The Issue Whether Petitioner, Children's Charity Fund, Inc., qualifies under Section 212.08(7)(o)2.b., Florida Statutes, for a consumer certificate of exemption as a charitable institution.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Children's Charity Fund, is a not-for-profit corporation and qualifies as a tax-exempt organization pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code. Petitioner maintains an office in Sarasota, Florida. The articles of incorporation specify that the nature of the business to be transacted and the purpose to be promoted by Children's Charity Fund "shall be exclusively charitable, including raising funds in any lawful manner" for the following purposes: (1) to educate and inform the public about the needs of handicapped and disabled children; (2) to provide referral services and maintain a hot-line for handicapped children; (3) to provide services "in whatever form possible that the Board may deem necessary" for handicapped children and their parents; and (4) to buy medical equipment for handicapped and disabled children. The Children's Charity Fund claims entitlement to a consumer certificate of exemption based primarily on the fourth purpose listed in paragraph 2 above. In carrying out this purpose, the Children's Charity Fund purchases various types of medical equipment for handicapped and disabled children who reside in Florida as well as in other states. The medical equipment is provided to children who need the equipment, but whose parents have no insurance or their requests for the equipment have been turned down by Medicare, Medicaid, or their insurance companies. In determining which applications for medical equipment it will approve, the Children's Charity Fund has not established income limits for the applicant family. The circumstances of each family are considered on a case-by-case basis and factors other than income are also considered. To date, Children's Charity Fund has never denied an application for medical equipment for a handicapped or disabled child, regardless of family income, if such equipment was needed by the child. In addition to purchasing medical equipment for handicapped and disabled children, the Children's Charity Fund provides Christmas gifts and tickets to events organized and promoted by the Children's Charity Fund such as charity softball games. The Children's Charity Fund claims that these gifts and tickets are charitable services. During its most recent fiscal year, the Children's Charity Fund spent less than 50% of its operational expenditures on qualified charitable services. The evidence at hearing established that during the relevant time period, Children's Charity Fund spent less than 35% of its total operating expenditures on qualified charitable services. This percentage does not meet the requirements of Rule 12A-1.001(3)(g)3.e., Florida Administrative Code, which mandates that the organization seeking tax exempt status as a charitable institution spend "in excess of 50.0 percent of [its] operational expenditures toward qualified charitable services." During its most recent fiscal year, Children's Charity Fund spent approximately 50% of its operating expenditures to pay for fundraising activities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying a consumer certificate of exemption to Petitioner, the Children's Charity Fund, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Carolyn S. Holifield Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken Bowron, Sr. Executive Director Children's Charity Fund, Inc. 2011 Bispham Road Sarasota, Florida 34236 Kevin J. O'Donnell Assistant General Counsel Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to an exemption as a charitable institution or as a military museum fundraiser within the respective meanings of Sections 212.08(7)(o)2.b or (l), Florida Statutes (1997). (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a non-profit corporation incorporated in Florida. Respondent is the state agency responsible for the issuance of certificates of exemption from sales and use tax in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 212. Petitioner applied for a certificate of exemption on December 22, 1997. On April 22, 1998, Respondent denied Petitioner's application. The application and denial are based on information from Petitioner's 1997 tax year. Petitioner is not a charitable organization within the meaning of Section 212.08(7)(o)2.b. Petitioner is qualified as a nonprofit corporation pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. However, Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that its sole or primary purpose satisfies the requirements of Section 212.07(o)2.b. and Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.001(3)(g). (All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code on the date of this Recommended Order.) Petitioner failed to show that in 1997 it provided a reasonable percentage of the services enumerated in Sections 212.08(7)(o)2.b.(I)-(VII) for free, or at a substantially reduced charge, to persons who are unable to pay for those services. Petitioner did not show that it raised funds for organizations that provide a reasonable percentage of the statutorily qualified services for free, or at a substantially reduced charge, to persons who are unable to pay for those services. Petitioner asserts that it provides some portion of its computer time for qualified services and that Petitioner provides volunteers for other qualified services. However, Petitioner failed to show the value of the computer time, admitted that the value of the computer does not satisfy the 50 percent test in Rule 12A-1.001(3)(g), and was unable to quantify the amount or value of its volunteer services. Petitioner failed to show that it complied with the requirements of Rule 12A-1.001(3)(g). Petitioner did not show that more than 50 percent of its expenditures in 1997 directly related to statutorily qualified services provided by Petitioner to persons who cannot afford such services. Petitioner did not show that more than 50 percent of its expenditures directly related to raising funds for organizations that provide qualified services to persons who cannot afford those services ("qualifying organizations"). Petitioner's 1997 annual report shows that none of its expenditures were made for statutorily qualified services provided to persons who cannot afford those services. Similarly, the report did not show that more than 50 percent of expenditures were made to raise funds for qualifying organizations. Petitioner is not a military museum fundraiser within the meaning of Section 212.08(7)(l). Petitioner admitted that it made no cash contributions to military museums during 1997. Petitioner claims that it allowed other organizations to use Petitioner's tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code to facilitate in-kind contributions to military museums or to related organizations which, in turn, contributed the items to military museums. The primary item Petitioner claimed to have obtained in this manner in 1997 was a Huey helicopter allegedly donated by the U. S. Army to Vietnam Veterans of Central Florida, Inc. ("Veterans Central"). Petitioner failed to show that the title to the helicopter ever passed from the U. S. Army to Petitioner or to any other organization designated by Petitioner to receive an in- kind contribution. Petitioner failed to show that either Petitioner or its designee otherwise obtained title to the helicopter or any other in-kind contributions. Petitioner claims that a contribution to Veterans Central is a contribution to Petitioner because the two organizations are members of the same group. The group purportedly operates as the Vietnam Veterans of Florida State Coalition (the "state coalition"). However, Petitioner failed to provide any documentary evidence which establishes the relationship between the two organizations or their membership in the state coalition. Petitioner admits that the two organizations have separate boards and that Petitioner does not control or own stock in Veterans Central as required in Sections 617.0601 and 617.0721 (providing that corporate members of a not- for-profit group have no voting rights and, unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation and by-laws, the directors of each corporation have sole voting rights for each corporation and do not have voting rights in other member corporations.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for a certificate of exemption. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Ken Baker, President Vietnam Veterans of Florida Foundation, Inc. 1509 Tate Street Cocoa, Florida 32922 George C. Hamm, Assistant General Counsel Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
The Issue As the parties have stipulated, the issue in this case is whether Respondent Florida Housing Finance Corporation (the “Corporation”) properly interpreted Rule 67-48.032(2), Florida Administrative Code, and the corresponding provisions on the same subject found in paragraph 2, at page 2, of the Corporation’s 2000 Qualified Allocation Plan (collectively, the "Instructions"), when it applied the Instructions to determine the substantial interests of Petitioners and Intervenors.