed agency action denying the refund request. Absent Petitioner's affirmative reliance upon Rule 12A-1.091(3), Florida Administrative Code, the rule has no part to play in resolving this dispute.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's request for repayment of funds paid to the State Treasury in the amount of $37,837.91, paid as use taxes for all years in question, be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Michael Madsen, Esquire Vickers, Madsen, and Goldman, LLP Suite 101 1705 Metropolitan Boulevard CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1998. Tallahassee, Florida 32308-3765 John N. Upchurch, Esquire James McCauley, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact The following facts were stipulated to by both Petitioner and Respondent: The Petitioner is a Delaware corporation with its principal office at Toledo, Ohio. The Petitioner qualified to do business in Florida December 31, 1970, and was assigned #825570. The Petitioner did incur a net operating loss for the Fiscal Year ending December 31, 1974, which resulted in a carry forward to 1975 and 1976 for Florida purposes. The 1974 net operating loss for federal income tax purposes amounted to $5,432,905 (as adjusted). For Florida return purposes, net 1974 "Schedule I" additions to federal income were $27,817. Net 1974 "Schedule II" subtractions from federal income per the Florida return as filed were $1,451,951. The apportionment factor for 1974 was 1.5645 percent for Florida tax purposes. The 1975 federal taxable income was $1,295,459. For Florida purposes, net 1975 "Schedule I" additions to federal income were $26,276. Net 1975 "Schedule II" subtractions from federal income per the Florida return as filed were $2,313,813. The apportionment factor for 1975 was 1.5197 percent for Florida tax purposes. The assessment of additional income tax for Fiscal Year ending December 31, 1976, by the Department of Revenue, which is the subject of Petitioner's protest, totals $1,889 resulting from the interpretation of the Florida statutes concerning the amounts mentioned in items 4 through 10 preceding. Total disallowed operation loss carry forward to the year 1976 after apportionment was $37,792. The issue of law involved herein is the interpretation of Section 220.13, Florida Statutes, which section is deemed to control the assessment for Fiscal Year ending December 31, 1976.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, upholding the assessment made by the Department of Revenue, and denying the relief requested herein by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: J. W. Neithercut, Vice President Questor Corporation Post Office Box 317 Toledo, Ohio 43691 William D. Townsend, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Shepard King, Esquire Steel, Hector & Davis 1400 S.E. First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Joseph Z. Fleming, Esquire 25 Southeast Second Avenue Ingraham Building, Suite 620 Miami, Florida 33131
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
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent held a 2-APS license, No. 23-2019, authorizing the grocery store to sell package goods. In response to a request from the Miami Police Department, petitioner's employee, Norman David Leifer, investigated respondent's premises and discovered three bottles of Coors Beer and six cans of Victoria Cerveza all lacking Florida tax stamps. The word "Florida" was not printed or lithographed on the can lids or bottle crowns. He found the beer in sealed containers in a walk-in cooler containing meats, other alcoholic beverages and other products being offered for sale. The beer Mr. Leifer found was on respondent's premises for the purpose of resale, and Florida taxes had not been paid on the beer.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner assess a civil penalty against respondent in the amount of one hundred ($100.00), or, if the fine has not been paid within one month of entry of the final order, suspend respondent's license for a period of two weeks. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of January, 1981. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of Janaury, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick E. Graves, Esqurie Suite 3000, New World Tower 100 North Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132 Jaruquito Grocery 1366 NE First Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether this cause should be dismissed for Petitioner's failure to comply with Section 120.80(14)(b)3., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is contesting an assessment of taxes, pursuant to an audit conducted by Respondent Department of Revenue. The total amount of the assessment was $32,312.24. Following the audit, in a letter to the Department's auditor dated April 17, 2006, Petitioner's counsel stated that taxes "in the amount of $5,744.80 is something [Petitioner] would be obligated to pay under the laws of the State of Florida, and as such, they are willing to do so. They would be willing to pay interest due on this money."1/ This statement constitutes a clear admission that Petitioner owes the stated amount of the tax, $5,744.80, plus interest that accrues daily. Petitioner's Memorandum makes the un-sworn statement that: At the time the parties met to discuss the assessment with the representative of the Department of Revenue, Martha Watkins, they offered to pay $5,744.80 of the taxes but were informed it was part of the $32,312.24, and they could either pay it all or contest it. At all times material hereto the petitioners have stood ready to pay the $5,744.80. On April 17, 2006, we wrote a letter to Martha Watkins making this offer for the second time. On August 17, 2006, we again wrote to the Department of Revenue attaching our letter of April 17, 2006, again making this offer. At no time was a response received to either letter. The August 17, 2006, letter alluded to in Petitioner's Memorandum is not of record and neither a copy of that letter, nor an affidavit of its contents, has been submitted by either party. At no time has Petitioner asserted that any amount of