The Issue The issues are whether Respondent properly conducted a sales and use tax audit of Petitioner's books and records; and, if so, whether Petitioner is liable for tax and interest on its purchases of materials used for improvements to real property.
Findings Of Fact During the audit period, Petitioner was a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located at 7820 Professional Place, Suite 2, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner's Florida sales tax number was 39-00-154675-58, and Petitioner's federal employer identification number was 59-3089046. After the audit period, the Florida Department of State administratively dissolved Petitioner for failure to file statutorily required annual reports and filing fees. Petitioner engaged in the business of providing engineering services and fabricating control panels. Petitioner fabricated control panels in a shop Petitioner maintained on its business premises. Petitioner sold some of the control panels in over-the- counter sales. Petitioner properly collected and remitted sales tax on the control panels that Petitioner sold over-the-counter. Petitioner used other control panels in the performance of real property contracts by installing the panels as improvements to real property (contested panels). Petitioner was the ultimate consumer of the materials that Petitioner purchased and used to fabricate the contested panels. At the time that Petitioner installed the contested panels into real property, the contested panels became improvements to the real property. Petitioner failed to pay sales tax at the time Petitioner purchased materials used to fabricate the contested panels. Petitioner provided vendors with Petitioner's resale certificate, in lieu of paying sales tax, when Petitioner purchased the materials used to fabricate the contested panels. None of the purchase transactions for materials used to fabricate the contested panels were tax exempt. The audit is procedurally correct. The amount of the assessment is accurate. On October 23, 2000, Respondent issued a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records (form DR-840), for audit number A0027213470, for the period of October 1, 1995, through September 30, 2000. During an opening interview, the parties discussed the audit procedures and sampling method to be employed and the records to be examined. Based upon the opening interview, Respondent prepared an Audit Agreement and presented it to an officer and owner of the taxpayer. Respondent began the audit of Petitioner's books and records on January 22, 2001. On March 9, 2001, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (original Notice of Intent). At Petitioner's request, Respondent conducted an audit conference with Petitioner. At the audit conference, Petitioner provided documentation that the assessed transactions involved improvements to real property. At Petitioner's request, Respondent conducted a second audit conference with Petitioner's former legal counsel. Petitioner authorized its former legal counsel to act on its behalf during the audit. At the second audit conference, the parties discussed audit procedures and sampling methods, Florida use tax, fabricated items, and fabrication costs. Respondent revised the audit findings based upon additional information from Petitioner that the assessed transactions involved fabricated items of tangible personal property that became improvements to real property. Respondent assessed use tax on the materials used to fabricate control panels in those instances where Petitioner failed to document that Petitioner paid sales tax at the time of the purchase. Respondent also assessed use tax on fabrication costs including the direct labor and the overhead costs associated with the fabrication process, for the period of October 1, 1995, through June 30, 1999. Respondent eliminated use tax assessed on cleaning services in the original Notice of Intent because the amount of tax was de minimis. On August 29, 2001, Respondent issued a Revised Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (Revised Notice of Intent). On September 18, 2001, Petitioner executed a Consent to Extend the Time to Issue an Assessment to File a Claim for Refund until January 25, 2002. On October 18, 2001, Petitioner executed a second Consent to Extend the Time to Issue an Assessment to File a Claim for Refund until April 25, 2002. On February 6, 2002, Respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment for additional sales and use tax, in the amount of $21,822.27; interest through February 6, 2002, in the amount of $10,774.64; penalty in the amount of $10,831.12; and additional interest that accrues at $6.97 per diem. Petitioner exhausted the informal remedies available from Respondent. On April 29, 2002, Petitioner filed a formal written protest that, in substantial part, objected to the audit procedures and sampling method employed in the audit. Respondent issued a Notice of Decision sustaining the assessment of tax, penalty, and interest. Respondent correctly determined that the audit procedures and sampling method employed in the audit were appropriate and consistent with Respondent's statutes and regulations. Respondent concluded that the assessment was correct based upon the best available information and that Petitioner failed to provide any documentation to refute the audit findings. Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration that did not provide any additional facts, arguments, or records to support its position. On May 16, 2003, Respondent issued a Notice of Reconsideration sustaining the assessment of tax and interest in full, but compromising all penalties based upon reasonable cause.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for relief and sustaining Respondent's assessment of taxes and interest in full. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Revenue Litigation Section The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Michael E. Ferguson Control Design Engineering, Inc. 809 East Bloomingdale Avenue, PMB 433 Brandon, Florida 33511 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact On January 22, 1986, American Aviation Resources, Inc., sold an airplane to Munur Yurtsever, a resident of Brazil. This aircraft was a Hansa jet model HFB-320 with U.S. registration number N71DL (the subject aircraft). On January 28, 1986, Mr. Yurtsever transferred title of the subject aircraft to Petitioner, Selcuk Yetimoglu. At the time of the transfer, the subject aircraft was in the State of Florida undergoing repairs. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Yetimoglu resided at 20530 Jacaranda Road, Cutler Ridge, Miami, Florida, in a residence owned by Mr. Yurtsever. The aircraft bill of sale dated January 28, 1986, reflects that Mr. Yetimoglu was the purchaser of the subject aircraft and that Mr. Yurtsever was the seller. The bill of sale recited that the consideration paid was $20.00 and other good and valuable consideration. While the bill of sale reflects that Mr. Yetimoglu resided in Miami, Florida, the bill of sale does not state that the sale occurred in the State of Florida. On January 29, 1986, Mr. Yetimoglu applied to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the registration of the subject aircraft in his name. On March 13, 1986, Mr. Yetimoglu wrote to the FAA regarding the registration and stated, in pertinent part, as follows: Mr. Munur Yurtsever sold the aircraft to me on January 28, 1986, five days after he bought the aircraft from American Aviation Resources, Inc. when he found out that the government of Brazil did not give him a (sic) permission to import the aircraft and that he could not register the aircraft in the United States because he was not a citizen of the United States. By letter dated May 15, 1986, Mr. Yetimoglu provided the FAA proof that the subject aircraft had not been registered in Brazil. Mr. Yetimoglu was the record owner of the subject aircraft between January 28, 1986, and March 13, 1987. On March 13, 1987, Mr. Yetimoglu sold the subject aircraft back to Mr. Yurtsever. The bill of sale identifies the purchaser as being: Munur Yurtsever Rico Taxi Aereo Ltda. Av. Mal. Camara 160-GR. Rio de Janeiro - RJ Brazil On April 8, 1987, Mr. Yetimoglu wrote the FAA and stated, in pertinent part: ... I request cancelation of U.S. registra- tion for the aircraft ... because I sold the aircraft back to Rico Taxi Aereo Ltda. ... On January 11, 1988, Respondent issued to Petitioner a "Notice of Delinquent Tax Penalty and Interest Due and Assessed" (Notice of Assessment) based on the transaction involving Mr. Yetimoglu, Mr. Yurtsever, and the subject aircraft. The Notice of Assessment contained the following statement: "This Department has information that you purchased the following aircraft. However, there is no evidence of payment of Florida Sales and/or Use Tax". The Notice of Assessment reflected that Respondent had, pursuant to Section 212.12(5)(b), Florida Statutes, estimated the value of the aircraft as being $320,000 and assessed the following taxes, interest, and penalties: Florida State Sales/Use Tax 5% $16,000.00 (Estimated) Per 212.06(8), F.S. Penalty 5% per month; Maximum 25% of 4,000.00 (25%) Tax Due Per Section 212.12(2), F.S. Additional Penalty 11,840.00 (50%) Per 212.12(2)(a), F.S. Interest = 1% per month from date of 3,680.00 (23%) Purchase To Date of Payment Per Section 212.12(3), F.S. Less Tax Paid ----------------- TOTAL DUE WITH THIS NOTICE $35,520.00 Respondent requested that Mr. Yetimoglu provide it information and documentation as to the value of the aircraft. Mr. Yetimoglu contends that he paid Mr. Yurtsever nothing for the aircraft, that the title was transferred to him and registered in the FAA in his