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Corporation and Its Duty to Allocate Federal Income Tax Credits The Corporation is a public corporation that administers governmental programs relating to the financing and refinancing of housing and related facilities in Florida. It is governed by a nine-member board composed of eight persons whom the governor appoints plus the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs, sitting ex-officio. Among other things, the Corporation is the state's designated "housing credit agency" as defined in the Internal Revenue Code. As such, the Corporation has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures necessary for the allocation and distribution of low-income housing federal tax credits, which are created under and governed almost entirely by federal law. These tax credits, which are designed to encourage the development of low-income housing for families, provide a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the holder’s federal income tax liability and can be taken each year, for up to ten years, that the low-income housing project for which the credits were awarded continues to satisfy Internal Revenue Code requirements. Housing tax credits are allotted annually to the states on a per capita basis and then awarded, through state-administered programs, to developers of rental housing for low-income and very low-income families. Once awarded, there is a market for these tax credits; consequently, a developer may sell them at a discount to obtain immediate cash for its project. As a populous state, Florida receives between $18 million and $18.5 million in federal tax credits each year. The Corporation allocates the state's share of tax credits to eligible recipients pursuant to a Qualified Allocation Plan ("QAP") that federal law requires be prepared. The QAP, which must be approved by the governor, is incorporated by reference in Rule 67-48.025, Florida Administrative Code. In accordance with the QAP, the Corporation employs various set-asides and special targeting goals that play a substantial part in determining which applicants will receive tax credits in a particular year. While targeting goals are "aspirational" in nature, set-asides are relatively inflexible. Thus, special targeting goals may be met if credits are available. In contrast, credits that were reserved (or "set- aside") for specific project types will be awarded to applicants whose developments fall within the defined set-aside. The set-asides that have spawned the instant dispute are the Geographic Set-Asides and the Non-Profit Set-Aside. The Geographic Set-Asides require that a pre-determined portion of the available tax credits be awarded to applicants in each of the following county groups: Large County, Medium County, and Small County. In 2000, the allocation percentages for these groups were 64%, 26%, and 10%, respectively. The Non-Profit Set-Aside, which is a function of federal law, requires that at least 12% of the credits be awarded to non-profit applicants. None of the other set-asides is either at issue here or affects the analysis or outcome. The same is true of the special targeting goals. For simplicity's sake, therefore, special targeting goals will be ignored in the discussion that follows, and it will be assumed, unless otherwise stated, that the Geographic and Non-Profit Set-Asides are the only factors (besides merit) that affect the Corporation's award of tax credits. The Petitioners and Intervenors (Collectively, "Petitioners") Lakesmart is a Florida limited partnership which has as one of its general partners a non-profit corporation. In the 2000 application cycle, Lakesmart applied to the Corporation for an award of tax credits from the Medium County allocation. Lakesmart is a "Non-Profit Applicant" for purposes of the Non- Profit Set-Aside. RPK is a Florida limited partnership. In the 2000 application cycle, RPK applied to the Corporation for an award of tax credits from the Large County allocation. For purposes of the Non-Profit Set-Aside, RPK is a "for-profit Applicant." Meadow Glen and Coral Village are Florida limited partnerships. Each has a non-profit corporation as one of its general partners. Both applied to the Corporation in the 2000 application cycle for an award of tax credits from the Medium County allocation. Each is considered a "Non-Profit Applicant" for purposes of the Non-Profit Set-Aside. Evaluation, Ranking, and the Tentative Funding Range To distribute the finite amount of tax credits available each year, the Corporation has designed a competitive process whereby potential recipients file applications that the Corporation grades according to selection criteria set forth in the QAP. Points are assigned based on compliance with these criteria. At the end of the evaluation process, each applicant that met the threshold requirements will have earned a final score that determines its rank in terms of relative merit, with higher-scored projects being "better" than lower-scored projects. Because of the set-asides, however, credits are not awarded simply on the basis of comparative scores. Instead, the Geographic Set-Asides require that the applicants be sorted and ranked, according to their scores, within the Large County, Medium County, and Small County groups to which they belong and from whose credit allocations the successful applicants will be funded. As a result, therefore, if the several applicants with the three highest scores in the entire applicant pool were all in the Large County group and the applicant with the fourth highest score were in the Small County group, for example, then the latter applicant would be ranked first in the Small County group. This means, to continue with the example, that if the first- and second-ranked projects in the Large County group were to exhaust the credits allocated to that group, then the applicant with the third highest score overall would not be funded, while the applicant with the fourth highest score in the applicant pool (but ranked first in a county group) would be funded. 16/ After the Corporation has sorted the applicants by county group and ranked them, within their respective groups, from highest to lowest based on the applicants' final scores, it draws a tentative funding line within each group. Applicants above these lines are within the tentative funding range and thus apparently successful. Conversely, an applicant below the tentative funding line in its county group will not receive tax credits unless, to satisfy a set-aside or fulfill a special targeting goal, it is moved into the funding range. In the 2000 application cycle, a preliminary outcome which had occurred only once before, in 1997, happened again: the aggregate of credits requested by the non-profit applicants within the tentative funding range did not amount to the Non- Profit Set-Aside percentage — 12% in 2000 — of total available credits. Therefore, the Corporation needed to elevate as many apparently unsuccessful non-profit applicants into the funding range — and concomitantly to remove as many apparently successful for-profit applicants from the funding range to make room for the favored non-profit applicant(s) — as necessary to fulfill the 12% quota. An Aside on Categorical Ranking The separation of applicants into three groups according to the Geographic Set-Asides, and the effect that has on determining which applicants will receive credits, was mentioned above. To better understand the parties' dispute regarding the procedure for satisfying the Non-Profit Set-Aside when, as in 2000, it is necessary to award credits to a putatively unsuccessful non-profit applicant at the expense of a putatively successful for-profit applicant, a second, more detailed look at the implications of categorical ranking will be helpful. Because of the Non-Profit Set-Aside, the set of all qualified applicants ("Applicant Pool") is divided into two classes: non-profit and for-profit corporations. As will be seen, the class of non-profit corporations is further separated, for purposes of the Non-Profit Set-Aside, into two subclasses: domestic non-profits and out-of-state, or foreign, non-profits. Finally, to repeat for emphasis, all qualified applicants, regardless of class or subclass (if applicable), fall within one of three groups according to the Geographic Set-Asides: Small County, Medium County, and Large County. The following chart depicts the relevant classification of applicants within the Applicant Pool: Applicant Pool Non-profits For-profits Domestic Foreign Small County Medium County Large County Because, as the chart shows, each applicant fits into several categories, applicants may be ranked in order of their comparative scores in a variety of combinations, depending on how they are sorted, e.g. all applicants, all Large County for- profits, all foreign non-profits, etc. Once the Corporation has drawn the tentative funding lines (which, recall, are county group-specific) and determined preliminarily which applicants will receive funding and which will not, two additional categories exist: applicants within the funding range and applicants below (or outside) the funding range. Owing to the nature of the instant dispute, however, the only non-profits discussed below are those outside the tentative funding range, unless otherwise stated, and the only for-profits considered are those within the tentative funding range, unless otherwise stated. 1/ The above makes clear, it is hoped, that a reference to the "highest scored" applicant, without more, may describe many applicants, such as the highest scored domestic non-profit, the highest scored non-profit in the Small County group, the highest scored foreign non-profit in the Large County group, and so on. More information is needed to pinpoint a particular entity. For ease of reference, and to facilitate the discussion and disposition of the present dispute, the following abbreviations will be used in this Recommended Order as shorthand descriptions of applicants’ defining characteristics: Abbreviation Meaning NP Non-profit applicant FP For-profit applicant High- highest scored Low- lowest scored D domestic entity (i.e. organized under Florida law) F foreign entity (i.e. organized under the law of a state other than Florida) S, M, and L Small, Medium and Large County, respectively ! highest or lowest scored within the indicated category; e.g. High- NP(S!) means highest scored non- profit within the Small County group; Low-FP(S!) means lowest scored for-profit in the Small county group x, y variables Combining these abbreviations provides an increasingly precise description, as more information is added. For example: Combination Description High-NP Highest scored non-profit in some, unknown category High-NP[D!] Highest scored domestic non- profit, unknown group; is not necessarily the highest scored non-profit in the class of non- profits High-NP[F!] Highest scored foreign non-profit, unknown group; is not necessarily the highest scored non-profit in the class of non-profits High-NP[D!](S) Highest scored domestic non- profit, located in the Small County group; not the highest scored non-profit within the Small County group High-NP[D](S!) Highest scored non-profit in the Small County group; is a domestic corporation but is neither the highest scored non-profit nor highest scored domestic non-profit High-NP[D](S) Highest scored domestic non-profit in the Small County group; is neither the highest scored non- profit, the highest scored domestic non-profit, nor the highest scored non-profit in the Small County group Low-FP! Lowest scored for-profit in the class of for-profits Low-FP(M!) Lowest scored for-profit in Medium County group; is not necessarily the lowest scored for- profit in the class of for-profits The Controversy: Gored Oxen and Leapt-Over Frogs The solution to the problem that arose in the 2000 application cycle when an insufficient number of non-profit applicants wound up initially within the tentative funding range is found in two places: Rule 67-48.032, Florida Administrative Code, and the 2000 QAP. Although the language of the two is not identical, the parties agree that the rule and the pertinent QAP provisions have the same meaning, despite their differences in wording. The undersigned has concluded, however, that the differences, though subtle, substantially affect the outcome of this case. It is necessary, therefore, to read them