Findings Of Fact By warranty deed dated July 9, 1973, Floyd L. and Michael Lewis conveyed the fee simple title to certain realty in North Miami Beach to Petitioners Eugene J. Howard and Herbert Seidel. The purchase price for the property was $405,000. The property sold consisted of a twenty-two (22) unit apartment building with twenty (20) furnished apartments and included storage shed, a pool, patio and dock furniture. The closing statement signed by the sellers and purchasers stated: "Florida documentary stamps - on deed - $1,215.00, Florida documentary surtax - on deed - $132.20." $1,347.20 was credited to the Petitioners Howard and Seidel. Petitioners actually paid $10.85 surtax and $132.20 documentary tax. The 1974 tax assessment of the Dade County Property Appraiser for the property was $241,769.00 realty and $14,500.00 for the personalty. Petitioner contends: That part of the purchase price was applicable to -personal property. That the Hearing Officer should make an allocation of the realty included and an allocation for the personalty included. That the Petitioners believe they are entitled to the equitable defense of laches in that the Respondent did not advise Petitioners of the possible error of miscalculation until approximately two years had passed. That if the stamp tax is found to be due and if a penalty is included, the penalty is "excessive penalty" under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and Article I, Section 17, of the Florida Constitution. Respondent contends: That there was an agreement between the Parties, in a signed document that $1,215 in documentary stamps and $132.20 in surtax stamps, reflecting the actual consideration paid for the realty under consideration, would be affixed to the conveyance. That Petitioners failed to fulfill such a an agreement and affixed $132.20 in documentary stamps and $10.85 in surtax stamps to the deed. . That the Department is entitled to the delinquent taxes plus penalty. That the assessment is dated July 9, 1975 and a three- year statute of limitations is applicable. The Hearing Officer further finds: The purchase price for the property under consideration was $405,000. Documentary stamps required on such a purchase were $1,215.; that stamps actually paid were in the amount of $132.20, that $10.85 was actually paid and still due and owing is $121.35. That the Petitioners as well as the Sellers were aware of the proper amount of tax due and signed a receipt reflecting the monies allocable for documentary and surtax stamps. That the Petitioners failed either intentionally or negligently to pay the proper amount of documentary and surtax stamps at the time of recording the deed.
Recommendation Assess the documentary stamps and the documentary surtax against Petitioners together with applicable penalties. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Eugene J. Howard, Esquire 2212 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The sole issue posed herein is: Whether or not the transfer to Petitioner by individuals Hugh P. Conser, Stewart L. Krug and Sidney Barbane1 of certain real property located in Pinellas County, Florida, on or about October 26, 1974, constitutes a conveyance subject to the Documentary Stamp Tax Act, pursuant to Chapter 201, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 26, 1974, the Petitioner received title to certain real property located Pinellas County, Florida, from Stewart L. Krug, Sidney Barbanel and Hugh P. Conser, the principals in KBC Development Corporation, which was recorded in Official Records Book 4229, page 1052, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. The only consideration, as evidenced by the deeds filed in the case, is that the conveyance was for "good and valuable consideration and ten dollars". This other good and valuable consideration, according to Petitioner and the other record evidence, consisted of the issuance of all one hundred shares of the authorized stock of KBC Development Corporation, Petitioner, as evidenced by the Minutes of the Shareholders Meeting of such corporation which was held on July 18, 1973. (See the minutes reflected in an attachment to Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1.) The issued stock had a par value of $5.00. The corporate entity, KBC, as Petitioner, was formed for the purpose of taking title to the property in question and, as evidenced by the record, had no other assets when the subject property was conveyed. On May 6, 1975, the Florida `Department of Revenue, Respondent, recorded in the office of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, a warrant for collection of delinquent documentary stamp taxes in connection with the above-referenced transaction in the amount of $27,599.70, plus an identical amount of penalty, for a total sum of $55,212.40. Said warrant is recorded in O.R. Book 4286, page 31, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. Following a conference with the Department of Revenue, the taxes were paid by the Petitioner under protest. That payment set the stage for the Petitioner's filing of the claim for refund with the Respondent, the Comptroller of the State of Florida, pursuant to Florida Statutes section 215.26. The Petitioner argues that the only taxable consideration resulting from the subject conveyance was the par value of the stock, of which amount sufficient documentary stamps were affixed to the deeds in question. In support of this position, the Petitioner cites the fact that there are no income tax returns filed by the corporation, FIG; no business activities pursued by the corporation; no bank account of the corporation; and no assets held by the corporation, except as agents for the three individuals, Krug, Barbanel and Conser, all of which were acknowledged by all of the mortgagees. Additionally, the Petitioner urges that the bank and lending institutions involved regarded and held each individual personally liable for the indebtedness in connection with the loans advanced for the property in question. Finally, the Petitioner urges that, based on the conveyance in question, there was no shift in the economic burden to the corporation and, therefore, no taxable transaction occurred when the property in question was conveyed from the individuals, Krug, Barbanel and Conser, to FIG Development Corporation.
