The Issue Whether Petitioner, Eight Hundred, Inc. (Petitioner), collected and remitted the proper amount of sales tax on its retail sales activities, and either paid or accrued use tax on its purchases.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation. Petitioner's revenues are derived, in part, through the operation of vending machine businesses throughout the State of Florida. Petitioner placed coin-operated cigarette, food and beverage, candy, and amusement vending machines in various bingo halls located throughout the state. These locations included: Pondella Hall for Hire, Inc.; Avon Plaza Bingo; Bingo Trail; Causeway Plaza Bingo; Dunnellon Bingo; Fountains Plaza Bingo; Lamirada Plaza Bingo; Northtowne Bingo; Orlando Bingo; Pondella Bingo; Sanford Bingo; Sarasota Crossings Bingo; South Belcher Bingo; and Towne Centre Bingo. Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the Florida Revenue Act of 1949 (Chapter 212, Florida Statutes (2003)), as amended. Among other things, Respondent performs audits on taxpayers to ensure that all taxes due have been correctly paid. In 1994, an audit was conducted on Petitioner covering the audit period from August 1, 1989, through July 31, 1994. After the results of the audit were obtained on June 23, 1995, Petitioner issued a NOI wherein it proposed to assess Petitioner $48,026.75 in unpaid sales tax, $18,520.05 in delinquent penalties, and $15,836.40 in accrued interest on the unpaid tax; and $4,383.13 in unpaid discretionary sales surtax, $1,875.80 in delinquent penalties, and $1,088.58 in accrued interest on the unpaid discretionary sales surtax through the date of the notice for a total of $89,730.71. By letter dated July 18, 1995, Petitioner protested the NOI and stated that (a) Petitioner was not willful in any of the errors discovered during the audit; (b) Petitioner filed and paid the tax it believed to be accurate; and (c) Petitioner has taken steps to correct the problems identified in the audit and is now filing timely in accordance with the applicable rules pertaining to the transactions in which it was engaged. Petitioner requested that the penalties and interest be abated and requested an informal conference if the letter inquiry could not be honored. For reasons unknown, the requested conference was not provided by Respondent. On November 7, 1995, under a search warrant issued at the request of the Florida statewide prosecutor, all business and banking records of Petitioner, then known as Ponderosa-for- Hire, Inc., were seized. Respondent issued its NOPA sustaining the assessment in full, which with accrued interest, then totaled $92,126.52. On March 15, 2000, Petitioner filed a letter of protest of the audit findings. On June 11, 2001, Respondent issued its NOD rejecting Petitioner's position. On July 9, 2001, a Petition for Reconsideration was filed by Petitioner. Additional letters were sent to the Respondent subsequent to the July 9, 2001, petition. Respondent issued its NOR on November 16, 2001, denying the petition. On January 15, 2002, Petitioner filed its petition with Respondent seeking an administrative hearing with DOAH. The private accounting firm of Crawford and Jones conducted a state sales and use tax audit of Petitioner under the authority of Respondent's contract audit program. The audit began on September 8, 1994, upon issuance of Respondent's Form DR-804 (DR-804). The DR-840 included a list of records which were to be produced, including federal tax returns, state sales and use tax returns, sales journals, invoices, and purchase invoices. The authorized representatives of Respondent for the audit was David L. Schultz of the accounting firm Schultz, Chaipel and Company. Representation began upon presentation to Respondent of Form DR-843, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representation, dated January 9, 1995. Included among the records provided to Respondent's auditor were ledgers, journals, taxpayer copies of DR-15 (sales and use tax return), bank statements, tax returns, financial statements. A schedule of income earned by Petitioner, by location and category of income, was provided to Respondent by Mr. Schultz's office. This schedule of income had been created by Philip Furtney, president of Petitioner, from records he kept on his home computer. The categories of income listed on the schedules were, for each hall location: canteen, cigarette, soft drink machines, crane machines, and telephones. Beginning in fiscal year 1992, a new category titled "miscellaneous" was added; and in fiscal year 1993, the category "rent" was added. Respondent's auditor compared the data contained in these schedules, for each tax year, with other reported items, such as tax returns and financial statements, to ascertain if the figures reported were a reasonable representation of income and that reliance could be placed on the data. After determining the schedules to be reasonable, Respondent's auditor used this data to calculate the amount of sales tax due based on the income reported. The effective state sales tax rate, when sales are made through coin-operated amusement and vending machines and other devices, is found in Florida Administrative Code Rules 12A-1.044 and 12A-15.001. The effective state sales tax rate for sales involving fractions of a dollar is found in Florida Administrative Code Rules 12A-1.004 and 12A-15.002. Respondent's auditor's work papers break out the different effective tax rates for each of Petitioner's revenue activities, including the different surtax rates. Credit for taxes remitted by Petitioner was calculated from the Form DR-15 downloads. Adjustments were made to this data where the total amount reported was illogical, duplicative, or otherwise appeared incorrect. The total amount of sales tax due, as reported in the Schedule "A" sales, was determined by subtracting sales tax remitted to Respondent from the amount calculated on total retail sales made. This amount was $33,269.75 in sales tax and $3,912.95 in surtax. "Use" tax liability was calculated on two activities: First, items of tangible personal property purchased by Petitioner during the audit period for which the invoices did not affirmatively show that sales tax was paid; and secondly, on the stuffed animals contained in the crane machines which are considered concession prizes. The method for calculating the use tax on concession prizes is described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.080. Because the operator of game concessions award tangible personal property as prizes to those who pay to play the machine, the operator is the ultimate consumer of the property (prize). The basis for determining tax liability is computed by multiplying six percent times 25 percent of the gross receipts from all such games, in this instance, the crane machines. The total amount of use tax due, as reported in the Schedule "B" purchases, was $14,757 in tax and $470.18 surtax. After the NOI was issued, the audit file was forwarded to Respondent's Tallahassee office. The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that the sales activity of Petitioner included revenue received from vending and amusement machines and snack bar operations. Federal tax return for the fiscal year 1992 does not list any amount of income as being derived from rental activity. The federal returns for years 1991 and 1993 list rental income; however, no information was given to Respondent's auditor during the audit to explain what this income was and from where it was derived. Applications for Registration were filed by Petitioner when each hall location began operations. Of the 23 registration applications filed, nine of them listed the major business activity as vending-food and amusement; eight of them listed the major business activity as restaurant, snack bar or canteen service; five listed the major business activity as rental; and one gave no activity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Revenue, upholding its assessments in the NOR dated November 16, 2001, for sales and use tax, the applicable surtax, plus applicable penalty and interest against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 COPIES FURNISHED: John Mika, Esquire Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 2005. Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Thomas F. Egan, Esquire Law Office of Thomas F. Egan, P.A. 204 Park Lake Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Certificate of Registration 39-8011930243-9 should be revoked for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint for Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Administrative Complaint) issued by the Department of Revenue (Department) on June 5, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the state revenue laws, including the laws related to the imposition and collection of sales and use taxes pursuant to chapter 212. Respondent is a Florida limited liability corporation doing business as The Hyde Park Cafe at 1806 West Platt Street, Tampa, Florida. For purposes of collecting and remitting sales and use taxes, it is a dealer as defined in section 212.06(2) and is required to comply with chapter 212. Respondent holds Certificate of Registration number 39- 8011930243-9, which became effective on July 27, 2000. A certificate of registration is required in order to do business in the state and requires its holder to collect and remit sales tax pursuant to chapter 212. See § 212.05(1), Fla. Stat. Respondent is also an employing unit as defined in section 443.036(20) and is subject to the unemployment compensation tax (UCT) provisions of chapter 443, as provided in section 443.1215. Through an interagency agreement with the Department of Economic Opportunity, the Department provides collection services for UCTs. See § 443.1316(1), Fla. Stat. In doing so, the Department is considered to be administering a revenue law of the state. See § 443.1316(2), Fla. Stat. A dealer must file with the Department sales tax returns and remit the tax collected on a monthly basis. See § 212.15(1), Fla. Stat. Also, an employment unit must remit payment to the Department for UCTs due and owing on a quarterly basis. The Department is authorized to revoke a dealer's certificate of registration for failure to comply with state tax laws. See § 212.18(3)(e), Fla. Stat. If the Department files a warrant, notice of lien, or judgment lien certificate against the property of a dealer, it may also revoke a certificate of registration. See § 213.692(1), Fla. Stat. Before revoking a certificate of registration, the Department must convene an informal conference that the dealer is required to attend. See § 213.692(1)(a), Fla. Stat. At the conference, the dealer may either present evidence to refute the Department's allegations of noncompliance or enter into a compliance agreement with the Department to resolve the dealer's failure to comply with chapter 212. Id. After a compliance agreement is executed by the dealer, the Department may revoke the certificate of registration if the dealer fails to comply with its terms and conditions. See Pet'r Ex. 6, p. 2, ¶ E. If a breach occurs, the entire amount is due and payable immediately. Id. at ¶ G. An informal conference can be characterized as the Department's last administrative remedy to collect delinquent taxes before beginning revocation proceedings. A dealer can also enter into a diversion program with the State Attorney's Office to resolve liabilities, but the record shows that Respondent defaulted on that arrangement. According to the Department, collection problems with this dealer first began in 2003. Department records show that Respondent failed to remit required sales taxes for the months of January 2012, August through December 2012, January through December 2013, and January and February 2014. In addition, Respondent failed to remit UCTs for the calendar quarters ending September 2010, December 2010, March 2011, June 2011, September 2011, December 2011, March 2012, June 2012, September 2012, December 2012, and March 2013. Respondent does not dispute that it failed to timely remit and pay the foregoing taxes for the time periods listed above. For the purpose of collecting the delinquent taxes, the Department issued and filed against Respondent delinquent tax warrants, notices of lien, or judgment lien certificates in the Hillsborough County public