carefully. Rule 67-48.032(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: To ensure that the minimum 10% is set aside, the Corporation has determined that an initial allocation of 12% to qualified Non- Profits will be met. In order to achieve the initial 12% set aside, Applications from Applicants that qualify or whose General Partner qualifies as a Non-Profit entity pursuant to Rule 67.48.002(71), F.A.C., HUD Regulations, Section 42(h)(5)(c), subsection 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of the Code and organized under Chapter 617, Florida Statutes, or organized under similar state law if organized in a jurisdiction other than Florida and meet scoring threshold requirements shall be moved into the funding range, in order of their comparative scores, with Applicants whose Non-Profit entity is organized under Florida law receiving priority over Non-Profit entities of other jurisdictions, until the set-aside is achieved. The last Non-Profit Development that is moved into the funding range in order to achieve the 12% initial set-aside shall be fully funded even though that may result in a higher Non-Profit set-aside. This will be accomplished by removing the lowest scored Application of a for-profit Applicant from the funding range and replacing it with the highest scored Non- Profit Application below the funding range within the applicable Geographic Set-Aside pursuant to the QAP. This procedure will be used again on or after October 1, if necessary, to ensure that the Agency allocates at least 10% of its Allocation Authority to qualified Non-Profit Applicants. Any for-profit Applicant so removed from the funding range will NOT be entitled to any consideration or priority for the receipt of current or future Housing Credits other than placement on the current ranking and scoring list in accordance with its score. Binding Commitments for Housing Credits from a future year will not be issued for Applicants so displaced. Paragraph 2, at page 2, of the Corporation’s 2000 QAP states: [The Corporation] has determined that an initial allocation of 12% to qualified Non- Profits will ensure that the 10% requirement will be met in the event that all Developments included in the initial 12% do not receive an allocation. In order to achieve the initial 12% set-aside a tentative funding line will be drawn. Then, Applications from Non-Profit Applicants that meet scoring threshold requirements shall be moved into the tentative funding range, in order of their scores with Applicants whose Non-Profit entities are organized under Chapter 617, Florida Statutes, having priority, until the 12% set-aside is achieved. This will be accomplished by moving the lowest scored Application of a for-profit Applicant in the funding range down in ranking so it is ranked below the lowest Non-Profit Applicant within the funding range and moving the highest scored Non-Profit Applicant organized under Chapter 617, Florida Statutes below the funding range within the applicable Geographic Set- Aside pursuant to the QAP up in ranking so it is ranked one ranking space above the for-profit Applicant that was moved down in ranking. If no such Applicant exists, the highest Non-Profit Applicant organized under similar statutes from another state which is below the funding range within the applicable Geographic Set-Aside pursuant to the QAP, will be moved into funding range in the same manner as stated in the previous sentence. This procedure will be used again on or after October 1, 2000, if necessary, to ensure that the [Corporation] allocates at least 10% of its Allocation Authority for 2000 to qualified Non-Profit Applicants. Any for-profit Applicant so removed from the funding range will NOT be entitled to any consideration or priority for the receipt of current or future housing credits other than placement on the current ranking and scoring list in accordance with its score. Binding Commitments for housing credits from a future year will not be issued for Applicants so displaced. The last Non- Profit Applicant moved into the funding range, in order to meet the initial 12% set- aside or in order to meet the minimum 10% set-aside after October 1, 2000, will be fully funded contingent upon successful credit underwriting even though that may result in a higher Non-Profit set-aside. After the full Non-Profit set-aside amount has been allocated, remaining Applications from Non-Profit organizations shall compete with all other Applications in the HC Program for remaining Allocation Authority. The Corporation's interpretation of Rule 67-48.032, Florida Administrative Code, and paragraph 2 of the 2000 QAP (collectively, the "Instructions") to determine the procedure for satisfying the Non-Profit Set-Aside in connection with the 2000 application cycle has caused considerable controversy — and led to this proceeding. The controversial interpretation was publicly manifested on September 15, 2000, when the Corporation published a preliminary ranking sheet on its web site which reflected adjustments that its staff had made to fulfill the Non-Profit Set-Aside. Within days, adversely affected applicants were complaining that the Corporation's staff had misinterpreted the Instructions. The Corporation's staff had construed the Instructions to mean that when it is necessary to displace a for-profit within the tentative funding range to satisfy the Non-Profit Set-Aside, the following procedure must be followed: Remove Low-FP!(x!) and replace it with High- NP[D](x). 2/ If there is no domestic non- profit in county group x, then replace Low- FP!(x!) with High-NP[F](x!). 3/ This construction permits High-NP[D!], if there is one, High- NP![F!] if not, to remain outside the funding range, because it might not be in county group x. In practice, the process that the Corporation’s staff had settled upon operated, in the circumstances presented, to the detriment of Petitioners. Here is how it worked. After the tentative funding range was established, the lowest scored for- profit in the class of for-profits was in the Small County group. 4/ There were no non-profits, domestic or foreign, in that group to elevate, however, and so Low-FP!(S!) could not be removed; the fall-back procedure was followed. See endnote 4. As it happened, RPK was Low-FP(L!) and had a lower score than Low-FP(M!). Thus, under the Corporation's staff's interpretation of the Instructions, as revealed by the rankings posted on September 15, 2000, High-NP[D](L!) was moved into the funding range in the place of RPK, even though High-NP[D](L!)'s final score was lower than that of Lakesmart — which was High- NP. (Coral Village and Meadow Glen were the second- and third-ranked domestic non-profits, respectively, in the Medium County Group. Sorted by class, Lakesmart, Coral Village, and Meadow Glen would be ranked first, second, and sixth in the class of non-profit applicants.) 5/ The second lowest-scored for-profit in the class of for-profits was also in the Large County group. Thus, it became Low-FP!(L!) after RPK was removed. It, too, was replaced by the Large County non-profits that became, in turn, High-NP[D](L!) as the next highest-ranked non-profit in that group was moved up into the funding range to satisfy the 12% Non-Profit Set-Aside. In all, the Corporation's staff proposed to elevate — and hence award tax credits to — four non-profit applicants whose final scores were lower than Lakesmart's and Coral Village's. One of those four putative beneficiaries had a lower final score than Meadow Glen's. Lakesmart and others who disagreed with the Corporation’s staff advanced an alternative interpretation of the Instructions. In their view, to ensure that the Non-Profit Set-Aside is met requires the following maneuver: Remove Low-FP(x!) and replace it with High- NP[D!](x). 6/ If there is no domestic non- profit outside the funding range, then replace Low-FP(x!) with High-NP. 7/ This interpretation admits the possibility that Low-FP! might remain in the funding range, because it might not be in county group x. Under this interpretation, favored by all Petitioners, Lakesmart and Coral Village would be elevated into the funding range, rather than being "leap-frogged" by lower-scored non- profits, and RPK would not be displaced. (Of course, Petitioners' interpretation would require that some other for- profit ox be gored — one having a higher score than RPK's.) These competing interpretations of the Instructions were presented to the Corporation's board for consideration at its public meeting on September 22, 2000. After a discussion of the issues, in which members of the public participated, the board voted unanimously to accept the interpretation that the staff had acted upon in preparing the September 15, 2000, rankings. Later in the same meeting the board adopted final rankings, which were prepared in accordance with the approved interpretation, that resulted in the denial of Petitioners' applications for tax credits. The 1997 Awards: Precedent or Peculiarity? Petitioners maintain that their interpretation of the Instructions is supported by a supposed precedent allegedly set in 1997 that, they say, was binding on the Corporation in 2000. In the 1997 cycle, it so happened that after drawing the tentative funding lines, the sum total of credits sought by non-profits within the preliminary funding range failed to reach the then-required threshold of 10%. Thus, for the first time, the Corporation faced the need to replace higher-scored for- profits (that were apparently in line for funding) with lower- scored non-profits that otherwise would not have received credits. The QAP that governed the 1997 awards provided for the Non-Profit Set-Aside but was silent on the procedure for satisfying it: The Agency will allocate not less than 10% of the state’s allocation authority to projects involving qualified, non-profit Applicants, provided they are non-profits organized under Chapter 617, Florida Statutes, and as set forth in Section 42(h)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and Rule Chapter 9I-48, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent's Exhibit 2, page 8. Rule 9I-48.024(3), Florida Administrative Code (1997), did contain directions for carrying out the required substitution. It prescribed the following procedure for elevating non-profits: If 10% of the total Allocation Authority is not utilized by Projects with Non-Profit Applicants, Applications from Non-Profit Applicants that meet scoring threshold requirements shall be moved into the funding range, in order of their comparative scores, until the 10% set-aside is achieved. This will be accomplished by removing the lowest scored Application of a for-profit Applicant from the funding range and replacing it with the highest scored Non-Profit Application below the funding range within the applicable Geographic Set-Aside pursuant to section (2) above. Petitioners' Exhibit 1. These provisions will be referred to hereafter as the "1997 Directions," to distinguish them from the Instructions. Gwen Lightfoot was the Corporation's Deputy Development Officer in 1997. In that capacity, she was directly responsible for implementing the rules relating to the award of low-income housing tax credits. To satisfy the Non-Profit Set- Aside, Ms. Lightfoot followed the 1997 Directions as she understood them. In so doing, she sorted the eligible non- profits by class (i.e. without regard to their respective county groups) and ranked them in score order, from the highest scoring project to the lowest scoring project. 