name so that the aircraft could be test flown after it was repaired, and that Mr. Yurtsever had paid $100,000 for the aircraft. There was no evidence as to the sales price that Mr. Yetimoglu paid for the aircraft other than Mr. Yetimoglu's testimony. Respondent estimated that the reasonable value of the subject aircraft on January 28, 1986, was $320,000. This estimate was based on an appraisal prepared for Respondent and assumed that the aircraft was in a scrapped or junked condition. Respondent generally uses a standard reference work on the value of aircraft to assist it in estimating the value of the subject aircraft. Because of its age and model, the subject aircraft is no longer listed in this standard reference. In support of his contention that Mr. Yurtsever paid $100,000 for the aircraft, Mr. Yetimoglu provided Respondent with a copy of a wire transfer of funds from Mr. Yurtsever to American Aviation Resources, Inc. in the amount of $100,000. However, there was no documentation provided that established that the $100,000 constituted the entire purchase price paid by Mr. Yurtsever. The dispute between the parties as to the value of the aircraft is resolved by finding, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that the reasonable value of the aircraft at the times pertinent to this proceeding was $320,000.00. In December 1986, while Mr. Yetimoglu was the record owner, the subject aircraft engaged in international flight between the Turks and Caicos Islands and the State of Florida. Respondent's Notice of Redetermination, dated February 26, 1990, upheld the Notice of Assessment on the basis that the underlying transaction was subject to use tax pursuant to Section 212.06(8), Florida Statutes. The issue to be resolved was framed by the Notice of Redetermination as being: "The only issue involved pertains to a use tax assessment upon an aircraft brought into this country". This determination was based, in part, upon a letter to Respondent from an attorney who was representing Mr. Yetimoglu at the time the letter was written. 1/ The letter implied that the aircraft was brought into Florida after the title was transferred to Mr. Yetimoglu, and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The transferor of the aircraft, Munur Yurtsever, is a nonresident alien. His inten- tion is to deliver the plane to a purchaser outside the country. Mr. Yurtsever advises that the F.A.A. will not allow the plane to be flown in this country unless it is owned by a U.S. resident. As it was imperative to fly the plane here in order to prepare it for its flight outside the country, Mr. Yurtsever transferred the plane to his partner, Selcuk Yetimoglu, who is a resident of the United States. ... At the formal hearing, Mr. Yetimoglu established that the aircraft was in Florida undergoing repairs at the time the title was transferred to him. Prior to and at the formal hearing, Respondent asserted the position that use taxes, interest, and penalties were due for this transaction. In its post- hearing submittal, Respondent, for the first time in this proceeding, contends that sales taxes, interest and penalties are due for this transaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which withdraws the subject assessment. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of March, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1991.
Findings Of Fact In 1962, the Corporation decided to relocate its corporate offices from Newark, New Jersey, to the State of Florida. Implementing this decision, the Corporation secured a twenty year leasehold interest of an entire floor in the Universal Marion Building in Jacksonville, Florida, under which it was obligated to pay an annual rental of $52,000.00. Within a few months during the year 1962, the decision to relocate was rescinded. During the tax year in question, the Corporation retained a part-time employee in Florida for the sole purpose of attempting to either locate a purchaser of the leasehold interest or to avoid further obligations under the lease by negotiations and settlement with the landlord. This part-time employee received his directions from the corporate offices in Newark, New Jersey. Other than these efforts to relieve the burden of the unused leased premises, the Corporation conducted no commercial activities in the State of Florida during the tax year 1973. Although the Corporation's headquarters were ultimately moved to Jacksonville, in January 1976, the Corporation has never occupied the leased premises in question. In fact, in 1974, the Corporation entered into a sublease with the State of Florida for the duration of the lease. Pursuant to audit, DOR assessed the Corporation an additional $12,616.89 in income tax for the year ended December 31, 1973, using the three-factor formula method of apportionment.
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.