records. See Pet'r Ex. 3. Before seeking revocation of Respondent's certificate of registration, on February 5, 2014, the Department's Tampa Service Center served on Respondent a Notice of Conference on Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Notice). See Pet'r Ex. 4. The Notice scheduled an informal conference on March 21, 2014. It listed 16 periods of sales and use tax noncompliance and 11 periods of re-employment tax noncompliance and provided the total tax liability as of that date. This number was necessarily fluid, as the taxes owed were accruing interest, penalties, and/or fees on a daily basis. The purpose of the informal conference was to give Respondent a final opportunity to make full payment of all delinquent taxes, or to demonstrate why the Department should not revoke its Certificate of Registration. As pointed out by the Department, an informal conference allows a dealer to bring up "any concerns" that it has regarding its obligations. Respondent's manager and registered agent, Christopher Scott, appeared at the conference on behalf of Respondent.1/ At the meeting, he acknowledged that the dealer had not timely paid the taxes listed in the Notice and that the money was used instead to keep the business afloat. However, Mr. Scott presented paperwork representing that sales and use tax returns and payments for the months of November 2013 through February 2014 had just been filed online, and checks in the amount of $8,101.41 and $9,493.99 were recently sent to Tallahassee. It takes 24 hours for online payments to show up in the system, and even more time for checks to be processed in Tallahassee. Accordingly, the Department agreed that Mr. Scott could have a few more days before signing a compliance agreement. This would allow the Department to verify that the payments were posted and recalculate the amount of taxes still owed. Also, before entering a compliance agreement, Respondent was required to make a down payment of around $20,000.00. Mr. Scott had insufficient cash, and a delay of a few days would hopefully allow him to secure the necessary money for a down payment. When none of the payments had posted by March 25, 2014, the Department calculated a total liability of $113,448.13, consisting of sales and use taxes and UCTs, penalties, interest, and fees. As of that date, none of the taxes listed in Finding of Fact 9 had been paid. On March 25, 2014, Respondent's controller, who did not attend the informal conference, sent an email to the Department requesting a breakdown on the new tax liability. In response to her request, the Department faxed a copy of the requested information. See Resp. Ex. 4. After getting this information, the controller continued to take the position that the Department's calculations overstate Respondent's tax liability. On March 31, 2014, Mr. Scott signed the compliance agreement. See Pet'r Ex. 6. Despite the controller testifying that she did not agree with the numbers, no question was raised by Mr. Scott when he signed the agreement. By then, the check in the amount of $8,101.41 had cleared and been credited to Respondent's account. Along with other funds, it was used towards the down payment of $20,000.00. The record does not show the status of the other payments that Mr. Scott claimed were mailed or filed online prior to the informal conference; however, on March 31, 2014, except for the one check, none had yet posted. The compliance agreement required scheduled payments for 12 months, with the final payment, a balloon payment in an undisclosed amount, being subject to renegotiation in the last month. Payments one and two were $1,500.00, while payments three through 11 were $2,900.00. The compliance agreement reflected a balance owed of $95,887.36, consisting of $60,504.34 in sales taxes and $35,347.02 in UCTs.2/ In return for the Department refraining from pursuing revocation proceedings, the compliance agreement required Respondent to "remit all past due amounts to the Department as stated in the attached payment agreement," "accurately complete and timely file all required tax returns and reports for the next 12 months," and "timely remit all taxes due for the next 12 months." Pet'r Ex. 1, p. 1. In other words, the compliance agreement addressed both delinquent taxes and current taxes that would be due during the following 12-month period, and it required that both categories of taxes be timely paid in the manner prescribed by the agreement. To summarize the salient points of the agreement, all taxes were to be timely paid; delinquent taxes were to be paid by certified check, money order, or cash and were to be mailed or hand delivered to the Tampa Service Center and not Tallahassee; and while not specifically addressed in the agreement, the dealer was instructed to pay all current obligations electronically, as required by law. Otherwise, Respondent was in violation of the compliance agreement. A Payment Agreement Schedule for past due taxes was incorporated into the compliance agreement and provided that the first payment was due April 30, 2014, payable to: Florida Department of Revenue, Tampa Service Center, 6302 East Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33619. Payments 2 through 12 were to be mailed or hand delivered to the same address. This meant, with no ambiguity, that money should not be sent to Tallahassee. There is no credible evidence that these instructions were misunderstood. Unless a waiver is granted, Respondent is required by statute and rule to electronically file sales and use tax returns and UCT reports. See § 213.755, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 12-24.009 (where a taxpayer has paid its taxes in the prior state fiscal year in an amount of $20,000.00 or more, subsequent payments shall be made electronically). No waivers have been approved. In 2003, the Department notified Respondent of these requirements and Respondent complied with this directive until 2009. For reasons not disclosed, in 2009 Respondent voluntarily quit filing electronically. The record is silent on why this was allowed.3/ In any event, at the informal conference, Mr. Scott was specifically told that all current returns, reports, and taxes must be filed electronically, and not by mail, and that no money should be sent to Tallahassee. There is no credible evidence that he misunderstood these instructions. In its PRO, Respondent correctly points out that the requirement to file current returns electronically was not specifically addressed in the compliance agreement. This is because the compliance agreement does not set forth every statutory and rule requirement that applies to a dealer. If this amount of detail were required, a dealer could ignore any otherwise applicable rule or statute not found in the compliance agreement. This contention has no merit. Respondent failed to electronically file the current sales and use tax return and payment for the month of March 2014, due no later than April 21, 2014. Instead, it sent a paper check, which was returned by the bank for insufficient funds. This constituted a breach of the compliance agreement. Despite repeated instructions on how and where to pay the delinquent taxes, payment 1, due on April 30, 2014, was paid by regular check and sent to Tallahassee, rather than the Tampa office. This contravened the compliance agreement. When payment was not timely received by the Tampa Service Center, Respondent was told that a check must be delivered to the Tampa office by May 9. Respondent hand delivered a second check, this one certified, to the Tampa Service Center on May 9, 2014, or after the April 30 due date. The second check was treated as payment 1. Respondent points out that on May 7 the Tampa Service Center granted its request for an extension of time until May 9 in which to deliver the certified check. While this is true, the extension was allowed in an effort to "work with" the Respondent on the condition that the account would be brought current by that date; otherwise, revocation proceedings would begin. Even if the extra ten days is construed as a grace period for payment 1, there were other violations of the compliance agreement set forth below. Payment 2 for delinquent taxes, due on May 30, 2014, was paid by regular check and sent by mail to Tallahassee rather than the Tampa Service Center.4/ This contravened the compliance agreement. After the May 30, 2014 payment, Respondent made no further payments pursuant to the Payment Agreement Schedule. This constituted a violation of the compliance agreement. Respondent did not remit payment with its current sales and use return for the month of August 2014. This contravened the compliance agreement. Respondent did not file any current sales and use tax returns or remit payment for the months of July 2014 or September through January 2015. This contravened the compliance agreement. Beginning in March 2014, Respondent filed current reemployment tax returns and payments using the incorrect tax rate on every return. This delayed their processing and resulted in penalties being imposed. In addition, even though Respondent was repeatedly told that such returns must be filed electronically, none were filed in that manner, as required by statute and rule. This contravened the compliance agreement. In its PRO, Respondent contends the compliance agreement cannot be enforced because there was no "meeting of the minds" by the parties on all essential terms of the agreement. Specifically, it argues that the total amount of taxes owed was still in dispute -- the dealer contended that it owed $23,000.00 less than was shown in the agreement; the Payment Schedule Agreement did not specify the amount of the final balloon payment; the compliance agreement failed to state when payments are due if the due date falls on a weekend or holiday; the compliance agreement did not specify how the dealer's payments would be allocated between UCTs and sales and use taxes; and the compliance agreement failed to address the issue of filing electronically. Although some of these issues were not raised in the parties' Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, or even addressed by testimony at hearing, they are all found to be without merit for the reasons expressed below. First, Mr. Scott did not dispute the amount of taxes owed when he signed the agreement, and he brought no evidence to the conference to support a different amount. Second, as explained to Mr. Scott at the informal conference, the precise amount of the balloon payment can only be established in the 12th month. This is because the exact amount depends on the dealer's compliance with the agreement over the preceding 11 months, and the amount of interest, penalties, and/or other fees that may have accrued during the preceding year. Third, there is no evidence that the dealer was confused when a due date for a payment fell on a weekend or holiday. Even if it was confused, reference to section 212.11(1)(e) and (f) would answer this question. Fourth, there is no statute or rule that requires the Department to specify how the delinquent payments are allocated. Moreover, neither Mr. Scott nor the controller requested that such an allocation be incorporated into the agreement before it was signed. Finally, the issue of filing electronically already has been addressed in Finding of Fact 22 and Endnote 3. At hearing, Respondent's controller testified that she was out of town when the conference was held, suggesting that Mr. Scott, who is not an accountant, was at a disadvantage when he attended the informal conference. However, Respondent had six weeks' notice before the conference, and there is no evidence that Respondent requested that the meeting be rescheduled to a more convenient day. Also, Respondent does not dispute that Mr. Scott was authorized to represent its interests at the conference, or that he could have been briefed by the controller before attending the informal conference or signing the compliance agreement. See also Endnote 1. Notably, at hearing, the controller testified that she "was involved in actually negotiating the agreement both before and after it was actually signed" even though she did not attend the conference. Tr. at 89. Respondent also contends that after the Department considered the compliance agreement to be breached, the dealer had no further obligation to make payments pursuant to the agreement or state law until the parties negotiated a new agreement. Aside from Respondent's failure to cite any authority to support this proposition, nothing in the compliance agreement comports with this assertion. To the contrary, the compliance agreement specifically provides that if a breach occurs, the entire tax liability becomes due immediately. See Pet'r Ex. 6, p. 2, ¶ G. Thus, Respondent is obligated to pay the entire tax liability, which now exceeds $200,000.00. All other arguments raised by Respondent have been carefully considered and are rejected as being without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order revoking Respondent's Certificate of Registration 39- 8011930243-9. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner performed nontaxable services as a decorating contractor, as he maintains, or, rather, whether he leased tangible personal property and thereby incurred sales tax liability, as Respondent alleges.