8/ Then, Ms. Lightfoot moved the highest scoring non-profit in the class of non-profits to a position immediately above the for-profit with the lowest score in the same geographic set-aside as the favored non-profit so that the non-profit project would be fully funded. That is, she replaced Low-FP(x!) with High-NP!(x!). This process was repeated, moving the next highest ranked non-profit to a position immediately above the lowest-ranked for-profit in the same geographic set-aside as the elevated non-profit, until the Non-Profit Set-Aside was met. Although the Corporation presently argues that its board was not fully informed in 1997 as to the procedure that Ms. Lightfoot followed in fulfilling the mandate of the Non- Profit Set-Aside, a preponderance of evidence established that Ms. Lightfoot's actions were within the scope of her authority and taken in furtherance of her official duties; that the board was aware of what she had done; and that the board took no action to change the results that followed from Ms. Lightfoot's interpretation and implementation of the 1997 Directions. Ms. Lightfoot's application of the 1997 Directions, in short, was not the unauthorized act of a rogue employee. Rather, as a matter of fact, her action was the Corporation's action, irrespective of what any individual board member might subjectively have understood at the time. In the years following the 1997 awards, Rule 9I- 48.032, Florida Administrative Code, was re-numbered Rule 67- 48.032 and amended three times, the most recent amendment becoming effective on February 24, 2000. As a result, the 1997 Directions evolved into the language of Rule 67-48.032(2) which, though not identical, retains the essential meaning of its predecessor. During the same period, the QAP was also amended three times, the version controlling the 2000 application cycle having been approved by the governor on December 16, 1999, and adopted by reference in the Florida Administrative Code on February 24, 2000. Unlike the revisions to Rule 9I-48.032(3), however, the changes in the QAP that relate to the issue at hand are significant, because the 2000 QAP sets forth a procedure for fulfilling the Non-Profit Set-Aside when the collective amount of credits sought by non-profits in the tentative funding range falls short of the mandated mark, whereas the 1997 QAP did not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Corporation enter a final order dismissing the petitions of Petitioner Lakesmart, Petitioner RPK, and Intervenors Meadow Glen and Coral Village. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 February, 2001.
The Issue The ultimate issues in this case are: 1) whether certain agency statements made by the Respondent, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, regarding the application of the provisions of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, to pension plans for municipal fire fighters and police officers are "rules" as defined by Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes; 2) if so, whether the agency is required to promulgate such "rules" in accordance with Section 120. 535, Florida Statutes; and 3) whether such "rules" constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in violation of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes Specifically, the issues in this case relate to the criteria required of municipal pension plans to qualify for state funds. Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, provide for pension plans for fire fighters and police officers, and authorize two types of pension plans. "Chapter plans" are created by state law, and "local law plans" are created either by special act of the Legislature or by municipal ordinance. The gist of the CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG's Section 120.535 Petition is that the DIVISION is attempting by non-rule policy to impose the same requirements relating to terms, conditions, and benefits on local law plans that the DIVISION requires of chapter plans. Specifically, the alleged non-rule policies of the DIVISION of which the CITY complains are: 1) the definition of "credited service"; 2) the definition of "average final compensation"; 3) the disallowance of a Social Security offset; 4) the interpretation of "disability retirement"; 5) the requirement that all of the CITY's pension plans be in compliance in order to receive state funds; 6) the release of funds to other municipalities not found in compliance; 7) the failure to enforce Rule 60Z-1.004, Florida Administrative Code, which defines "credited service;" and, 8) the application of a declaratory statement issued to the City of Boca Raton to other municipalities. As set forth below, the requirements for local law plans have been the subject of extensive prior litigation. In rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of these statutes, the Court in City of Orlando v. State Department of Insurance, 528 So.2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) stated: Chapters 175 and 185 create a purely voluntary program whereby municipalities may receive state-collected taxes, imposed on property and casualty insurance premiums, with which to fund retirement programs for local police and fire fighters. In exchange for receipt of these funds, the legislature has established certain criteria under which the funds must be operated and managed. Id. at 469. The dispute in this case again focuses on determining what criteria the legislature has established for the operation and management of such local pension plans in order to establish whether a local plan complies with the statute for purposes of receiving state-collected tax funds. Petitioner, CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, and Intervenors, FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES and CITY OF LARGO, take the position that Respondent, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, has made non-rule policy statements, and required compliance therewith, which go beyond the criteria established by the legislature for participation in the program. Petitioner contends that such statements violate Section 120.535, Florida Statutes, because the statements constitute unpromulgated rules, and further that such statements violate Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, because the statements constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. Respondent, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, takes the position that the statements are not "rules" as defined in Section 120.56(12), Florida Statutes, that even if the statements are "rules" it is not practicable or feasible for the agency to promulgate the statements as rules, and that the statements merely apply the provisions of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, as intended by the legislature, and therefore do not violate Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, the CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG (CITY), is a municipality of the State of Florida which participates in the voluntary program to receive state- collected taxes imposed on property and casualty insurance with which to fund retirement programs for its municipal fire fighters and police under Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, respectively. Intervenor, CITY OF LARGO (LARGO), also is a State of Florida municipality participating in such local plans for fire fighters and police. LARGO has standing to intervene in this proceeding. Intervenor, FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES (LEAGUE), represents municipalities participating in such local plans for fire fighters and police. The LEAGUE has standing to intervene in this proceeding. Respondent, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT (DIVISION), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the statutory duty to administer the voluntary program by which municipalities receive state-collected taxes imposed on property and casualty insurance with which to fund local plans under Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes. Prior to 1993, the Florida Department of Insurance was the responsible state agency to administer Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes. Intervenors, MICHAEL MOORE and RICHARD FEINBERG are municipal fire fighters with the CITY and have standing to intervene in this proceeding. (Russell M. Rizzo, a municipal police officer and an intervenor in case No. 95- 2637, did not request to intervene in the Section 120.535 action, case No. 95- 5089.) History Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, relating to pension plans for fire fighters and police, authorize two types of retirement or pension plans. One type is called "chapter plans" and the other is known as "local law plans." Chapter plans are created under state law, and the provisions of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, control the plans' terms, conditions and benefits. Local law plans are purely voluntary and are created either by special act of the Legislature, or by municipal ordinance. The special act or municipal ordinance contain the provisions relating to the terms, conditions, and benefits of the local law retirement plan. Both chapter plans and local law plans receive funds from the state-collected premium tax on property and casualty insurance. The CITY has operated local law retirement plans for fire fighters and police since 1951. The CITY's police and fire fighter plans were first chartered by special act of the Legislature. The fire fighter charter plan has been closed to new members since approximately 1970. The CITY in 1970 established a supplemental retirement plan for fire fighters which was enacted by CITY ordinance. The CITY's police and fire fighter pension plans are subject to union negotiation, and cannot be unilaterally amended. City of Tallahassee v. Public Employee Relations Commission, 393 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In this respect, the CITY may not have the authority to make unilateral changes to its local law plans in order to comply with directives of the DIVISION. The CITY has voluntarily participated