Conclusions The documentary stamp tax provided by Florida Statutes section 201.02 is an excise tax imposed on particularly described transactions, and in the case of instruments relating to realty, is based upon the total consideration involved in the transfer or conveyance. Thus, the key point in determining whether documentary stamps are to be affixed to an instrument transferring an interest in realty is in the presence or absence of consideration for the transfer. Rule 12A-4 .14, Florida Administrative Code, describes conveyances not subject to the documentary stamp tax as those "conveyances of realty without consideration, including. . .a deed to or by a trustee not pursuant to a sale . . . ." The facts of this case clearly do not illustrate an express or resulting trust relationship between KBC Development Corporation and its principals, Stewart L. Krug, Sidney Barbanel and Hugh P. Conser. When KBC took title to the property from Krug, Conser and Barbanel, the consideration was $10.00 and other valuable consideration and, based on the face of the instrument, the conveyance was not made to KBC subject to payment of any mortgages, etc., by KPC (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1). Section 201.02(1), Florida Statutes (1975). See Florida Department of Revenue v. De Maria, 338 So.2d 838 (Fla. 1976). Additionally, the facts herein reveal that the banks and lending institutions involved in the transaction required the personal guarantees of the individuals, Krug, Barbanel and Conser. No evidence was introduced indicating that Petitioner, KBC Development Corporation, was anything more than an entity whereby the lending institutions had advanced funds for the primary mortgages to Continental Investment and Development Company, which was in no way related to the present corporation, KBC, and that the corporate entity was used to protect the lending institutions from any possible violations of usurious transactions. As stated, the personal endorsements and/or guarantees of the individuals, Barbanel, Krug and Conser, were required by the lending institutions before the primary mortgagee, Continental Investment and Development Company, would be released. Krug, Barbanel and Conser were no more nor less obligated to pay and perform under the obligation, after the conveyance than before. Although there was a change in the form of the obligation, there was no change in the substance. See e.g., Straughn v. Story, 334 So.2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) cert. discharged 348 So.2d 954 (1977). (See Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3 and 4.) For all of these reasons, it is the considered opinion of the undersigned that the Respondents have failed to demonstrate that the consideration for the conveyances in question were anything more than the par value of the stock and, accordingly, documentary stamp taxes should only be assessed in the amount of $4.10. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the excess assessments which Petitioner paid under protest be refunded.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner be refunded the amount of taxes and penalties it paid to the Respondent, Department of Revenue, under protest, over and above the amount it should have paid on the par value of the stock of KBC Corporation when the abovedescribed conveyance was made during October, 1974. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building MAILING ADDRESS: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Donald R. Hall, Esquire Goza, Hall & Peacock, P.A. 100 North Belcher Road Clearwater, Florida 33518 Cecil L. Davis, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA KBC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1596 GERALD LEWIS, as COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondents. / NOTICE TO: DONALD R. HALL, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER GOZA, HALL & PEACOCK, P.A. 100 NORTH BELCHER ROAD CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33518 CECIL L. DAVIS, JR., ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENTS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL THE CAPITOL LL04 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304 You will please take notice that the Governor and Cabinet, acting as head of the Department of Revenue at its meeting on the 12th day of June, 1979, approved the Respondent's Substituted Order, in lieu of the Division of Administrative Hearing's Recommended Order dated April 3, 1979. A copy of the Respondent's Proposed Substituted Order is attached. This constitutes final agency action by the Department of Revenue. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF FLORIDA ROOM 104, CARLTON BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice was furnished by mail to Donald R. Hall, Esquire, Goza, Hall & Peacock, P.A. 100 North Belcher Road, Clearwater, Florida 33518, Attorney for Petitioner; by hand delivery to Cecil L. Davis, Jr., Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, The Capitol LL04, Tallahassee, Florida 32304, Attorney for Respondents and James E. Bradwell, Esquire, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration, Room 530, Carrolton Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32304, this 14th day of June, 1979. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY Attachment STATE OF FLORIDA
Findings Of Fact On or about August 15, 1979, Mead Timber Company and Scott Timber Company conveyed certain property located in Suwannee County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), to Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch (hereinafter referred to as the "Original Conveyance"). The warranty deed for the Original Conveyance was recorded on August 15, 1979, at Official Records Book 187, page 444, of the Public Records of Suwannee County, Florida. In connection with said Original Conveyance the closing statement therefor showed a purchase price of Two Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,400,000.00), said amount being the actual amount of the purchase and sale. In connection with the deed for said Original Conveyance, the closing statement indicated that Seven Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($7,200.00) of documentary stamp taxes were paid based upon Thirty Cents ($.30) per One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) of consideration, and said Seven Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($7,200.00) for documentary stamps was in fact paid. In connection with said Original Conveyance, a first mortgage and security agreement was given by Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch, to the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, said mortgage dated and filed August 15, 1979, at Official Records Book 187, page 451, of the Public Records of Suwannee County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as "First Mortgage"). The mortgage secured a note with a face amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) dated August 15, 1979. The First Mortgage showed a face amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00). In connection with the First