tax money was unequivocally tendered to Respondent. No affidavit to that effect has been filed in this case. The Second Affidavit of Martha Watkins, submitted with the Department of Revenue's timely Memorandum states, in pertinent part: I conducted the audit of C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., from which arose the challenged assessment and this controversy. During the course of the audit, and subsequent communication with C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., regarding the audit and assessment of taxes and interest, C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., made at least one settlement offer, that was unacceptable, and was rejected by the Department as such. At no time did C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., unequivocally tender to me, or unequivocally offer to tender to me, the uncontested tax and applicable interest, and at no time did I refuse to accept any payment of taxes. On September 21, 2006, a Request for Administrative Hearing was filed with the Department of Revenue. On September 28, 2006, the Executive Director of the Department of Revenue entered an Order Dismissing the Petition with Leave to Amend. That Order reads, in pertinent part: On September 21, 2006, the Florida Department of Revenue received a "Request for Administrative Hearing" from Petitioner, C & C Mechanical Contractors. While the document clearly is a request for hearing, the petition does not state what the Petitioner is disputing. A record search shows that at least one Notice of Proposed Assessment was issued by the Department on June 15, 2006 to this Petitioner. It is impossible to determine from the petition whether this proposed assessment is being challenged. However, because this request was sent within the applicable time frame to dispute the Notice of Proposed Assessment, the Department will treat it as such. As required by law, the notice stated that a formal protest for an administrative hearing had to be received in the Office of the General Counsel within sixty days after the assessment became final and had to be in compliance with chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The petition fails to meet the requirements contained in chapter 120, Florida Statutes and Uniform Rule 28- 106.201, Florida Administrative Code, the appropriate rule for use in filing a petition requesting a hearing involving disputed issues of material fact. A copy of the appropriate rule is provided with this order. Specifically, the petition does not contain: (1) a statement of when and how the Petitioner received notice of the agency decision; (2) all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; (3) a concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts the Petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; (4) a statement of the specific rules or statutes the Petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action, and (5) a statement of the relief sought by the Petitioner, stating precisely the action the petitioner wishes the agency to take with respect to the agency's proposed action. Because of these deficiencies, Petitioner's documentation must be dismissed. IT IS ORDERED: The petition for hearing filed by Petitioner is DISMISSED. Such dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner to amend the petition to provide the information listed above. . . . On October 11, 2006, the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing was filed with the Department of Revenue. That Amended Petition stated, in pertinent part: 1. The Petitioner received a certified letter dated June 15, 2006, stating taxes were due and owing in the amount of $32,312.24. This amount included $5,774.80 in fabrication cost taxes which the Petitioner does not object too [sic]. The balance of the $32,312.24 was for taxes on items sold to non-taxable entities. The Petitioner would object to these taxes and gives as grounds the following: Items sold to non-taxable entities are not subject to the Florida Tax Code. The department made a determination the items sold to the non-taxable entities were taxable stating the contractor, in this case the Petitioner, was the end user. Florida Tax Code states in part ". . . a determination whether a particular transaction is properly characterized as an exempt sale to a government entity or a taxable sale to a contractor shall be based on the substance of the transaction rather than the form in which the transaction is cast." The department "shall adopt rules that give special consideration to factors that govern the status of the tangible personal property before its affixation to real property." The Department of Revenue has adopted a rule which is in violation of the incident [sic] of legislature and contrary to Florida Statute 212.08.2/ (Emphasis supplied). The Amended Petition constitutes a clear admission that the $5,744.80 portion of the taxes due under the audit were both uncontested and owed, as of October 11, 2006. The first Affidavit of Martha Watkins, filed November 28, 2006, in support of the pending Motion to Dismiss, states, in pertinent part: I am a [sic] sui juris and otherwise competent to testify in this matter. I am employed by the Florida Department of Revenue in the position of Tax Auditor III. I am familiar with the accounts, accounting methods, and maintenance of records at the Florida Department of Revenue for sales tax, interest, and penalties. I am authorized by the Department of Revenue to make affidavit regarding the payment status of sales taxes, interest and penalties relative to registered Florida dealers. I have reviewed, and have personal knowledge of the accounts of the Florida Department of Revenue regarding tax payment of C&C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., a Florida corporation that has in the past been issued a Certificate of Registration by the Department of Revenue. According to the records of the Department of Revenue, as of November 27, 2006, C&C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., has not paid any sums to the Department of Revenue against the assessed outstanding balance of sales