on a continuing basis in the program created under Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, whereby the CITY has received state-collected taxes imposed on property and casualty insurance premiums with which to fund its local plans for fire fighters and police. The CITY has received such funds until calendar year 1994. In 1986 the Legislature significantly amended Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes. See Chapters 86-41 and 86-42, Laws of Florida. Chapter 86-41 pertained to municipal fire fighters; Chapter 86-42 pertained to municipal police officers. As indicated above, the constitutionality of these statutes was upheld in City of Orlando v. State Department of Insurance, supra. In section 1. of each act, the Legislature added substantially the same legislative intent language: Therefore, the Legislature declares that it is a proper and legitimate state purpose to provide a uniform retirement system for the benefit of fire fighters as hereinafter defined, and intends, in implementing the provisions of s. 14, Art. X of the State Constitution as they relate to municipal fire fighters' pension trust fund systems and plans, that such retire- ment systems or plans to be managed, administered, operated, and funded in such manner as to maximize the protection of the fire fighters' pension trust funds. This chapter hereby establishes minimum standards for the operation and funding of municipal fire fighters' pension trust fund systems and plans. After the enactment of Chapters 86-41 and 86-42, Laws of Florida, the Department of Insurance undertook rulemaking to implement the provisions of the acts. The CITY and the LEAGUE challenged the proposed rules under Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The Department's proposed rules were upheld by a DOAH Hearing Officer. On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the order of the Hearing Officer, and held that the majority of the department's proposed rules were invalid because statutory provisions governing chapter pension plans, which were not made expressly applicable by the Legislature to local fire fighter and police plans, did not preempt municipal power with respect to pension plans. Florida League of Cities, Inc. v. Department of Insurance, 540 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) review denied 545 So.2d 1367 (Fla. 1989), [hereinafter referred to as the "Rules Case"]. In 1988 the CITY and the Department of Insurance engaged in litigation regarding the compliance of the CITY's local law plans with the Department's construction of the statute. This litigation was ultimately settled by the Department's agreement not to withhold the CITY's premium tax funds. During 1990 and 1991, the Department of Insurance also engaged in litigation with numerous other municipalities regarding compliance of local law plans with the provisions of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes. The Department settled these cases and continued to distribute premium tax funds to these local law plans with the understanding that the disputed issues would be better resolved through rulemaking. The Department of Insurance conducted staff workshops to discuss rulemaking; however, the Department did not thereafter initiate formal rulemaking under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, with regard to promulgation by rule of compliance requirements for local law plans under Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes. In 1993 the Legislature transferred statutory responsibility for the administration of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, from the Department of Insurance to the DIVISION. The legislative transfer effected a transfer of all programs as well as personnel. Since the legislative transfer in 1993, the DIVISION has made a continuous and good faith effort to present these issues to the Legislature for resolution. During the 1996 Session, HB 1951 and SB 2484 have been introduced. These bills specifically address the issues presented in this case. Stipulated Facts The following facts verbatim were set forth by the parties in the Prehearing Stipulation: The DIVISION admits to the authenticity of all documents contained within its files, including, but not limited to, interoffice memoranda, correspondence to and from the DIVISION and/or the Department of Insurance which are contained in the files of the Division, and any correspondence copied to the DIVISION and/or the Department of Insurance which are contained in the files of the DIVISION. The DIVISION takes the position that Sections 175.032 and 185.02, Florida Statutes, (Definitions), apply to local law plans. (The) Position of (the agency in) Declaratory Statement DMS-DR-94-18 was issued to the City of Boca Raton pursuant to Section 120.565, Florida Statutes. It is the position of the DIVISION that a plan containing a mandatory retirement age violates the Older Worker Benefits Protection Act; and that pension plans which violate this federal law are not eligible for distribution of premium tax funds under Sections 175.351 and 185.35, Florida Statutes. It is the position of the DIVISION that fire fighters disabled from duties of a fireman as defined in Section 175.032, Florida Statutes, are eligible for disability benefits. The CITY admits that the Social Security offset contained in its supplemental fire pension plans could possibly reduce a fire fighter's pension below two (2) percent for each year of credited service; however, the CITY specifically has no knowledge that this has or will occur. The CITY admits that Sergeant Rizzo has accrued in excess of thirty- two (32) years of service. The CITY admits that the police pension plan contains a maximum pension plan benefit of 60 percent of the highest pay step of the lowest rank held during the previous three years, which benefit Sgt. Rizzo became eligible for after twenty-five (25) years of active service. The CITY admits after thirty (30) years of service Sgt. Rizzo will retire with a pension benefit equal to less than two (2) percent for each year of active service. The CITY admits that Sgt. Rizzo was permitted to cease all employee contributions to his pension plan after twenty-five (25) years of service. The 1994 premium taxes are withheld from the CITY by the DIVISION. Prior to 1994 the DIVISION, or its predecessor agency, the Department of Insurance, have never withheld Chapter 175 or 185 insurance tax premium moneys from the CITY. The DIVISION has not initiated the rulemaking process with regard to definition of the term "average final compensation" in Section 175.351, Florida Statutes, and there are currently no existing promulgated rules that apply to local law plan definitions for "average final compensation" for the DIVISION. The DIVISION has not initiated the rulemaking process with regard to definition of the term "average final compensation" in Section 185.35, Florida Statutes, and there are currently no existing promulgated rules that apply to local law plan definitions for "average final compensation" for the DIVISION. It is the position of the DIVISION that Rule 60Z-1.004, Florida Administrative Code, defining "credited service" contradicts Chapter 185, Florida Statutes, and is not enforced. It is the position of the DIVISION that all municipal pension plans submitted for review must comply with the non-rule policy at issue in the present case in order to receive Chapter moneys pursuant to Sections 175.351 and 185.35, Florida Statutes. It is the position of the DIVISION that the pension plans of the City of St. Petersburg do not fulfill the requirements of Section 175.351, Florida Statutes, to qualify for release of state premium tax moneys. It is the position of the DIVISION that the pension plans of the City of St. Petersburg do not fulfill the requirements of Section 185.35, Florida Statutes, to qualify for release of state premium tax moneys. It is the position of the DIVISION that the term "credited years of service" as used in Section 175.351(4) and 185.35(1)(d), Florida Statutes, is to be defined in accordance with the term "aggregate number of years of service" and "aggregate number of years of service with the municipality" under Sections 175.032(1)(a) and 185(1)(b), Florida Statutes, respectively. It is the position of the DIVISION that it has the authority under Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 60Z, Florida Administrative Code, to withhold Chapter 175 and 185 premium tax money to plans not in compliance with Sections 175.351 and 185.35. It is the position of the DIVISION that it has the authority to release payment of Chapter 175 and 185 premium tax moneys to plans not in compliance with Sections 175.351 and 185.35, Florida Statutes, provided the municipality is making good faith efforts to bring the violations into compliance.
Findings Of Fact In 1975 the Florida Legislature passed the Medical Malpractice Reform Act, Chapter 75-9, Laws of Florida, now codified in Chapter 768, Florida Statutes. Part of this legislative package included the creation of the Fund. This legislation was passed in response to a medical malpractice insurance crisis which arose when the primary underwriter for the Florida Medical Association sought to stop issuing medical malpractice policies in Florida, thus making it difficult, if not impossible, for physicians or hospitals to obtain medical malpractice insurance coverage at reasonable rates. As a result of this problem, many physicians began to practice defensive medicine, curtail or abandon their practices or practice without coverage of any kind. The Fund is a private not-for-profit organization, participation in which is totally voluntary for its member-health care providers. Insofar as Petitioners are concerned, membership in the Fund is but one of several options available to provide legally required evidence of financial responsibility in order to obtain licensure as a hospital facility in Florida. Physicians, hospitals, health maintenance organizations and ambulatory surgical centers who become members of the Fund must maintain at least $100,000 in primary professional liability insurance. Membership in the Fund grants to each participant a limitation of liability above the $100,000 in primary coverage. To the extent that any settlement or judgment exceeds the primary coverage of the participant, it is paid by the Fund without limitation. The Fund is operated subject to the supervision and approval of a board of governors whose membership is required by law to consist of representatives of the insurance industry, the legal and medical professions, physicians' insurers, hospitals, hospitals' insurers and the general public. The Department is charged by statute with certain regulatory functions concerning the Fund. As the law existed in 1980 a base fee for Fund membership was set by statute