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner is a Florida corporation wholly owned by Mr. Thomas C. Birkhead, president. Petitioner owns and operates the Satellite Motel in Cocoa Beach, Florida. The Audit Respondent conducted a sales and use tax audit of Petitioner's business records for the period September 1, 1985, through August 31, 1990. Respondent determined a deficiency and assessed Petitioner for $15,373.62, including tax, penalty, and interest through May 13, 1991. The assessment is for $1,922.42 in sales tax, $7,646.25 in use tax, $2,392.20 in delinquent penalty, and $3,412.75 in interest through May 13, 1991. Interest accrues daily in the amount of $3.15. Respondent made a prima facie showing of the factual and legal basis for the assessment. Petitioner failed to produce credible and persuasive evidence to overcome the prima facie showing. The audit and assessment are procedurally correct. Tax, interest, and penalty are correctly computed. Sampling Petitioner failed to maintain adequate records of its sales and purchases. Respondent properly conducted an audit by sampling Petitioner's available books and records in accordance with Section 212.12(6)(b), Florida Statutes. Although Petitioner's records of sales and purchases were inadequate, Petitioner produced some books and records for the entire audit period. Respondent properly limited the applicable penalty to a delinquent penalty. Audit Period Respondent is authorized to audit Petitioner for the period September 1, 1985, through August 31, 1990. Effective July 1, 1987, the period for which taxpayers are subject to audit was extended from three to five years. 1/ When Respondent conducted the audit, Respondent was authorized to conduct an audit within five years of the date tax was due. 2/ Tax owed by Petitioner for the period beginning September 1, 1985, was not due until the 20th day of the month following its collection. 3/ Therefore, Respondent was authorized to audit Petitioner's records anytime before October 20, 1990. 4/ On September 13, 1990, Respondent issued a Notice Of Intent To Audit Books And Records of the Petitioner (the "Notice Of Intent"). The Notice Of Intent tolled the running of the five year audit period for up to two years. 5/ Respondent completed its audit and issued its Notice Of Intent To Make Sales And Use Tax Audit Changes on May 13, 1991. 2. Sales Tax Petitioner sells snacks and beverages over the counter at the Satellite Motel. The sale of such tangible personal property is subject to sales tax. As a dealer, Petitioner must collect the applicable sales tax and remit it to Respondent. During the audit period, Petitioner failed to collect and remit applicable sales tax. As a dealer, Petitioner is liable for the uncollected sales tax. Respondent properly assessed Petitioner for $1,922.42 in uncollected sales tax. 3. Use Tax Petitioner rents televisions and linens and purchases business forms from Florida vendors. The rental and sale of such tangible personal property is subject to sales tax. During the audit period, Petitioner failed to pay sales tax to Florida vendors and used the televisions, linens, and business forms in its business at the Satellite Motel. Petitioner is liable for use tax on the use of those items during the audit period. Respondent properly assessed Petitioner for use tax in the amount of $7,646.25.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order upholding the assessment of tax, penalty, and interest through the date of payment. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of October, 1994. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1994.
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
Findings Of Fact Modern Tool and Die, (MTD), is a privately held corporation engaged in manufacturing equipment. In 1965 they started the manufacture of bumper guards which required electroplating. They entered into agreements with MPC pursuant to which MTD erected two buildings adjacent to their plant which they leased to MPC in which to do the electroplating of the bumper guards. MPC is also a privately held corporation and there is no common ownership of these two companies. The two buildings built for MPC's occupancy were partitioned, compartmented and wired as desired by MPC and at its expense. Florida Power Corporation supplied electricity to the complex through the main transformer of MTD. In 1965 and to a lesser extent now, electricity rates per kilowatt-hour (kwh) were lowered with increased usage of electricity. Since both MTD and MPC are large users of electricity they obtain a cheaper rate if all electricity used is billed from the master meter serving MTD. Accordingly, and at the recommendation of the power company, additional transformers and meters were placed at the two buildings occupied by MPC and read monthly at or about the same time the master meter is read by the power company. The kw used at the two buildings is forwarded by MPC to MTD each month. The latter, upon receipt of the power company bill, computes the cost of the power per kwh and in turn bills MPC for its portion of the bill based upon the usage forwarded by MPC to MTD. Upon the commencement of this working agreement between these two companies in 1965 MPC, pursuant to an oral lease, has paid rent to MTD monthly at the rate of approximately $2,400 per month. It has also paid to MTD its pro rata cost for the electricity used each month. The rent is invoiced each month on the first of the month as in Exhibit 3 and paid by the 10th by MPC. Sales tax is added to the rent and remitted to DOR. Electricity usage is also invoiced by MTD to MPC on or about the 20th of the month and paid by MPC on or about the first of the following month. (Exhibit 4). Sales tax on the electricity used is paid by MTD to Florida Power Company who presumably remits this to DOR. During the 15 years these two companies have shared the cost of electric power they have been audited numerous times; the arrangement was made known to the auditors; and no auditor, prior to the present, suggested that the cost of electricity was part of the rent paid by MPC upon which sales tax was due. Notice of Proposed Assessment (Exhibit 1) in the amount of $9,747.34 is based upon the cost of electricity billed to MPC during the period of the audit December 1, 1976 through November 30, 1979 multiplied by 4 percent sales tax plus penalties and interest. The parties stipulated to the accuracy of this amount. They differ only as to whether the tax is owed.