Findings Of Fact The Parties At all relevant times, Petitioner Philip E. Hancock ("Hancock") was a sole proprietor doing business in and around Fort Lauderdale, Florida, under the names "Action Plant Rental" and "Action Plants." Respondent Department of Revenue ("Department"), an agency of the State of Florida, is authorized to administer the state's tax laws. An Overview of Hancock's Businesses In 1980, Hancock and his then-wife purchased a nursery and, as proprietors, started a business called "Landscape Concepts." Initially, the couple's business activities involved landscaping and (b) sales of plants and nursery stock at wholesale (mostly) and retail. Sometime in 1983, Landscape Concepts began "renting" plants and trees for special events, such as weddings, banquets, and charity fundraisers.2 In time, this plant rental business eclipsed the original landscaping and sales operations, and by the late 1980's the ascendant enterprise was dubbed "Action Plant Rental."3 In 1990, having established Action Plant Rental, the Hancocks sold their nursery, whereupon Landscape Concepts stopped selling plants on a regular basis. The landscaping business, in contrast, tapered off gradually, continuing for several more years until being discontinued completely at the end of 1993. As of January 1994, plant rental was Petitioner's sole vocation. A Closer Look At the Plant Rental Business The evidence concerning the details of how Hancock's plant rental business operated during the audit period is relatively sparse, consisting of little, if anything, other than Hancock's testimony, which is generally credible as far as it goes, but not comprehensive. Hancock's clients, for the most part, were not the individuals who hosted or sponsored the events for which Action Plant Rental supplied "green décor" (to use Hancock's phrase), but rather were the event planners, designers, florists, and hotels (which frequently acted as planners in connection with events held on their premises) who had been hired by the hosts or sponsors to make their events happen. Thus, Hancock usually did not deal directly with, for example, the bride, but with the bride's wedding planner. In effect, he was a subcontractor. Hancock did not enter into written contracts with his clients. When a client retained Hancock, the client informed Hancock when and where the event would be held, and told Hancock (or asked him for an opinion about) which plants would be appropriate. The evidence is ambiguous as to the degree of Hancock's input and discretion in selecting the particular plants to bring to a given event. While the undersigned is persuaded that Hancock had some involvement in choosing the plants at least some of the time, it cannot be found that this service, to the extent provided, added substantial value to the transaction——or was one for which clients specifically and knowingly paid. When the time came for Hancock to perform the agreement, he delivered the plants and trees to the site and, at a time before the event was to begin, set them up in the hall or ballroom. Setting up the plants to create a pleasing and appropriate environment no doubt required decorating skill. It is undisputed, moreover, that Hancock commonly added decorating touches, such as lights and decorative containers, to his plants and trees, which made the display more attractive. What is less clear, however, is whether clients purchased Hancock's decorating expertise——or if, instead, Hancock executed the commands of someone else who decided how to arrange and present the plants. On this point, as others, it might have been helpful to hear from some clients. As it is, Hancock's own testimony is somewhat ambiguous. While the question is extremely close, the undersigned is persuaded, on the evidence presented, that Hancock usually operated under the direction of his client and had relatively little control over the design and arrangement of his plants and trees at the event site. Thus, the undersigned is unable to find that Hancock's decorating services provided the ultimate value to Hancock's clients. Once the plants were set in place and Hancock was assured that the arrangement satisfied his client, Hancock left the event site. (This meant, of course, that someone——the client, the host, or even a guest——could have moved the plants around.4 The Department contends that Hancock's absence from the premises demonstrates decisively that possession and control of the plants was surrendered to his client. The undersigned has given this fact some weight, but not a great deal. For one thing, there is no persuasive evidence that the client typically remained on-site with the plants. Further, since the plants were generally set up in a "public" place (as opposed to a personal space such as an office) over which neither the client, nor the host, nor the guests had exclusive control,5 the undersigned is not persuaded that the client or others attending the event had possession and control of the plants in any meaningful sense. Indeed, under the Department's theory, the plants apparently would have been in the constructive possession, at least, of everyone present at the party——a conclusion that runs counter to common sense and ordinary experience. The opportunity to move a plant is not, in the undersigned’s mind, equivalent to having a possessory right or power over the plant.) When the event was over, Hancock returned to the site to retrieve and remove his plants. Later, Hancock sent the client an invoice for his "services." As far as the evidence shows, Hancock did not bill his clients separately for delivery, set up, removal, or design, but rather he charged a lump sum for the plants, which price included these associated services as part of the total package. Petitioner's History As a Sales Tax-Paying Dealer From at least 1985, and continuing through the middle of 1994, Landscape Concepts, as a registered dealer having identification number 16-03-109301-76, collected and remitted sales taxes on the revenues generated through retail plant sales and plant rentals, filing monthly sales tax returns as legally required.6 If a client gave Petitioner a resale certificate, however, Petitioner did not collect sales tax from that client. Because most of Petitioner's plant rental customers were other businesses (e.g. event planners, florists, and hotels) that provided resale certificates to Petitioner, a relatively small percentage of these transactions were taxed. In mid-1994, while in one of the Department's regional offices attending to some since forgotten sales tax-related matter, Hancock was shown Rule 12A-1.071 of the Florida Administrative Code. This Rule then contained the following provision: (35)(a) A decorating contractor who uses materials and supplies such as bunting, streamers, colored paper, wreaths, pennants, lights, rope, etc., in fulfilling a contract which requires the furnishing of arrangements and decorations to, and their subsequent removal from, hotels, offices, public buildings, etc., is the consumer of such materials and supplies and shall pay tax on their acquisition. The contractor's charge under such contract is a service charge and is exempt. Fla. Admin. Code R. 12A-1.071(35)(a).7 Hancock concluded that he was entitled to the benefit of the foregoing "decorator's exemption." Hancock asked a local employee of the Department whether he could claim the exemption, and she advised him to write a letter to the Department's main office in Tallahassee. Hancock sent the Department a letter announcing his intent to stop filing monthly sales tax returns. Enclosed with this letter was Hancock's sales tax certificate, which Hancock purported to "relinquish." The Department did not respond to Hancock's letter. Hancock did not file another sales tax return.8 The Audit and Protest In January 2001, the Department commenced a sales and use tax audit of Hancock's plant rental business, initially concentrating on the five-year period from December 1, 1995 through November 30, 2000. The Department later enlarged the audit period to span 16 years, reaching all the way back to June 1, 1985, and continuing through June 30, 2001. This expansion was based on the Department's belief that Hancock had never filed any sales tax returns respecting his business——a belief that, as found above, would prove to be incorrect. After concluding that Hancock's tax records were "adequate but voluminous," the Department used a sampling method to calculate the amount of tax allegedly owed.9 To determine the total amount of revenue subject to sales tax, the Department used as a starting point the gross receipts figures as reported on Hancock's federal income tax returns for the years 1995 through 2000, inclusive.10 From these figures, the Department calculated the average monthly receipts for each of the six years in question (by dividing 12 into each respective year's gross sales revenue). It also computed an average annual gross sales figure (by dividing 6 into the sum of the known annual gross receipts), along with an average average-monthly sales amount (by dividing 6 into the sum of the average monthly receipts). Year Here are the relevant Gross Sales numbers: Avg. Monthly Sales 1995 $ 99,045 $ 8,253.75 1996 $113,973 $ 9,497.75 1997 $171,721 $14,310.08 1998 $169,961 $14,163.42 1999 $126,306 $10,525.50 2000 $154,253 $12,854.42 Average Annual Gross Sales: $139,210.00 Average Average-Monthly Sales: $ 11,600.82 The Department apparently acquired more specific information regarding monthly receipts for the 11-month period from January through November 2000. During this period, Hancock's gross receipts totaled $113,661.00.11 The Department determined, based on these figures, that the total tax due for this particular period was $6,861.41. Dividing 113,661 into 6,861.41, the Department derived a "percentage of error" of .060367. This "percentage of error" was effectively the tax rate because, as we have seen, the Department believed that Hancock had paid no taxes whatsoever. The "percentage of error" slightly exceeded 6 percent (the present state sales tax rate) due to the inclusion of some county taxes.12 The Department computed the total sales tax allegedly due and owing as follows. To determine the tax due per month for the 121 months comprising the periods from (a) June 1985 through December 1994 and (b) January through June 2001, for which there were no "known-sales" numbers, the Department applied the "percentage of error" (=tax rate) against the average average-monthly sales figure of $11,600.82. To determine the tax due per month for the years 1995 through 2000, the Department applied the "percentage of error" against each respective year's average monthly sales figure. The sum of these monthly figures equaled the total alleged tax liability. Here are the numbers: Period Average Monthly Sales Tax Rate Tax Due Per Month Tax Due For Period Jun 1985 — Dec 1994 (115 months) 11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 80,535.65 Jan (12 — Dec 1995 months) 8,253.75 0.060367 498.25 5,979.00 Jan (12 — Dec 1996 months) 9,497.7613 0.060367 573.35 6,880.20 Jan (12 — Dec 1997 months) 14,310.08 0.060367 863.86 10,366.32 Jan (12 — Dec 1998 months) 14,163.42 0.060367 855.00 10,260.00 Jan (12 — Dec 1999 months) 10,525.50 0.060367 635.39 7,624.68 Jan (12 — Dec 2000 months) 12,854.4314 0.060367 775.98 9,311.76 Jan — Jun 2001 (6 months) $11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 