at $500 for physicians, after an initial $1,000 enrollment fee for the first year of participation, and at $300 per bed for hospital members. The statute required the Department to set additional fees based upon the classifications of health care providers contained in the statute. In the event that base fees are insufficient to pay all claims asserted against the Fund for a given fund year, the Department is empowered, upon request of the Board of Governors of the Fund, to order assessments against Fund participants to meet any such deficiency. Under the original legislation, all classes of health care providers could be assessed unlimited amounts to make up any deficiencies. As a result of legislative amendments which became effective July 1, 1976, the amount which participants, other than hospitals, could be assessed was limited to the amount each Fund member had paid to join the Fund for that particular coverage year. 1976 legislative amendments also required that each fiscal year of the Fund, which runs from July 1 through June 30, be operated independently of preceding fiscal years, and further required that occurrences giving rise to claims in a particular fund year be paid only from fees or investment income on those fees collected for that particular year. Thus, it is entirely possible for the Fund to experience deficits in a given year, and yet hold surplus funds for other years. On March 14, 1983, the Department of Insurance issued a "Notice of Assessment for 1980-81 Fiscal Fund Year" (hereinafter called the "Notice of Assessment). (exh. 20) Notice of this Notice of Assessment was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, March 25, 1983, Vol. 9, no. 12. The Notice of Assessment announced that the Insurance Commissioner intended to levy and authorize the Fund to collect an assessment in the amount of $23,684,511 from those health care providers that were members of the Fund in fund year 1980-81 (exh. 20). Each of the hospitals named as Petitioners in the Petition for Administrative Proceedings in Case Dos. 83-1067 and 83-1068 were members of the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund during the fund year 1980-1981. (exh. 40; P.H.S. V 1) The chart below contains the following information concerning fund year 1980-81: the amount of the total proposed assessment described in the Notice of Assessment (dated March 14, 1983); the amount of the losses experienced by doctors and hospitals, respectively; the amount of the fees originally paid by doctors and hospitals; and the amount of the proposed assessments for doctors and hospitals; 1980-1981 Fund Year - Total Assessment $23,684,511 DOCTORS HOSPITALS Losses $19,086,800 Losses $29,798,500 Fees Paid 4,299,117 Fees Paid 6,015,827 Assessments 4,322,233 Assessments 18,734,918 (P.H.S. V 9) The Department computed the portion of the assessment to be paid by the different classes of health care providers for the 1980-1981 fund year based upon an "indicated rate method." This method is represented by the following formula: The Department started with the actuarially indicated rate for each class of health care provider as described in the October, 1981 Actuarial Report prepared by Tillinghast, Nelson, et al. This is called the "indicated rate by class." The Department then applied the following formula for each class: Indicated Rate by Class x No. of Members in the Class = Total indicated fees by Class Total Indicated Fees by Class divided by total Indicated Fees for ALL Classes = Percentage of Indicated Fee by Class Percentage of Indicated Fee by Class x Total Expected Loss for ALL Classes = Expected Loss by Class (Expected loss is ALL losses for the fund year including claims previously paid, reserves established on claims asserted and IBNR [incurred but not reported].) (P.H.S. V 12) The "indicated rate method" for allocating assessments among the various classes of health care providers was selected by the Department as the method which most fairly reflected the classifications prescribed in Section 768.54(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The record in this proceeding establishes that this method is the most feasible mechanism for fairly reflecting classifications established by statute, and, at the same time, providing immediate funds necessary to meet all claims against the Fund. (P.H.S. V 13) The difference between the results derived by the "indicated rate method" and the amounts reflected in the Notice of Assessment is due to the application of the statutory cap on assessments against physician members, as applied by the Department of Insurance. (P.H.S. V 14) Exhibit #17 shows (a) the calculations utilized by the Department in spreading the assessments for the 1980-81 fund year, (b) the amount each class would have paid under the "indicated rate method" for the fund year 1980-81 and (c) the amount actually described in the 1980-81 Notice of Assessment of the Department of Insurance. The Notices of Assessment issued by the Department of Insurance for fund years 1980-1981 allocated the "excess assessments" (which could not be applied to physician members because the 768.54(3)(c)'s limitation on the amount physicians could be assessed) among the other classes of health care providers based upon their percentage of "expected losses." (P.H.S. V 16) The amounts of the assessments sought by the Fund, and described in the Notices of Assessment, were calculated by the Fund by using the following formula: Total fees paid during the Fund Year + Investment Income attributable to the Fund Year Expenses allocated to that Fund Year Amount paid on claims for that Fund Year Amount reserved for all known claims for that Fund Year. (P.H.S. V 17) The fees ordered by the Department of Insurance and collected by the Fund plus the interest income generated by such fees for fund year 1980-81 are inadequate to cover claims against the Fund for that year. (P.H.S. V 19) Petitioners, for purposes of this proceeding, do not contest: (a) the method by which the Fund establishes reserves; (b) the amount of the reserves established for any individual claim file; or (c) the amount of the total deficit described in the Notices of Assessment dated March 14, 1983 for fund year 1980-1981. Nonetheless, Petitioners do not concede that the Fund needs all of the money described in the Notice of Assessment dated March 14, 1983 at this time. (P.H.S. V 33,34) The record in this cause establishes that as of March 14, 1983, there existed a deficiency in the Fund's account for the 1980-1981 fund year of at least $23,684,511 for the payment of settlements, final judgments and reserves on existing and known claims. Approximately $19,405.00 of this deficit is directly attributable to one judgment - Von Stetina v. Florida Medical Center. This was a malpractice judgment against a hospital which has been affirmed on appeal by the First District Court. An appeal has been filed in the Florida Supreme Court. (exh. nos. 1, 2, 18, 19, 26, 27 and 38) In view of the statutory cap on the amounts that may be assessed against physician members of the Fund, the foregoing dollar amounts for assessments for the 1980-81 fund year, and the manner in which they are proposed to be allocated among the remaining classes of health care providers are appropriate. The original fees for the 1980-1981 fund year were set in June of 1980. The Fund by letter dated April 21, 1980 requested that the Department approve an increase in membership fees for physicians and surgeons in the amount of twenty-five (25) percent and a redefinition of rate classes that would move eighteen (18) percent of the physicians and surgeons from Class 3 to Class 2. The Department published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly and notified interested parties on its mailing lists that a public hearing was to be held on June 2, 1980. This hearing was held pursuant to 627.351, 768.54, and Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The purpose of the hearing was identified as "to afford the Fund an opportunity to present evidence and agreement in support of its filing and, further, to afford any affected person an opportunity to present evidence and argument relating to the filing." A hearing was in fact held on June 2, 1980. The Fund presented evidence and argument in support of its request for twenty-five (25) percent increase in fees. No parties argued or presented evidence contending that the fees should have been higher. Subsequent to the hearing, the Department notified the Fund by letter dated June 12, 1980 that its request was approved. Acting on the Department's approval, the Fund sent all prospective members of the Fund for the 1980-81 year membership forms. These forms notified each health care provider what the fees for membership for all health care providers would be. In order to join the Fund each health care provider was required to fill out and sign these forms, thereby agreeing to pay the membership fees and any future assessments which might be levied. Both Petitioners and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are not included in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues involved in this cause, or as not having been supported by evidence of record.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner qualifies as a “charitable institution” as defined at Section 212.08(7) (o)2.b., Florida Statutes, and is therefore entitled to a consumer certificate of taxation exemption.