tax, interest or penalties, since prior to April 16, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Revenue enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Allstate Enterprises, Inc. is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Allstate Financial Corporation, ("Financial"), a wholly- owned subsidiary of Enterprises, is a Delaware corporation that is not qualified to do business in Florida. Financial was formed to provide funding for the financial service activities performed by Enterprises as hereinafter described. The principal offices of both corporations are located outside the State of Florida. Enterprises has two operating divisions, one of which is not involved in this case and the other one of which is in the business of lending money to individuals. The loans enable the borrowers to purchase automobiles and recreation vehicles from unrelated third parties. In exchange for cash, Enterprises receives from each borrower an installment note secured by a lien on the automobile or recreational vehicle which the borrower purchased with the borrowed cash. Respondent's standard form security agreement provides that the debtor shall not ". . . change the principal location of the property from [Florida]. . . without Allstate's written consent . . ." Enterprises sells the installment notes, on a discounted basis, to Financial pursuant to a written agreement. Debtors are not advised that their obligations have been sold, and they continue to make all of their payments directly to Enterprises. The sale from Enterprises to Financial of each takes place as soon as the loan is made to the individual and the note is obtained from him. Enterprises sells all of its rights and interests in all of the installment notes to Financial. The notes are sold to Financial without recourse, and Enterprises cannot use the sold notes as collateral since it retains no right, title, or interest in them. The sold notes are physically transferred to Financial and are maintained by Financial in the State of Delaware, where it maintains all of its financial records. All installment note files that are maintained by Enterprises are marked with the words "Sold to Allstate Financial Corporation." The activities performed by Enterprises for Financial are as authorized in an agreement between the parties, a copy of which was received into evidence as Exhibit No. 5. In this connection, Enterprises: (1) makes collections on the notes and remits proceeds from those collections to Financial; (2) keeps sufficient records to enable Financial to determine the status of outstanding notes; (3) repurchases notes from Financial in the event of default by the debtor, and conducts any repossession or foreclosure proceedings in its own behalf. The agreement between Enterprises and Financial specifically provides that, in performing its responsibilities under the contract, Enterprises is acting as the "agent" of Financial. At the time of sale of the installment notes, Financial remits to Enterprises 99.5 percent of the selling price and retains 0.5 percent as a reserve. The purpose of the reserve is to give Financial security for bad debts. Then, when Enterprises collects, on behalf of Financial, the payments due on the notes, Enterprises takes a credit for the 0.5 percent held in the reserve (to the extent not needed for bad debts), and remits to Financial the remaining 99.5 percent. Since Enterprises continually sells new installment notes to Financial and continuously makes collection on notes previously sold, for administrative convenience in the transfer of funds, the selling price of the due notes is netted against the collection of the open notes. However, the sale of the new notes is totally independent of the collections on the old notes. Enterprises is contractually obligated to remit all of the proceeds to Financial regardless of whether new notes are sold. Enterprises is not now, nor has it ever been, involved in the sale, leasing, or servicing of automobiles or recreational vehicles. Except for limited repossession activities, Enterprises does not now have, nor has it ever had, ownership or control of the vehicles which secured the notes. The Florida Department of Revenue has assessed Enterprises for Florida Intangible Tax for the years 1975, 1976, and 1977 in the amounts of $27,521.14, $23,016.94 and $24,103.78, respectively, plus interest and penalty. The assessments were based on the amount of the installment notes receivable for Florida residents as of December 30, 1975, 1976 and 1977, respectively. The amounts assessed were based upon figures furnished by Respondent, and the accuracy as to these assessments has not been questioned. It is clear, however, that these notes were all sold to Financial prior to the applicable dates for assessment of the tax.
The Issue Petitioner's liability for tax, interest, and penalty, pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, as set forth in Notice of Assessment, dated December 9, 1975. At the hearing, it was stipulated that the sale by Petitioner to one Norady as set forth in Paragraph B of the Petition was no longer in issue, and accordingly this count was withdrawn by Petitioner. The amount of sales by Petitioner to Triumpho Electric as shown in Paragraph C of the Petition was stipulated to be in the amount of $243,724.34 instead of $248,255.26. In view of the above Stipulations, the Hearing Officer requested that a revised assessment be prepared and submitted after the hearing to reflect the amount now sought by Respondent and to indicate thereon the taxes, penalty aid interest attributable to sales to Ivan Alexander, Triumpho Electric, Grand Bahama Development Company, and Agregados de Cal, purchasers from Petitioner. The revised schedule in the total amount of $12,358.37 was submitted on April 30, 1976, received by the Hearing Officer on May 4, 1976, and is marked as Respondent's Exhibit 1. The parties stipulated at the hearing that the method of computation was correct and Petitioner has filed no objections to the counts of the revised assessment. Accordingly, it is deemed to reflect the amount due and owing if imposition of tax is valid.