4,201.86 135,159.47 In sum, the Department found that Hancock was liable for $134,337.17 in state sales taxes and $822.30 in County Taxes, see endnote 12, which amounts, when added together, equaled $135,159.47. Additionally, the Department found that Hancock owed small amounts of state use taxes in connection with several fixed assets. This aspect of the case received little attention, if any, at final hearing and accordingly will not be examined in great detail here. The following table summarizes the amounts that the Department claims are due and owing: Asset Transaction Date Tax Due Computer September 1995 229.12 Office refrigerator April 1997 24.00 Computer October 1998 72.00 Office Furniture December 1998 21.62 Printer May 1999 24.66 371.40 In January 2002, the Department notified Hancock that it intended to collect the alleged tax deficiencies just described, in the total principal amount of $135,530.87. In addition, the Department claimed $135,666.86 in interest through January 2, 2002, together with a total of $52,359.05 in penalties, making a grand total of $323,556.78. Hancock disputed the assessments and timely requested a formal administrative hearing. Ultimate Factual Determinations The factual question whether Hancock performed nontaxable services as a decorating contractor, as he maintains, or leased tangible personal property and thereby incurred sales tax liability, as the Department contends, is very close, at least based on the evidence presented. On a better record it might have been possible to answer this question with greater confidence——and, indeed, to obtain a different result. On this relatively limited record, however, the undersigned finds that the weight of the evidence tips ever so slightly in the Department's favor, primarily because it appears more likely than not that Hancock's clients were given a meaningful right to direct the use of the material personal property involved, namely the live plants and trees. Thus, while reasonable minds could differ, the undersigned finds that Hancock was engaging in the taxable business activity of leasing personal property. The evidence does not establish, however, and hence the undersigned does not find, that Hancock filed a grossly false or substantially incorrect return or made a substantial underpayment of tax. Likewise, Hancock did not file any fraudulent returns. Rather, Hancock properly filed returns through mid-1994, paying all of the sales and use taxes then due and owing. What Hancock failed to do was make all required tax payments after May 1994——a significant default, to be sure, but one that leaves him less liable, in fact, for back-taxes than the Department has contended. Hancock's decision to stop collecting and remitting sales taxes, moreover, was based not upon an intent to defraud but upon an honest, if mistaken, belief that the business of Action Plant Rental fell within the "decorator's exemption."15 Apart from any question of liability, the Department's assessment of the amount of state sales taxes and County Taxes allegedly due and owing for the period from June 1985 through December 1993 is clearly erroneous, for at least three reasons. First, the state sales tax was not six percent during that entire period, yet the Department has computed Hancock's alleged tax liability as if it were.16 Second, the Department did not make any adjustments to account for the time-value of money when it projected sales figures from 1995-2000 back as many as 15 years. It is commonly known, however, that dollars earned in the year 2000, for example, had less purchasing power than, say, 1985 dollars; thus, sales figures from 2000 must be discounted if a fair and reasonable comparison to 1985 is to be made. The Department's failure to reduce recent earnings to the then- present value of income derived from plant rentals in the earlier years of the audit period is tantamount to charging interest——which, of course, the Department has also assessed, separately. Finally, the Department's calculation assumed, incorrectly, that (a) Hancock's business had not changed during the entire 16-year audit period and (b) Hancock had never paid any sales taxes. In fact, until the end of 1993, Hancock derived income not only from his plant rental business but also from landscaping and plant sales; not only that, he paid sales taxes on the receipts from these activities, through May 1994. In sum, then, even if Hancock were liable for the taxes that allegedly accrued before 1994, the Department's figures for that period of the audit are simply too unreliable to be credited. Period Average Monthly Sales Tax Rate Tax Due Per Month Tax Due For Period Jun 1994 — Dec 1994 (7 months) 11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 4,902.17 Jan — Dec 1995 (12 months) 8,253.75 0.060367 498.25 5,979.00 Jan — Dec 1996 (12 months) 9,497.7617 0.060367 573.35 6,880.20 Jan — Dec 1997 (12 months) 14,310.08 0.060367 863.86 10,366.32 Jan — Dec 1998 (12 months) 14,163.42 0.060367 855.00 10,260.00 Jan — Dec 1999 (12 months) 10,525.50 0.060367 635.39 7,624.68 Jan — Dec 2000 (12 months) 12,854.4318 0.060367 775.98 9,311.76 Jan — Jun 2001 (6 months) $11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 4,201.86 59,525.99 It is found, therefore, that Hancock owes state sales taxes and County Taxes in the following sums: Additionally Hancock must pay use taxes amounting to $371.40, bringing to $59,897.39 the total principal amount of taxes proved to be due.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order directing Hancock to pay state sales taxes and County Taxes in the total amount of $59,525.99, plus state use taxes in the amount of $371.40, bringing to $59,897.39 the principal sum of back-taxes due and owing. In addition, Hancock should be ordered to pay interest and penalties on the unpaid taxes, in amounts to be determined by the Department in accordance with the methodologies reflected in the audit work papers that are included in the evidentiary record of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 7th day of January, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Certificate of Registration 46-8015920490-4 should be revoked for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint for Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Administrative Complaint) issued by the Department of Revenue (Department) on July 17, 2015.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the state revenue laws, including the laws related to the imposition and collection of sales and use taxes pursuant to chapter 212. Respondent is an active for-profit Florida corporation and a licensed motor vehicle dealer located at 613 Southwest Pine Island Road, Suite 14, Cape Coral, Florida. For purposes of collecting and remitting taxes, Respondent is a dealer as defined in section 212.06(2) and is required to comply with chapter 212. Annais German is the president and agent of the corporation. Respondent holds Certificate of Registration number 46- 8015920490-4. A certificate of registration is required in order to do business in the state and requires its holder to collect and remit sales tax pursuant to chapter 212. See § 212.05(1), Fla. Stat. A dealer must file with the Department sales tax returns and remit the tax collected on a monthly basis. See § 212.15(1), Fla. Stat. The Department is authorized to revoke a dealer's certificate of registration for failure to comply with state tax laws. See § 212.18(3)(e), Fla. Stat. Before revoking a certificate of registration, the Department must convene an informal conference that the dealer is required to attend. See § 213.692(1)(a), Fla. Stat. At the conference, the dealer may either present evidence to refute the Department's allegations of noncompliance or enter into a compliance agreement with the Department to resolve the dealer's failure to comply with chapter 212. Id. After a compliance agreement is executed by the dealer, the Department may revoke the certificate of registration if the dealer fails to comply with its terms and conditions. If a breach occurs, the entire amount is due and payable immediately. After Respondent failed to remit taxes that were due, the Department issued tax warrants and rendered judgment liens against Respondent in March, April, and December 2014 and April 2015. An informal conference was conducted with the taxpayer on April 7, 2015. Respondent was represented at the conference by Orlando German, who was given power of attorney by Annais German to represent the corporation. He signed an agreement, which required the entire balance to be paid by the end of the month. Two weeks later, Annais German requested that a new agreement be executed which allowed her to pay the delinquent taxes over a longer period of time. The Department agreed with her request. On April 23, 2015, Ms. German executed an Agreement reflecting that her corporation owes $7,297.52. See Pet'r Ex. 2, p. 1. The Agreement required Respondent to make a down payment of $2,500.00 on or before April 28, 2015, followed by ten monthly payments of 375.00 on the 28th of each month, and a final payment of $671.52 on April 28, 2016. Id. at p. 3. The Agreement required these payments to be made at the Fort Myers Service Center. Id. Payments required under a compliance agreement are always remitted to the local district office, rather than Tallahassee, to allow the Department to track the payment and ensure that it is being made in a timely fashion. The Agreement also required Respondent to "timely remit payment in full for all types of taxes, returns, and reports due from the Taxpayer for the duration of this agreement (and any extensions hereof) or for the next 12 months following the date of this agreement, whichever is longer." Id. at p. 1. In other words, besides making payments for past due taxes, interest, penalties, and fees, Respondent was required to timely file returns and pay current obligations as they became due during the life of the Agreement. The Agreement specifically provides that if the taxpayer fails to comply with the Agreement, revocation proceedings will be initiated without further notice. Respondent paid the $2,500.00 down payment one day late, but as of the date of the hearing in this case, no other payments for past or current obligations have been made. Returns for April and May 2015 were not timely filed. Respondent admits that in April 2015, at least three vehicles were sold, but its April return, when eventually filed, reported that no sales were made. Since filing its June and July 2015 returns, Respondent has filed no other returns. By failing to pay the monthly obligations required by the Agreement or any current obligations, Respondent has violated the Agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order revoking Respondent's Certificate of Registration 46- 8015920490-4. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 2016 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 25th day of February, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen M. Masterson, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Revenue Litigation Bureau The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (eServed) Annais German World Champions Auto, Inc. 429 Northwest 38th Place Cape Coral, Florida 33993-5536 Annais German World Champions Auto, Inc. 613 Southwest Pine Island Road, Suite 14 Cape Coral, Florida 33991-1950 George C. Hamm, Acting General Counsel Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 (eServed) Marshall C. Stranburg, Executive Director Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue's ("Department") assessment of tax, penalty, and interest against American Import Car Sales, Inc., is valid and correct.