Findings Of Fact The Junior League of Tampa, Inc., (League) is a non- profit corporation exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Articles of Incorporation for the League provide that the League is intended to foster member’s interests in local social, economic, educational, cultural, and civic conditions, and to make efficient use of members as volunteers. According to testimony offered at hearing, the purposes of the Junior League of Tampa are to offer social assistance to persons in the community, provide volunteers to various local organizations, and to offer volunteer training to League members. The League provides member education regarding issues of local concern by offering bus tours through area communities, attendance at government meetings (school board, county commission, etc.) and training sessions focusing on the operation and activities of the League. Members of the League pay dues which are used to support the administrative costs of the organization. Members of the League are expected to provide volunteer services to community organizations through the League. No services are provided directly to individuals. In addition to dues the League raises funds through local fund raising activities, including production of a cookbook and a thrift sale. Fund raising revenue is used to support community projects. According to the financial statements for the fiscal year ending May 31, 1995, the League’s total operational expenses (excluding depreciation) were about $400,000. Expenses were allocated between “program services” and “support services.” Total support services costs were approximately $269,000, including $94,576 for fund raising costs. Other costs allocated to support services included $103,827 in “administrative costs,” $11,089 in “association dues,” $20,493 in “membership expense” and almost $39,000 for the League’s membership publication, “The Sandspur.” None of the support services expenditures were directly related to the community or volunteer efforts of the League. Total program services costs were $131,655, including $21,642 for “program research and evaluation,” $25,876 for “association dues,” and $84,137 for “community projects.” “Program research and evaluation” costs include the expenses of the community advisory board which assists the League in determining local needs and evaluating projects. Additional program research costs include expenses related to development and evaluation of League projects, expenses related to sending Tampa League members to meetings of the national League, other membership expenses, expenses of a public relations campaign, expenses related to preparation of a member brochure describing volunteer opportunities, and “ad hoc training.” None of the expenses allocated to “program research and evaluation” are directly provided to recipient organizations through monetary donation or by provision of volunteers. Expenses identified as “program services/association dues” include $25,876 paid to the American Association of Junior Leagues. The national organization offers information related to the anticipated success of specific league projects. None of the expenses allocated to “association dues” are directly provided to recipient organizations through monetary donation or provision of volunteers. The “community projects” total expenditure of $84,137 represents actual funds donated by the League to recipient organizations. In addition to actual donations, members of the League provide hours of free volunteer service to local IRC 501(c)(3) organizations. During fiscal year 1985, League members provided 11,823 hours of volunteer service to local organizations and to the League’s own community projects. The League asserts that many League members providing volunteer services are professionals and that such services should be valued at approximately $10.00 per hour. The evidence fails to establish that the volunteer services provided require professional education or certification or that the volunteer services should be valued at any more than the minimum wage, $5.00 during the time period relevant to this proceeding. The League lists 22 local activities and organizations for which volunteer services were provided. The parties have stipulated that 12 of the 22 (Bereavement Camp, Kids Rights Fund, Child Life Program, Immunization, Ronald McDonald House, Parenting Power, Emergency Shelter, Georgia Flood Relief, Judeo Christian Health, Bay Area Legal Services, WestCoast Golden Services, and McDonald Training) are accepted as “charitable activities.” The Department asserts that the ten remaining activities and organizations do not meet the relevant definition of acceptable charitable services and can not be included in the League’s total charitable effort for purposes of tax exemption. The ten activities include Puppet Troupe, Children’s Museum, McKay Bay Learning Lab, Funbook, Tampa Tickets, Tampa Area Playground, Tampa Museum of Art, Tampa Bay Youth Orchestra, Musicale and Federated Club and H. B. Plant Museum. The “Puppet Troupe” consists of the preparation and performance of a puppet show for residents of nursing homes and for hospitalized children. The evidence fails to establish that the League's participation in Puppet Troupe is an acceptable charitable service for purposes of the tax determination. The Tampa Children’s Museum is an admission-charging, public museum, open to all, designed to provide learning opportunities for children and parents. The evidence fails to establish that the League's participation in Tampa Children's Museum is an acceptable charitable service for purposes of the tax determination. The McKay Bay Learning Lab offers educational programs to children of elementary school ages. The programs are targeted to special needs children, but are open to all. The evidence fails to establish that the League's participation in the McKay Bay Learning Lab is an acceptable charitable service for purposes of the tax determination. “Funbook” is a coloring book focused on Tampa history and distributed to hospitalized children. The evidence fails to establish that the League's participation in Funbook is an acceptable charitable service for purposes of the tax determination. “Tampa Tickets” is a grant of funds to the Tampa Performing Arts Center and is intended to subsidize the cost of admission to cultural events at the Center. The evidence fails to establish that the League's participation in Tampa Tickets is an acceptable charitable service for purposes of the tax determination. The Tampa Area Playground is a public playground which was constructed with funds and volunteer labor contributed by many local organizations including the League. The evidence fails to establish that the League's participation in the Tampa Area Playground is an acceptable charitable service for purposes of the tax determination. The Tampa Museum of Art is a public admission-charging museum for which the League funded a curriculum guide for use in local schools. The evidence fails to establish that the League's participation in the Tampa Museum of Art is an acceptable charitable service for purposes of the tax determination. The Tampa Bay Youth Orchestra received funds from the League directed towards purchasing musical instruments for children who could not afford them. The evidence fails to establish that the League's participation in the Tampa Bay Youth Orchestra is an acceptable charitable service for purposes of the tax determination. The Musicale and Federated Clubs is a performing arts organization. The League provided a grant of funds to cover the costs of termite treatment for the Club facility. The evidence fails to establish that the League's participation in the Musicale and Federated Clubs is an acceptable charitable service for purposes of the tax determination. The H. B. Plant Museum is a public admission-charging museum. The League contributed funds to purchase two computers used in the museum’s membership solicitation program. The evidence fails to establish that the League's participation in the H. B. Plant Museum is an acceptable charitable service for purposes of the tax determination. The evidence establishes that the McKay Bay Learning Lab, the Children’s Museum, the Tampa Museum of Art, and the H. B. Plant Museum are educational institutions, rather than charitable institutions. Expenditures of funds or volunteer time contributed to educational organizations which do not otherwise meet the requirements for qualification as charitable institutions are properly disallowed from the calculation of the League’s charitable effort. The evidence is insufficient to establish that expenditures related to the Puppet Troupe and Funbook projects, the Tampa Tickets program, the Tampa Area Playground, the Tampa bay Youth Orchestra, or the Musicale and Federated Clubs meet applicable requirements for qualification as a charitable expenditures by the League. Such expenditures are properly disallowed from the calculation of the League’s charitable effort. Based on examination of the total acceptable charitable effort of the League, both donations of volunteer time and actual funds, the evidence fails to establish that the sole or primary purpose of the League is to provide such services.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner’s application for renewal of a Consumer Certificate of Exemption. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Jeremy P. Ross, Esquire Bush, Ross, Gardner, Warren and Rudy, P.A. 220 South Franklin Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Ruth Ann Smith, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to a consumer certificate of exemption as a religious or charitable institution.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has submitted seven (7) exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order. Exceptions 1, and 3 through 6 filed by Petitioner are rejected. Exception 2 is accepted to the extent it states that Petitioner does not hold worship services. The remainder of this exception is rejected. Exception 7 is rejected, except for the first sentence which indicates that the date of purchase of the vehicle was 1995, not 1993. Petitioner's First Exception-- Finding of Fact No. 1: Petitioner's statements as to how Petitioner was advertised are not relevant and, therefore, are rejected. Petitioner's Second Exception-- Finding of Fact No. 2: Accepted that Petitioner does not have worship services. This determination has been made by the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact. See Findings of Fact No. 2 and 3. The remainder of this exception is rejected as being irrelevant. Petitioner's Third Exceptions-- Finding of Fact No. 3: The Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact, Paragraph 3 of the Proposed Recommended Order, that Christian-Muslim Church of God (ALLAH) is not part of any established religion is supported by substantial competent evidence. Thus, Petitioner's exception to this finding is rejected. The statement that Petitioner's founder will write a "Consolidated Moral Bible" is not relevant, and is therefore rejected. The Hearing Officer's finding that Petitioner has generalized plans to establish regular religious services, but has not yet done so, is supported by substantial competent evidence. Therefore, Petitioner's exception to this finding is rejected. The statement as to how assemblies of the church will be organized by Petitioner in the future is not relevant, and is therefore rejected. Petitioner's Fourth Exceptions- Finding of Fact No. 4: Petitioner's statements as to where Petitioner's funds are deposited is not relevant, and therefore is rejected. Petitioner's statements as to the type of donations its founder, Mr. Savas, personally makes are not relevant and, therefore, are rejected. The Hearing Officer found that Petitioner does not qualify as a "religious institution" under s212.08(7)(o) 2.a., Florida Statutes. The Hearing Officer's finding is supported by substantial competent evidence. Thus, Petitioner's exception to this finding is rejected. Petitioner's statement as to why Petitioner needs the sales tax exemption is not relevant and, therefore, is rejected. Petitioner's Fifth Exceptions-- Finding of Fact No. 5: The Hearing Officer found that Petitioner is not registered as, or classified as, any type of legal entity. The Hearing Officer also found that the Petitioner is not a church or charitable institution as those terms are defined under s212.08(7), Florida Statutes for purposes of sales tax exemption. The Hearing Officer's findings are supported by the record and by substantial competent evidence. The remainder of Petitioner's exceptions are not material. Therefore, all of Petitioner's exceptions to Paragraph 5 are hereby rejected. Petitioner's Sixth Exception-- Finding of Fact No. 6: The Hearing Officer found that Petitioner is not registered as, or classified as, any type of legal entity and that Petitioner does not qualify as a "charitable institution" pursuant to s 212.08(7)(o)2.b., Florida Statutes. These findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. Therefore, Petitioner's exception to this paragraph is rejected. Petitioner's Seventh Exceptions-- Finding of Fact No. 7: Accepted that Petitioner's founder purchased his car in 1995, and applied for a consumer's certificate of exemption at that time. The statements as to the beliefs of Petitioner's founder are irrelevant or immaterial, and are rejected accordingly.