Findings Of Fact During the period November 1, 1973 to February 28, 1975, Petitioner made sales of merchandise to the following: Ivan Alexander, Triumpho Electric, Grand Bahama Development Company and Agregados de Cal. the circumstances of each of these transactions are set forth below. Ivan Alexander Construction Co., Ltd. a. Petitioner made sales of electrical equipment in amount of $1,646.50 to Ivan Alexander Construction Co., Ltd. Freeport, Grand Bahamas1 on September 24, 1974. Petitioner delivered e merchandise to Lindsley-RBC, Miami, Florida. Lindsley-RBC was not licensed exporter, but acted in an agency capacity for the purchaser. Subsequent to Petitioner's delivery, Lindsley-RBC consolidated the merchandise with other purchases made by Ivan Alexander, for shipping purposes. After consolidating the merchandise, Lindsley-RBC delivered the merchandise to the shipping vessel, the Tropic Day. It was received by the purchaser in Freeport on October 11, 1974. (Stipulation, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 7). Triumpho Electric, Inc. Petitioner made sales of electrical construction equipment n the amount of $237,634.57 to Triumpho Electric, Inc., Christiansted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands, during the period under consideration. The procedures used in purchasing, delivering and shipping the merchandise are s follows: Ivan M. Bauknight, an employee of Triumpho, placed the order or the merchandise "on behalf of Triumpho" personally at Petitioner's - place of business, by telephonic communication with a salesman employed by Petitioner, or by contacting its sales representative who took the order in person from Bauknight. In August of 1972, Triumpho had formed Caribbean Supply Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary, for purposes of purchasing merchandise, consolidating said merchandise in its own warehouse, and shipping. To further effectuate their purposes, warehouse pace was secured at Miami International Airport. Although Bauknight as in charge of Caribbean Supply Company, Inc., he was not an employee of that company. In fact, Caribbean Supply Company, Inc., had no employees during the period in question, excepting casual labor at intervals who were supervised by Mr. Bauknight. Although it was not a "licensed exporter", Caribbean possessed an export sales tax number issued by Respondent. Subsequent to the placing of orders in the above-described manner, Petitioner delivered the merchandise to Caribbean Supply Company, Inc.'s warehouse located at Miami International Airport where the merchandise was consolidated with other purchases. After delivery, and after packaging and consolidating the merchandise in Caribbean Supply Company, Inc.'s warehouse, Bauknight contacted a shipping company and requested that a "piggyback" trailer be provided on which to load the merchandise. The shipping company then placed the trailer upon Caribbean Supply Company, Inc.`s loading lock where Bauknight and laborers would load the merchandise onto the trailer, seal it, and then inform the shipping company which would take it to Dodge Island Seaport, Miami, Florida, and load it upon a ship. During the assessment period in question, all trailers were loaded at Caribbean Supply Company, Inc. Another method of transportation was shipment by air from Miami International Airport. In such cases, the merchandise was delivered by Petitioners to Caribbean's warehouse where it was packaged and taken to commercial airlines for shipment. (Testimony of Bauknight, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 1-4). Grand Bahama Development Company, Ltd. Petitioner made sales of merchandise in the amount of $21,407.55 to Grand Bahama Development Company, Ltd., during the period in question. Procedures used in purchasing, delivering and shipping were as follow: America Devco, Inc., Miami, Florida, a wholly-owned company of Grand Bahama Development Company, Ltd., was created by the latter to represent its interests in the United States. At all times pertinent to the instant transactions, America Devco, Inc., was not a licensed exporter but was acting as Grand Bahama Development Company, Ltd's agent. It did, however, possess an export sales tax number issued by Respondent. America Devco, Inc., contacted Petitioner's sales representative by telephone and placed orders subsequently issuing a confirming purchase order to Petitioner. In about 60 percent of the transactions, Petitioner delivered the merchandise to America Devco, Inc.'s warehouse. In about 40 percent of the transactions, America Devco, Inc., went to Petitioner's business site, picked up the merchandise and took it to its warehouse. By both methods, the merchandise usually remained at America Devco, Doc's warehouse from one to three days in order to create shipping documents or to take advantage of the hundred pounds air shipping minimum. America Devco, Inc., utilized its trucks to deliver the merchandise to the airline cargo loading platform. All supplies were kept in the original containers supplied by Petitioner and America Devco, Inc., only affixed shipping label. Shipping documents were prepared by the shipping company. In one transaction, Petitioner delivered purchased merchandise to Alco Shipping Company at the dock in Port Laudania, Florida. (Testimony of Gomez, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5). Agregados de Cal. Petitioner made sales of merchandise in the amount of 905.90 to Agregados de Cal during the period in question. The merchandise was delivered by Petitioner to Mr. Robert de la-Puirtilla, in employee or representative of Agregados de Cal, at Petitioner's lace of business, at which time he took possession of the merchandise nd delivered it to the airport. (Stipulation, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6).