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency responsible for administering the revenue laws of the State of Florida, including the imposition and collection of the state's sales and use taxes. Petitioner, American Import Car Sales, Inc., is a Florida S-corporation with its principle place of business and mailing address in Hollywood, Florida. Petitioner, during the period of June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2010 ("assessment period"), was in the business of selling and financing new and used motor vehicles. On June 29, 2010, the Department issued to Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Audit Books and Records (form DR-840) for sales and use tax for the assessment period. Said notice informed Petitioner that the audit would begin on or around 60 days from the date of the notice and included an attachment identifying the records and information that would be reviewed and should be available when the audit commenced. Specifically, the Sales and Use Tax Information Checklist attachment requested the following: chart of accounts, general ledgers, cash receipts journals, cash disbursement journals, federal income tax returns, county tangible property returns, Florida Sales and Use Tax returns, sales journals, sales tax exemption certificates (resale certificates), sales invoices, purchase invoices, purchase journals, lease agreements for real or tangible property, depreciation schedules, bank and financial statements, detail of fixed asset purchases, and other documents as needed. On the same date, in addition to the Notice of Intent, the Department issued to Petitioner, inter alia, an Electronic Audit Survey, and a Pre-Audit Questionnaire and Request for Information. On September 17, 2010, the auditor requested the following records to review by October 4, 2010: (1) general ledger for the assessment period; (2) federal returns for 2007, 2008, and 2009; (3) lease agreement for the business location; (4) deal folders for the assessment period; (5) all expense purchase invoices for the assessment period; (6) all purchase invoices relating to assets added to the Depreciation Schedule during the assessment period; (7) resale/exemption certificates, shipping documents, and any other exempt sales documentation to support exempt sales during the assessment period; (8) bank statements for the assessment periods; and (9) all worksheets used to prepare monthly sales tax returns for the assessment period. On October 5, 2010, the auditor met with Petitioner's President Joe Levy, Petitioner's Secretary Joanne Clements, and Petitioner's Certified Public Accountant, Steve Levy. At that time, Petitioner provided a hard copy of the 2007 and 2008 general ledger and profit and loss statements. At that time, the auditor again advised Petitioner that the Department needed the federal returns, as well as the completed electronic audit survey and pre-audit questionnaire. On October 5, 2010, the Department and Petitioner signed a Consent to Extend the Time to Issue an Assessment or to File a Claim for Refund (form DR-872). The consent provided that assessments or claims for refunds may be filed at any time on or before the extended statute of limitations, December 31, 2011. On October 18, 2010, Petitioner provided the Department with the completed electronic audit survey and pre-audit questionnaire. Thereafter, Petitioner provided the Department with the following books and records: (1) 2009 "deal folders;" Petitioner's general ledger in Excel format for June 1, 2007, through December 31, 2010; (3) January 2009 through May 2010 bank statements; (4) a listing of exempt sales; and (5) lease agreements with attendant invoices. On August 25, 2011, the Department issued its assessment, entitled a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (form DR-1215)("NOI"). Said notice provided that Respondent owed $2,324,298.42 in tax, $581,074.61 in penalties, and $515,117.04 in interest through August 25, 2011. The NOI addressed Petitioner's alleged failure to collect and remit tax on: (1) certain vehicle sales (audit Exhibit A01-Sales Tax Collected and Not Remitted)1/; (2) vehicle sales with no documentation regarding its exempt status (audit Exhibit A02-Disallowed Exempt Sales)2/; (3) motor vehicle sales where no discretionary tax was assessed (audit Exhibit A03- Discretionary Surtax)3/; and (4) unreported sales (audit Exhibit A04-Unreported Sales). The assessment also related to Petitioner's alleged failure to pay/accrue tax on: (1) taxable purchases (audit Exhibit B01-Taxable Purchases); (2) fixed assets (audit Exhibit B02-Fixed Assets); and (3) commercial rent (Exhibit B03-Commercial Realty). At hearing, Petitioner stipulated that the only component of the NOI remaining at issue pertains to audit Exhibit A04-Unreported Sales, as Petitioner has conceded A01, A02, A03, and all fee schedules. An understanding of audit Exhibit A04, and the assessment methodology employed by the auditor, is articulated in the Department's Exhibit MM, entitled Explanation of Items, which is set forth, in pertinent part, as follows: Reason for Exhibit: The records received for the audit were inadequate. The taxpayer provided bank statements for the period of January 2009 through May 2010. This period was deemed the test period for unreported sales. A review of the bank statements for the test period revealed that sales were underreported. This exhibit was created to assess for sales tax on unreported sales. Source of Information: Sales tax returns and Bank of America bank statements for the test period of January 2009 through May 2010; The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) [sic] was acquired for the period of June 2007 through May 2010. Description of Mathematical Adjustments: The bank statements were reviewed for the period of January 2009 through May 2010. Taxable Sales on sales tax returns, sales tax on sales tax returns, taxable sales on Exhibit on [sic] Exhibit A01, sales tax Exhibit A01 and Exempt Sales on Exhibit A02 was subtracted from Bank Deposits to arrive at unreported sales. See calculations on page 53. Unreported sales for the period of January 2009 through May 2010 were scheduled into this exhibit. A rate analysis of the DMV database resulted in an effective tax rate of 6.2689. Scheduled transactions were multiplied by the effective tax rate of 6.2689 to determine the tax due on the test period. A percentage of error was calculated by dividing the tax due by the taxable sales for each test period. The percentage of error was applied to taxable sales for each month of the audit period which resulted in additional tax due. The auditor's analysis of the test period, applied to the entire assessment period, resulted in a determination that Petitioner owed $1,599,056.23 in tax for unreported sales. On August 25, 2011, the auditor met with Joe and Steve Levy to discuss and present the NOI. At that time, Joe and Steve Levy were advised that Petitioner had 30 days to provide additional documents to revise the NOI. On September 28, 2011, the Department issued correspondence to Petitioner advising that since a response to the NOI had not been received, the case was being forwarded to Tallahassee for issuance of the Notice of Proposed Assessment ("NOPA")(form DR-831). On October 7, 2011, the Department issued the NOPA, which identified the deficiency resulting from an audit of Petitioner's books and records for the assessment period. Pursuant to the NOPA, Petitioner was assessed $2,324,298.42 in tax, $31,332.46 in penalty, and $534,284.54 in interest through October 7, 2011. The NOPA provided Petitioner with its rights to an informal written protest, an administrative hearing, or a judicial proceeding. On December 5, 2011, Petitioner filed its Informal Written Protest to the October 7, 2011, NOPA. The protest noted that the NOPA was "not correct and substantially overstated." The protest raised several issues: (1) that the calculation was primarily based upon bank statement deposits; (2) not all deposits are sales and sources of income; and (3) a substantial amount of the deposits were exempt sales and loans. The protest further requested a personal conference with a Department specialist. On January 10, 2013, Martha Gregory, a tax law specialist and technical assistance dispute resolution employee of the Department, issued correspondence to Petitioner. The documented purpose of the correspondence was to request additional information regarding Petitioner's protest of the NOPA. Among other items, Ms. Gregory requested Petitioner provide the following: [D]ocumentation and explanations regarding the source of income—vehicle sales, loan payments, etc.—for each deposit. For vehicle sales deposits, provide the customer name, vehicle identification number and amount; for loan payments, provide proof of an existing loan and the amount received from the borrower; and for any other deposits, provide documentation of the source of this income. A conference was held with Petitioner on February 7, 2013. At the conference, Ms. Gregory discussed the January 10, 2013, correspondence including the request for information. The Department did not receive the requested information. Following the conference, the Department provided the Petitioner an additional 105 days to provide documentation to support the protest. Again, Petitioner failed to provide the information requested. On June 14, 2013, the Department issued its Notice of Decision ("NOD"). The NOD concluded that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate that it was not liable for the tax, plus penalty and interest, on unreported sales as scheduled in audit Exhibit A04, Unreported Sales, as assessed within the compliance audit for the assessment period. Accordingly, the protested assessment was sustained. On July 15, 2013, Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration to appeal the Notice of Decision ("POR"). The POR advanced the following issues: (1) the records examined were not the books and records of Petitioner; (2) the audit should be reduced because the auditor's methodology was incorrect; and the Petitioner should be allowed a credit for bad debts taken during the audit period. At Petitioner's request, on October 22, 2013, Petitioner and Ms. Gregory participated in a conference regarding the POR. At the conference, Petitioner requested a 30-day extension to provide documentation in support of Petitioner's POR. No additional documentation was subsequently provided by Petitioner. On April 29, 2014, the Department issued its Notice of Reconsideration ("NOR"). The NOR sustained the protested assessment. Petitioner, on June 30, 2014, filed its Petition for Chapter 120 Hearing to contest the NOR. Petitioner did not file its federal tax returns for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 until after the Department issued the NOR. Indeed, the federal returns were not filed until June 3, 2014.4/ Ms. Kruse conceded that the auditor's assessment utilized Petitioner's bank statements to determine unreported sales; however, the auditor did not make any adjustments for "unusual items that would have been on the face of the bank statements." Ms. Kruse further acknowledged that the auditor's assessment does not reference Petitioner's general ledger information. Ms. Kruse acknowledged that, for several representative months, the general ledger accurately reported the deposits for the bank statements provided. When presented with a limited comparison of the bank statement and the general ledger, Ms. Kruse further agreed that, on several occasions, deposits noted on the bank statements were probably not taxable transactions; however, the same were included as taxable sales in the auditor's analysis. Ms. Kruse credibly testified that the same appeared to be transfers of funds from one account into another; however, because the Department only possessed the bank statements from one account, and never received the requested "back up information" concerning the other account, the Department could not discern the original source of the funds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department conduct a new assessment of Petitioner's sales and use tax based on a test or sampling of Petitioner's available records or other information relating to the sales or purchases made by Petitioner for a representative period, giving due consideration to Petitioner's available records, including Petitioner's general ledger, to determine the proportion that taxable retail sales bear to total retail sales. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 17th day of April, 2015.