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying a consumer certificate of tax exemption to Petitioner, the Christian-Muslim Church of God (Allah). DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 18th day of March, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4076 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. - 11. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruth Ann Smith, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 John Savas 1416 Hill Drive Largo, Florida 34640 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to an exemption from sales and use tax as a religious or charitable organization.
Findings Of Fact By Application for Consumer Certificate of Exemption dated March 17, 1992, Petitioner requested a sales tax exemption as a religious organization. The application indicates that Petitioner was incorporated on February 18, 1992. At all times, the president of Petitioner has been Reverend Robert M. Rinaldi. By letter dated April 16, 1992, Respondent requested that Petitioner supply information concerning its primary purpose, including a list of all activities or services and to whom they are generally offered. The letter also requested, among other things, statements of receipts and expenditures and a copy of the letter determining that Petitioner is exempt from federal income tax. Petitioner submitted to Respondent evidence of 12 expenditures during the quarter ending March 31, 1992. The expenditures and their descriptions are as follows: Morrisons-- dinner business; Holiday Inn in Tampa--lodging for quarterly convention; Maas Brother in Naples--attire; Marshalls-- personal; Martha's Health Food Shop--personal; Things Remembered--card case/business cards; RJ Cafe Tropical--lunch interview; Beach Works Marco Island--attire; annual membership fee for vice president's American Express card; Las Vegas Discount golf and tennis in Naples--personal; Eckerd's Vision Works--medical eyeglasses; Quality Inn Golf Country Club in Naples--lodging during business travel; Avon Fashions/Hampton-- personal; Del Wright in Sarasota--automobile expenses and travel; JC Penney--personal; Amador's Restaurant in Naples-- dinner/lunch; Avon Fashions/Hampton--personal; annual membership fee for treasurer's American Express card; and Mobil Oil--business travel. Petitioner produced other evidence of similar types of expenditures, such as for fitness center fees, car insurance, car service, car payments, utilities, and rent. Nothing in the record links these expenditures to religious or charitable activities. There were expenditures for printing religious tracts and self- improvement educational materials, but they do not appear to be a substantial part of the total expenditures of Petitioner during the time in question. After receiving these materials, a representative of Respondent telephoned Reverend Rinaldi and stated that Petitioner would have to submit additional documentation of its income and expenses and formal affiliation with prison chapels where Petitioner reportedly conducted outreach programs. Respondent's representative also asked for evidence of Reverend Rinaldi's counselling credentials. Petitioner next submitted a copy of a letter from the Department of Treasury determining that Petitioner was exempt from federal income tax. Petitioner also submitted a budget for the year ending 1992 and a proposed budget for the year ending 1993. However, the budgets did not document a charitable purpose. The budget reveals that the largest disbursement was $4200, which was rent for an office and living quarters. The largest single receipt was $1764.27, which was a contribution from the incorporator, who was Rev. Rinaldi. There were no charitable receipts, such as from contributions from members, the public, or anonymous sources. On November 10, 1992, Respondent sent a letter to Petitioner requesting additional information, including statements of the primary purpose of the organization and of receipts and expenditures. The request asked for a description or explanation for each charity-related program expenditure. On November 18, 1992, Petitioner submitted a second Application for Consumer's Certificate of Exemption. The information was essentially unchanged from the first application. Rev. Rinaldi also sent Respondent a religious flyer. On February 10, 1993, Petitioner submitted a third Application for Consumer's Certificate of Exemption. The material was essentially unchanged from the preceding two applications. On March 30, 1993, one of Respondent's representatives sent a letter to Petitioner stating that Petitioner does not meet the criteria for exemption from sales tax. In response, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent received April 8, 1993, requesting reconsideration of the denial. On May 4, 1993, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter stating that, as indicated during an earlier telephone conversation, Respondent had not yet received sufficient documentation to justify a sales tax exemption. Following up on Rev. Rinaldi's opinion that Petitioner qualified as a charitable organization, the letter suggests that he submit materials describing each charitable service or activity, the types of persons receiving such services, the frequency that the services are offered, the demonstrated benefit provided by Petitioner to disadvantaged persons, the fees charged by Petitioner, and the availability of Petitioner's services at the same or less cost elsewhere. The letter also asks for a statement of income and expenses. In response, Petitioner filed a fourth Application for Consumer's Certificate of Exemption on November 10, 1993. Rev. Rinaldi explained Petitioner's activities as informing people of the truth and the second coming of Jesus Christ and stopping addictions to drugs and alcohol. The enclosed materials included a church telephone number. The materials state that services are available 24 hours a day for no fees and are provided solely for the spiritual preparation of humanity. The materials also indicate several addresses at which religious activities are conducted. Upon investigation, Respondent learned that Petitioner's telephone number had been disconnected, the street address is Rev. Rinaldi's apartment, and the addresses at which religious activities are conducted are locations of Alcoholic Anonymous, from which Rev. Rinaldi and his church had been barred as public disturbances. Checking with the post office, the investigator learned that all mail for Rev. Rinaldi and Petitioner is being forwarded to an address in New York. Respondent asked for more information, and Petitioner supplied information no different than that previously supplied. By letter dated April 26, 1994, Respondent informed Petitioner that its application was denied. Following another exchange of correspondence, Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Deny dated June 17, 1994. The Notice of Intent to Deny states that Respondent determined that: [Petitioner] travels from church to church and does not assemble regularly at a particular established location. [Petitioner] conducts services for short periods of time at numerous temporary locations. [Respondent] has reviewed your application and supporting documents and has determined that the primary purpose of your organization fails to meet the qualifications for sales tax exemption authorized by Section 212.08(7), Florida Statutes. By letter dated June 24, 1994, Petitioner requested a formal hearing on its application for sales tax exemption. Petitioner does not regularly conduct services. Petitioner does not engage in other religious activities nor does Petitioner provide services typically associated with a church. Petitioner has no established physical place for worship. Petitioner has generalized plans to construct one or more places for worship. However, these plans are post-apocalyptic in nature and thus do not assure the commencement of construction in the immediate future.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an exemption certificate from sales and use tax. ENTERED on December 20, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on December 20, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Rev. Robert Rinaldi P.O. Box 1081 167 N. Collier Blvd. J-3 Marco Island, FL 33937-1081 Attorney Lisa M. Raleigh Office of the Attorney General The Capitol--Tax Section Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's lottery prize should be withheld and used to pay an outstanding debt for child support.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner did not appear and no evidence was presented.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order dismissing the Petitioners request for a formal hearing, and transferring Petitioner's lottery prize to the Department of Revenue in partial satisfaction of Petitioner's debt for past public assistance obligation. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 20th day of October, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: James Merriweather 1333 7th Street West Jacksonville, FL 32209 Chriss Walker, Esquire Child Support Enforcement Department of Revenue P. O. Box 8030 Tallahassee, FL 32314-8030 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of the Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399 Stephen S. Godwin, Esquire Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Hon. Robert F. Milligan, Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Harry Hooper, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol - Room 1302 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