Recommendation That the tax assessment of $12,358.37 against Petitioner under the provisions of Section 212.05, F.S., including interest and penalties be imposed by the Department of Revenue and enforcement thereof be effected in accordance with the provisions of law. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia S. Turner Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 George A. Buchmann Penthouse B2 7000 S.W. 62 Avenue South Miami, Florida 33143 Attorney for Petitioner
Findings Of Fact American Beryllium Company, Inc. is a subsidiary of Loral Corporation. On March 16, 1981, American Beryllium Company, Inc. filed a separate company form DR-601-C for Florida Intangible Tax Return reflecting a tax liability of 52,483.00 and paid this amount accordingly upon this date. The above form and check were processed by the Department of Revenue on April 9, 1981. On April 29, 1981, the Loral Corporation filed a separate company 1981 form DR-601-C reflecting a tax liability of $45.70 and paid this amount accordingly upon this date. The above form and check were processed by the Department of Revenue on May 4, 1981. On April 27, 1984, Loral Corporation and American Beryllium Company, Inc., filed a consolidated and amended 1981 form DR-601-C reflecting a tax liability of $35.07. Also, on April 27, 1984, Loral Corporation and American Beryllium Company, Inc., filed a 1981 form DR-26 refund claim exclusive of interest and penalties in the amount of $2,443.63, which is $85.07 less than the $2,528.70 total amount of taxes reported and paid in 1981. The above refund claim was received by the Department of Revenue on May 1, 1984. The Office of the Comptroller denied Petitioner's refund request in the amount of $2,443.63. The Office of the Comptroller authorized and paid a refund in the amount of $45.70 to the Loral Corporation which it paid as taxes owed on April 29, 1981. This leaves a remaining balance of $2,397.93 paid by American Beryllium Company, Inc. as tax it paid on March 16, 1981.
Findings Of Fact The parties have agreed that there are no issues of fact to be determined in this matter, and that the relevant facts are set out in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Petition which was received in evidence at the hearing as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. This matter involves a determination for Florida corporate income tax purposes of the net income derived by the Petitioner in connection with the purchase, development, and sale of certain property in Dade County, Florida. Petitioner purchased the property prior to January 1, 1972, the date upon which the Florida Income Tax Code became effective. Petitioner expended, through a subsidiary corporation, $369,058 in developing the property. These expenditures also occurred prior to January 1, 1972. For Federal income tax purposes the Petitioner had deducted these expenditures as business expenses during the years that they were incurred. Petitioner sold the property during 1972. Because the Petitioner had deducted the expenditures as business expenses, the expenditures could not properly have been included in the base price of the property for Federal income tax purposes, and the net income for Federal tax purposes was computed by subtracting the original purchase price from the sale price. Since the Florida Income Tax Code was not in effect at the time the expenditures were made, the Petitioner received no Florida tax benefit for the expenditures. In computing the net income for Florida tax purposes derived from the sale, the Petitioner included the expenditures in the base price of the property, and calculated its net income by subtracting the sum of the purchase price of the property and the expenditures from the sale price. The Department, contending that the $369,058 should not have been included in the base price of the property, issued a deficiency assessment which reflected the net income from the sale of property as the difference between the sale price and the purchase price. Petitioner originally contended that it was entitled to add the amount that the property appreciated prior to January 1, 1972 to the base price of the property. Petitioner is no longer contesting the deficiency assessment based upon a disallowance of that addition to the base price of the property. The Department was originally contending that it was entitled to interest at 12 percent per annum calculated retrospectively from the due date of the alleged deficiency. The Department has agreed to abandon its effort to impose that rate of interest. The issue raised in this case is whether the development expenses incurred by the Petitioner and deducted for Federal income tax purposes as business expenses prior to 1972 can be subtracted from Federal taxable income for the purpose of determining taxable income derived from the sale for Florida tax purposes.