Findings Of Fact On August 27, 1976, the Respondent, State of Florida Department of Revenue, notified the Petitioner of its intention to assess sales tax, penalties and interest against the Respondent for business transactions in the period August 1, 1973 through July 31, 1976. This Notice of Proposed Assessment was revised on May 27, 1977, and the Petitioner was notified of that revision. By his letter of June 19, 1977, the Petitioner has challenged the assessment, as revised. Upon receipt of the June 19, 1977 petition, the Respondent moved for a more definite statement and the Petitioner was afforded fifteen (15) days from the date of the Order within which time to amend his petition. Petitioner took advantage of that opportunity to amend and by an undated document did make such an amendment. The Respondent subsequently moved to strike certain portions of the amended petition and filed its answer to the petition. A pre-hearing conference was held to consider the Motion To Strike and after that pre-hearing conference was concluded an Order was issued which struck certain portions of the amended Petition and allowed copies of the proposed notices of assessments of August 27, 1976 and the revision of May 27, 1977 to be made a part of the complaint/petition as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. After the pre-hearing Order had been issued by the undersigned, the case was noticed for hearing for December 5, 1977. At the December 5, 1977 hearing date a Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest Under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes was tendered. This revision dated from December 5, 1977, was allowed to be introduced as the final position of the Respondent on the question of the assessment. It was also allowed to be attached as Exhibit 3 to the amended petition. (Under cover of a separate correspondence the original petition, amended petition, exhibits to the amended petition, an Order which was entered after consideration of the Motion To Strike, are being submitted as a part of the record herein). In the ordinary course of his duties a tax examiner employed by the Respondent went to the business premises of the Petitioner to perform an audit to determine whether or not the Petitioner was collecting and remitting sales tax for the category of sales which the Petitioner was making, that required the payment of sales tax. These requirements spoken of are those set forth in Chapter 212, F.S. Mr. DeCico, the tax examiner, allowed Mr. Farhud to pick three (3) months in the year 1976 as being the period to be audited. DeCico then returned to Farhud's place of business and showed him the details of the three (3) month audit. Farhud was dissatisfied wish this audit and indicated that he preferred to have the audit sample expended for a full three (3) years. DeCico replied that he would be willing to expand the audit period. but cautioned Farhud that expansion of the audit period might promote an increased liability. Nonetheless, at Farhud's request, the audit period was expanded to one for thirty-six (36) months. The new audit period dated from August 1, 1973, through July 1, 1976. The work papers on that audit may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. This audit which is depicted in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, left out invoices pertaining to stamps, electric bills, wrapping paper, grocery bags, etc., since they were not retail items for sale. The audit was rendered on August 27, 1976. Before the Notice of Assessment was filed, Farhud had expressed his displeasure with the outcome of the second audit process because he felt that certain amounts depicted in the gross sales were not accurate; to wit, the inclusion of certain so-called "service fees", namely income tax preparation, notary fees, etc. DeCico tried to get a reasonable statement of the amounts of the categories which Farhud desired to have excluded. Farhud did not have records of the matters and was unable to provide an estimate as to the amount of income which had been derived from the aforementioned "service fees". The August 27, 1976, proposed assessment was computed on the basis of the proposition that the gross sales are equivalent to actual sales and are subject to sales tax in the taxable categories. As indicated before, this audit did not take into consideration any "service fees", nor did it grant any allowance for pilferage. No allowance was made for the latter category, because Farhud had not provided any estimate and/or police records to indicate the amount which would be lost to pilferage, and cause a reduction of the sales tax liability. Farhud formally challenged the audit of August 27, 1976, by his correspondence of September 8, 1976 in which he rejects the amount claimed and asks for a hearing. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. An informal conference was held between the parties on October 12, 1976 to see if a resolution of the dispute could be achieved. Mr. Farhud was represented at the informal conference by Michael J. Burman, Esquire, an attorney in Jacksonville, Florida. By a letter of October 14, 1976, Farhud's attorney requested the Respondent to utilize the figures for the three (3) month audit period, as opposed to the thirty-six (36) month period. The letter concluded by stating that Mr. Burman was unaware of any intention Mr. Farhud had to appeal the assessment of August 27, 1976. This letter was followed by a series of letters in which the various parties were indicating the desire to determine whether or not Mr. Farhud intended to accept the August 27, 1976 assessment or to appeal it. In the course of his correspondence Mr. Farhud continued to insist that he did not accept the amount of assessment as accurate. Mr. Farhud failed to indicate to Mr. Burman whether he was going to appeal the assessment or not and Mr. Burman withdrew as his attorney, as shown in the January 31, 1977 correspondence addressed to one of the employees of the Respondent. This correspondence is Respondent's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. On February 2, 1977, the audit supervisor in the Jacksonville district of the Respondent wrote Mr. Farhud indicating the intention of the Respondent to collect the taxes pursuant to the August 27, 1976 audit. A copy of this correspondence is Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. It should be indicated at this point, that the Respondent's representative had continued to request documentation from Farhud on the items requested for exemption which have been referred to as "service fee". The subject of pilferage had also been discussed at the October 12, 1976 informal conference and a request made for some form of records of police reports which would verify pilferage allowances. No documentation had been provided at the time the February 2, 1977 letter was written to Farhud. Subsequent to the February 2, 1977 letter another informal conference was held on April 4, 1977. As a result of that conference it was determined that certain items would be deleted from the audit assessment of August 27, 1976. This is evidenced in Respondents Exhibit No. 9 which is a copy of a letter dated May 27, 1977, from the audit supervisor, Mr. McCrone, to Mr. Farhud. At the April 4, 1977, discussion the subject of pilferage allowance as brought up in the deletion of 4 percent of the purchase price of taxable goods, as to soft drinks, paper and said products, pet foods and miscellaneous sundries were allowed. No allowance was given for beer, wine and tobacco products because these were felt to be out of reach of prospective pilferers. Again, this deletion is found in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 9. The 4 percent figure was arrived at as an industry estimate. Farhud still was not satisfied after the April 4, 1977, conference had been held and adjustments to the assessment had been mode. In view of this dissatisfaction, the Respondent elected to make a new type of audit, which was performed and was premised upon an analysis of the taxable purchases by the Petitioner for the three (3) year period. These purchases were divided into taxable categories and these categories were then marked up in price using an industry average to arrive at the actual taxable sales. The industry average was based upon an examination of the United Food Stores, Inc.'s sales catalog, which had suggested retail prices for low volume and high volume stores. The Respondent gave the Petitioner the benefit of the range of high volume stores, although the Petitioner's store was a neighborhood convenience store and therefore a low volume operation. The effect of allowing the average retail price for the high volume stores was that it made the differential between his purchase price and the retail price less than that for a low volume neighborhood store, causing lesser tax liability. As stated before, this alternative method was elected for the reason that the Respondent had objected that the gross sales figures reported in the monthly tax returns were incorrect, due to the fact that the Petitioner was unable to document his claim for entitlement to certain exemptions due to pilferage and "service fees", and due to the belief that the more correct approach to the audit was the second method. The work sheet on the alternative method may be found on Respondent's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence. The utilization of this method led to the revised assessment of May 27, 1977, which is the subject of the appeal by petition, and amended petition of the Petitioner. This revision was superceded by the second revision of December 5, 1977, which was allowed to be entered without objection from the Petitioner. The second revision reduces the amount of tax liability claimed by the Respondent. An analysis of the documents offered in this cause and the testimony, leads to the conclusion that the Petitioner/taxpayer owed sales tax during the audit period August 1, 1973 through July 31, 1976. Furthermore, the more correct form of audit procedure under the circumstances, was the alternate method employed in arriving at the May 27, 1977 revised Notice of Assessment as further revised by the December 5, 1977 Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment. This conclusion is grounded on the requirements of Section 212.05(1), F.S., which requires persons in the Petitioner's category for the exercise of the privilege of doing business, to assist in levying a tax in the amount of 4 percent in the categories covered. Furthermore, Sections 212.06(3) and 212.07(2), F.S., places the duty on the Petitioner to collect this 4 percent sales tax. The Petitioner failed to act in accordance with the provision of Chapter 212, F.S. and the Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment is correct and in keeping with the authority of Section 212.12(6), F.S.
Recommendation Therefore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest found as Exhibit 3 to the amended petition which total is $2,238.92 be allowed with such adjustments as may be necessary for a computation of interest prior to the rendition of a final order. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan Weil, Esquire 203 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Patricia Turner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Attorney, Division of Administration Department of Revenue Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this cause, Robert W. Pope has been the holder of license no. 62-600, series 4-COP, SRX, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage to trade as The Wedgewood Inn, located at 1701, 4th Street, South, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. When the Respondent, Pope, began to operate the licensed premises he was given a registration sales tax number by the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. This number was provided in accordance with 212, F.S. That law required the remittance of the collected sales tax on a month to month basis, the period beginning with the first day of the month and ending with the last day of the month. The remittance was due on the first day of the following month and payable by the 20th day of the following month. Failure to pay by the 20th would result in a 5 percent penalty and 1 percent interest per month. The sales tax remittance due from the licensed premises for December, 1975 through August, 1976 was not made, and a lien was filed to aid collection of the tax. In mid 1976, the Respondent, contacted the State of Florida, Department of Revenue to discuss term payments of the sales tax remittance. The Respondent in October, 1976 tried to effect a partial release of the tax claim by paying $2,900. In keeping with their policy the Department of Revenue rejected these efforts. Subsequently, in February, 1977, the Respondent made a $10,000 initial payment and three monthly installments to satisfy the lien on this licensed premises and another licensed premises which the Respondent owned. At present all taxes due and owing under 212, F.S. are current. The above facts establish that the Respondent failed to comply with the provisions of 212, F.S. pertaining to the remittance of sales tax from the Respondent to the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. This violation, thereby subjects the Respondent to the possible penalties of 561.29, F.S.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Robert W. Pope, be required to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 or have the license no. 62-600, series 4- COP, SRX, suspended for a period of 10 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Division of Beverage 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert W. Pope, Esquire 611 First Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Callagy Tires, Inc. (Petitioner), collected and remitted the correct amount of sales and use tax on its operations for the audit period.
Findings Of Fact DOR is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the tax laws of the state of Florida. In conjunction with that duty, DOR performs audits of business entities conducting sales and use transactions. At all times material to the issues of this case, Petitioner conducted business in Palm Bay, Florida, and was obligated to collect and remit sales and use tax in connection with the activities of its business enterprise. Petitioner’s Federal Identification Number is 59-2221722. Petitioner sells tires (wholesale and retail), provides tire services such as installation, and performs other repair and towing services subject to sales or use taxes. In order to properly perform its audit responsibilities, DOR requires that businesses maintain and present business records to support the collection of sales and use taxes. In this case, DOR notified Petitioner that it intended to audit the business operations for the audit period, June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2007. After the appropriate notice to Petitioner, the audit was initiated on or about July 18, 2007. Employees of DOR went to Petitioner’s place of business, requested business records, and attempted to audit and reconcile Petitioner’s reported tax payments with the amounts and types of taxes that should have been remitted, based upon the records kept by Petitioner. Theoretically, the sums remitted to the Department should match the records of the business entity. In this case, the amount remitted by Petitioner could not be reconciled with the business records maintained by the business entity. As a result of the audit, DOR sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes that claimed Callagy Tires, Inc., owed sales and use tax in the amount of $121,707.41. By letter dated August 13, 2009, Petitioner filed a protest of the audit findings. Thereafter, the parties exchanged information that Petitioner claimed should require reconsideration of the audit results. Nevertheless, the Department could not reconcile the bank and audit information based upon the documentation submitted by Petitioner. The amounts of the Notice of Reconsideration remain at issue. As of the time of the hearing in this cause, Petitioner had not provided documentation to refute the findings of the Department’s audit. At hearing, DOR maintained that Petitioner owes $173,718.66, together with accruing interest. Specifically, the audit found that there was a difference between the gross sales reported by Petitioner on its federal return and the amounts reported on its state forms. The difference between the two returns constituted unreported sales for state tax purposes. Secondly, the Department determined that certain sales were not “exempt” as maintained by Petitioner. Based upon a sample of invoices provided by Petitioner, DOR found that Petitioner did not remit the full sales tax due on certain types of services. For example, the correct sales tax was not remitted on machining brake rotors, truing brake rotors, or making repairs that included the use of tangible personal property. The taxable event required a calculation of sales tax on the entire amount, not a percentage of the cost. The third area of discrepancy identified by the audit, related to unpaid sales tax on machinery, equipment, supplies, and services purchased by Petitioner for use in the operation of its business. Throughout the audit process, and, subsequently, Petitioner never presented documentation to dispute the Department’s audit findings. DOR gave Petitioner every opportunity to present records that would establish that the correct amounts of sale and use taxes were collected and remitted. Petitioner timely challenged the audit findings, but, has not, through its principal owner or its agents, provided documentation that show the taxes were appropriately calculated and paid. Petitioner maintains that an amended federal tax return verifies the state return previously filed is accurate. Notwithstanding that assertion, Petitioner has not presented the underlying documentation to support the state or federal return. Further, Petitioner refused to allow DOR to review all of its electronically stored records, and did not make the records available to DOR.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining the audit findings, and require the Petitioner to remit the unpaid sales and use taxes in the amount of $173,718.66, together with accrued interest, as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 22nd day of March, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Marshall Stranburg, General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Eugene M. Callagy, Jr. Callagy Tires, Inc. 6625 Babcock Street, Southeast Malabar, Florida 32950 Patrick Hanley, Esquire 185 Forest Road Troy, Montana 59935-9572 John Mika, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Lisa Vickers, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner collected and remitted to Respondent the correct amount of sales and use taxes during the audit period from October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2007, and, if not, what additional amount of tax plus penalty and interest is due.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner True Blue Pools (Petitioner, taxpayer, or TBP) is a domestic corporation headquartered in Miami-Dade County, Florida. TBP services, repairs, and renovates swimming pools and constructed some pools during the audit period. Respondent, Florida Department of Revenue (Respondent or DOR), is the agency of state government authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida, pursuant to section 213.05, Florida Statutes.2 DOR is authorized to prescribe the records to be kept by all persons subject to taxes under chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Such persons have a duty to keep and preserve their records, and the records shall be open to examination by DOR or its authorized agents at all reasonable hours pursuant to section 212.12(6), Florida Statutes. DOR is authorized to conduct audits of taxpayers and to request information to ascertain their tax liability, if any, pursuant to section 213.34, Florida Statutes. On November 2, 2007, DOR initiated an audit of TBP to determine whether it was properly collecting and remitting sales and use taxes to DOR. The audit period was from October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2007. On December 15, 2008, DOR sent TBP its Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (NOI), with schedules, showing that TBP owed to DOR additional sales and use taxes in the amount of $113,632.17, penalty in the amount of $28,406.05, and interest through December 16, 2008, in the amount of $34,546.59, making a total assessment in the amount of $176,586.81. On October 26, 2009, DOR issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment. TBP timely challenged the Notice of Proposed Assessment, filing its petition with DOR and requesting an administrative hearing. Subsequent to the petition being filed, additional documentation was provided by TBP resulting in a revision to the tax, interest, and penalty amount due. DOR's revised work papers, dated May 27, 2010, claim Petitioner owes $64,430.83 in tax, $16,107.71 in penalty, and interest through May 27, 2010, in the amount of $27,071.99, with an assessment of $107,610.53. The assessed penalty, $16,107.71, was calculated after 25% of the penalty was waived, pursuant to subsection 213.21(3)(a), Florida Statutes, based on DOR's determination that there is no evidence of willful negligence, willful neglect, or fraud. The audit was conducted to determine liability in four categories: improper sales tax exemptions, unpaid sales taxes for taxable expenses, unpaid use taxes on fixed assets, and unpaid use taxes on taxable materials used to fulfill contracts to improve real property. Sales Tax Exemptions Due to the large volume of invoices and other records, the auditor conducted a random sampling of invoices for three months during the audit period, October 2004, January 2005, and September 2007.3 If no sales tax was collected and the Petitioner claimed that the transaction was exempt from the requirement to pay taxes, the auditor looked for proof that either the TBP customer was an exempt organization, for example, a school or a church, or that TBP had provided its suppliers with a DOR Form DR-13 to exempt from taxes products acquired for resale. In the absence proof of either type of exemption, DOR assumed taxes should have been paid. Using the difference between taxes collected and taxes due for the three months, the auditor determined that the percentage of error was .016521. When .016521 was applied to total sales of $1,485,890.79 for the 36-month audit period, the results showed that an additional $24,548.41 in sales taxes should have been collected from customers, and is due from TBP. Although a business is required to pay taxes for the materials it purchases to use in its business, it is not required to collect taxes from its customers when it enters into lump sum contracts to perform a service for customers. At least one invoice for $9,500.00 that the auditor treated as an improper exemption was, in fact, a partial payment on a lump-sum contract. The invoice referenced a "shotcrete draw," which represented the collection of funds after the concrete part of pool construction was completed. TBP is not required to collect taxes when it uses lump-sum contracts. Other invoices for pool repair and services were also mischaracterized as exempt by the TBP, but it is not clear that all were payments related to lump-sum contracts. DOR's auditor, nevertheless, testified as follows: With the knowledge that I have for True Blue Pools, being a lump-sum contractor, True Blue Pools should not charge their customer any sales tax. Transcript at pages 67-68. DOR concedes that some of TBP's transactions are also exempt from taxes as improvements to real property. In its Proposed Recommended Order, DOR asserted that TBP's use of the term "improvements to real property" is overbroad, but it did not specify how or why this is the case. During cross- examination of the owner of TBP, only one invoice for $500.00 for leak detection on the Delgado property was shown to have been for a service rather than for swimming pool construction. Taxable Expenses DOR audited TBP's purchases of tangible personal property used in the daily operation of its business. The products included chlorine and other chemicals, office supplies, and vehicle parts, expenses, and repairs. The ledger for a 12- month period, calendar year 2006, showed an average monthly additional tax due of $111.18, or a total of $4,002.48 in additional taxes for the 36-month audit period. As noted in Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, "[t]he representative of TBP did not dispute DOR's allegation that no tax may have been paid on the purchase of all of these items " Fixed Assets TBP's list of fixed assets was taken from the depreciation schedule on Internal Revenue Service Form 4562. The items listed are computer- and software-related. TBP provided no proof that it had paid a use tax. The additional tax due equals $419.94. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order includes the statement that "[a]gain, the representative of TBP did not dispute DOR's allegation that no tax may have been paid on the purchase of these items " Taxable Materials Taxable materials, those purchased to fulfill a contract to improve real property, included items used to build, renovate, and repair pools. The items included concrete, meters, drains, and valves. For the 12-month sample period, calendar year 2006, TBP failed to pay taxes on material purchases in the total amount of $168,310.05, or an average of $14,078.96 a month. For the 36-month audit period, the total of the purchases was $506,842.56. With a 6 percent tax due for the state and 1 percent for the county, the total additional tax due on materials is $35,460.00. TBP conceded that it improperly used a resale exemption to purchase taxable materials from suppliers without paying taxes. The materials were used to provide services and were not resold. Acknowledging again that TBP uses lump-sum contracts, this time to support the collection of additional taxes, the auditor testified as follows: And the law states that the taxpayer's [sic] an ultimate consumer of all materials purchased to fulfill a lump-sum contract, and that's what they told me they operate under, a lump-sum contract. Transcript at page 58. At the hearing, TBP used its actual profit and loss statement to show that the cost of goods it sold (general purchases and taxable materials) in the amounts of $18,360.77 in October 2004, $8,519.22 in January 2005, and $4,818.65 in September 2007. Corresponding taxes for each of those months should have been $1,285.25, $596.35, and $337.31, or an average of $739.63 a month, or a total of $26,626.68 for 36 months. The goods that it sold were not at issue in the audit of taxable materials, rather it was TBP's purchases from vendors that should have been taxed that resulted in DOR's audit results. Total Additional Sales and Use Taxes Due The three categories of additional taxes due, $4,002.48 for taxable expenses, $419.94 for fixed assets, and $35,460.00 for taxable materials, equal $39,882.42 in additional taxes due during the audit period. Taxes Paid TBP filed DOR Forms DR-15, monthly sales and use tax reporting forms, and paid sales and use taxes during the audit period. For the sample months used by DOR to examine sales tax exemptions, TBP paid $1,839.10 in taxes in October 2004, $1,672.73 in January 2005, and $1,418.13 in September 2007. Using the three months to calculate an average, extended to 36 months, it is likely that TBP paid $59,712 in taxes. TBP asserted that DOR was required to, but did not, offset the deficiency of $39,882.42, by what appears to be an overpayment of $59,712.00 in sales and use taxes. Other than pointing out that the amount reported on the DR-15s differed, being sometimes more and sometimes less than the amount shown on the profit and loss statements, DOR did not dispute TBP's claim that it had paid sales and use taxes. TBP's representative explained that end-of-the-year adjustments for additional collections or for bad debt could cause the amounts on the DR-15s and profit and loss statements to differ. With regard to the taxes paid, DOR took the following position in its Proposed Recommended Order: Petitioner's DR-15's [sic] for the collection periods October 2004, and January 2005, [and September 2007] (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1) do reflect sales tax being collected and remitted to DOR. DOR does not allege that Petitioner never paid tax on its purchases, or made bona fide exempt sales for which no tax was collected. DOR's audit findings identify just those which occurred within the sample period, scheduled in the auditor's workpapers, and applied over the entire audit period. The DR-15s are taken from the sample months selected by DOR within the audit period, and DOR does not address TBP's claim that a set off for taxes paid was mandatory, pursuant to subsection 213.34(4), Florida Statutes. Using the audit schedules, DOR showed credit for taxes paid in the amounts of $20.63 for taxable expenses, $0 for fixed assets, and $24.31 in state taxes and $1.03 for county taxes on taxable materials. The amounts are far less that the $59,712.00 in sales/use taxes TBP showed that it paid during the audit period.
Recommendation Based upon the forgoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue issue a final order dismissing the Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes dated December 15, 2010. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 20th day of January, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue's (Department) assessment of tax and interest against American Business USA Corp. (Taxpayer) is valid and correct.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency responsible for administering the revenue laws of the state of Florida, including the imposition and collection of the state's sales and use taxes pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes. The Taxpayer is an active for-profit corporation with its principal address and mailing address at 12805 Newton Place, Wellington, Florida 33414-6226. The Taxpayer is a "dealer" as that term is defined by section 212.06(2). The Taxpayer has a federal employer identification number and a certificate of registration number.1/ The Taxpayer began doing business in Florida in January 2001, but did not register with the Department as a sales tax dealer until February 19, 2004. The Taxpayer does business as "1Vende.com." The Department audited the Taxpayer for sales and use tax compliance. The audit period was April 1, 2008, through March 31, 2011. FACTS RELATED TO THE AUDIT PERIOD Mr. Gomez and Ms. Niño, who are husband and wife, each hold 50 percent of the shares in the Taxpayer. There were two principal aspects of the Taxpayer's business during the audit period. First, the Taxpayer specialized in the sale of flowers, gift baskets, and other items of tangible personal property. Second, the Taxpayer specialized in the sale of "prepaid calling arrangements," within the meaning of section 212.05(1)(l). All of the Taxpayer's sales were initiated online. The Taxpayer sold to customers throughout Latin America, in Spain, and in the United States (including Florida). All payments to the Taxpayer were made by credit card or wire transfer. The Taxpayer generated electronic invoices for all its sales. The Taxpayer marketed itself to the public on its website as a company that sells flowers. The Taxpayer did not maintain any inventory of flowers, gift baskets, or other items of tangible personal property. When the Taxpayer received an order over the Internet for items of tangible personal property, the Taxpayer relayed the order to a florist in the vicinity of the customer (the local florist). The Taxpayer utilized the Internet or telephone to relay an order. The Taxpayer did not use telegraph. The Taxpayer used a local florist to fill the order it had received for flowers, gift baskets, and other items of tangible personal property. The Taxpayer charged its customers sales tax on sales of flowers, gift baskets, and other items of tangible personal property delivered in Florida. The Taxpayer did not charge its customers sales tax on sales of flowers, gift baskets, and other items of tangible personal property delivered outside of Florida. The Taxpayer did not charge sales tax on the delivery fee it charged its customers on orders of flowers, gift baskets, and other items of tangible personal property. The Taxpayer primarily sold prepaid calling arrangements in $2.00, $5.00, $10.00, and $20.00 increments. When customers purchased prepaid calling arrangements, the Taxpayer sent them an authorization number by email. The Taxpayer did not charge its customers sales tax on the prepaid calling arrangements it sold. THE AUDIT The Taxpayer filed its federal tax returns on an accrual basis with the fiscal year ending December 31. The taxpayer's accountant recorded sales on the federal tax returns (form IRS 1120) based on the deposits recorded on the bank statements. Mr. Gomez prepared the Florida sales and use tax returns (form DR-15) for the Taxpayer and calculated the tax due by multiplying its taxable sales by the applicable tax rate. On May 9, 2011, the Department mailed the Taxpayer a Notice of Intent to Audit Books and Records, form DR-840, for audit 200105422. The Department requested Mr. Gomez provide for audit the Taxpayer's chart of accounts, general ledgers, cash receipt journals, sales journals, resale certificates, general journals, federal tax returns, state sales tax returns, shipping documents, and bank statements. Along with the DR-840, the Department mailed the Taxpayer a Pre-audit Questionnaire and Request for Information and Electronic Audit Survey. On May 23, 2011, the Taxpayer returned to the Department the completed Pre-audit Questionnaire and Request for Information and Electronic Audit Survey. On June 15, 2011, the Department's auditor and Mr. Gomez had a pre-audit interview, in which they discussed auditing techniques and records available for audit. Mr. Gomez provided for audit a download of the Taxpayer's electronic records, including its sales database, bank statements, and federal tax returns. The Taxpayer did not keep for audit books and records that would allow the Department to reconcile the sales in the electronic database to the deposits on the bank statement. The Department determined that the Taxpayer's books and records were inadequate for audit and relied upon the "best information then available" of the Taxpayers' sales tax liability, in accordance with section 212.12(5)(b). The Taxpayer did not maintain sales invoices, sales journals, or general ledgers. On August 8, 2011, the Department's auditor met with Mr. Gomez and discussed the audit findings regarding sales. On August 18, 2011, the Department's auditor met with Mr. Gomez and discussed the taxability of the prepaid calling arrangements. On October 31, 2011, the Department mailed the Taxpayer a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, form DR-1215, for audit number 200105422. Prior to issuing the DR-1215, the Department compromised in full the assessed penalty. On February 16, 2012, the Department mailed the Taxpayer a Notice of Proposed Assessment for audit number 200105422. The Department assessed the Taxpayer $102,508.28 in sales tax and interest through February 16, 2012, in the amount of $18,097.52. Interest accrues at $19.62 per day until the tax is paid in full.2/ ESTOPPEL In its Amended Petition, the Taxpayer asserts that it "relied on advice and instruction from [the Department] when it failed to collect Telecommunication tax and should not be subject to any taxes or penalties as a result of their [sic] reasonable reliance." Mr. Gomez and Ms. Niño made three visits to the Department's service centers, but only one of those three visits pre-dated the audit period. The other two visits were after the audit period. In February 2001 they visited the service center in Miami, Florida, where they talked to someone named "Maria" about the taxability of their new business. Both Mr. Gomez and Ms. Niño testified that as a result of the first visit with "Maria" in 2001, the Taxpayer only charged customers sales tax on the sales of flowers, gift baskets, and other items of tangible personal property delivered in Florida. The owners testified that they relied on advice given to them by "Maria." "Maria" did not testify at the formal hearing. There was no written confirmation of the advice given by "Maria." After the audit period while the audit was ongoing (between August 8 and August 18, 2011) they visited the service center in Coral Springs, Florida, where they spoke to someone named "Paula" about the ongoing audit. The third and final visit was on August 18, 2011, when they met with Everald Thomas at the service center in West Palm Beach. Mr. Thomas was the Department's auditor in this case. The owners talked to him about the taxability of the prepaid calling arrangements. The Taxpayer timely filed its Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing. The Taxpayer continues to dispute the assessment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order that validates the assessment against American Business USA Corp. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2013.