Mortgage, pursuant to the loan commitment dated April 13, 1979, only One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000.00) was disbursed thereunder. The parties thereto anticipated that an additional One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000.00) would be disbursed at some future date, subject to conditions precedent that (a) the Borrowers place all of the Property encumbered thereby into cultivation, after having first cleared and prepared same for cultivation, and (b) that the Borrowers install twenty (20) 12-inch irrigation wells which would be appropriately drilled and equipped, and (c) that the Borrowers install twenty (20) automatic center-pivot irrigation systems thereon. The aforementioned conditions precedent have not been accomplished to date. The time period during which the conditions precedent set forth in paragraph seven (7) above could be completed, and during which time period the Borrowers could require the First Mortgage lender to make the additional disbursement under the First Mortgage, has expired, and the Borrowers have no further legal right to require any additional disbursements under the First Mortgage. The Petitioner has waived any right to seek or obtain the additional One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000.00) from the holder of the First Mortgage. In connection with the First Mortgage for the Original Conveyance, the Borrowers paid Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500.00) as documentary stamp taxes on the promissory note secured by the First Mortgage, and paid Six Thousand ($6,000.00) in intangible taxes. In connection with the Original Conveyance, a second mortgage was given by Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd and Alvin C. Futch to Mead Timber Company and Scott Timber Company in the original principal sum of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00), said mortgage dated and filed August 15, 1979, at Official Records Book 187, page 461, of the Public Records of Suwannee County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Mortgage"). On or about October 1, 1980, Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch conveyed a portion of the Property to Timber River, Inc., a Florida corporation, by warranty deed which instrument was filed October 2, 1980, at Official Records Book 203, page 790, of the Public Records of Suwannee County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Conveyance"). In connection with the deed for said Second Conveyance, only minimum documentary stamps in the amount of Forty Cents ($.40) were attached and affixed thereto. The Respondent herein has alleged that, since the Second Conveyance was subject to both the First Mortgage and the Second Mortgage, the taxable consideration should be Three Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,300,000.00)(the face amount of the two [2] mortgages combined), and therefore the documentary stamps which should have been affixed to the deed would be Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($13,200.00), leaving an additional tax due in the amount of Thirteen Thousand One Hundred Ninety-nine and Sixty One-hundredths Dollars ($13,199.60). Timber River, Inc., the grantee of the Second Conveyance, is a corporation which was wholly owned by Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch in equal proportions at the time of the Second Conveyance. Timber River, Inc., in consideration of Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch conveying to said corporation the property described in the deed of the Second Conveyance, issued its common stock to said individuals in equal proportions. Timber River, Inc., took the Property subject to the First Mortgage and second Mortgage, and did not assume or agree to assume either the First Mortgage or the second Mortgage. Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch, individually, have at all times been or are presently liable to the mortgagee, Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, and are personally responsible for making all payments under said mortgage. All payments under said mortgage both prior to and subsequent to the Second Conveyance have been made by Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch, individually.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund of nearly $500 thousand on an alleged overpayment of the stamp tax, where Petitioner paid the tax based on the entire undifferentiated consideration it had received, as a lump-sum payment, from the sale of an operating hotel business comprising real estate, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property.
Findings Of Fact On February 23, 2015, Petitioner 1701 Collins (Miami) Owner, LLC ("Taxpayer"), a Delaware limited liability company, entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Agreement") to sell a going concern, namely a hotel and conference center doing business in Miami Beach, Florida, as the SLS Hotel South Beach (the "Hotel Business"), to 1701 Miami (Owner), LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Purchaser"). Purchaser paid Taxpayer $125 million for the Hotel Business. The Hotel Business comprised two categories of property, i.e., real estate ("RE") and personal property ("PP"). The PP, in turn, consisted of two subcategories of property, tangible personal property ("TPP") and intangible personal property ("ITPP"). It is undisputed that the property transferred pursuant to the Agreement included RE, TPP, and ITPP. The sale closed on June 5, 2015, and a special warranty deed was recorded on June 8, 2015, which showed nominal consideration of $10. Pursuant to the Agreement, Taxpayer was responsible for remitting the documentary stamp tax and the discretionary surtax (collectively, "stamp tax"). Stamp tax is due on instruments transferring RE; the amount of the tax, payable per instrument recorded, is based upon the consideration paid for RE. Stamp tax is not assessed on consideration given in exchange for PP. The Agreement contains a provision obligating the parties to agree, before closing, upon a reasonable allocation of the lump-sum purchase price between the three types of property comprising the Hotel Business. For reasons unknown, this allocation, which was to be made "for federal, state and local tax purposes," never occurred. The failure of the parties to agree upon an allocation, if indeed they even attempted to negotiate this point, did not prevent the sale from occurring. Neither party declared the other to be in breach of the Agreement as a result of their nonallocation of the consideration. The upshot is that, as between Taxpayer and the Purchaser, the $125 million purchase price was treated as undifferentiated consideration for the whole enterprise. Taxpayer paid stamp tax in the amount of approximately $1.3 million based on the full $125 million of undifferentiated consideration. Taxpayer paid the correct amount of stamp tax if the entire consideration were given in exchange for the RE transferred to Purchaser pursuant the Agreement——if, in other words, the Purchaser paid nothing for the elements of the Hotel Business consisting of PP. On February 6, 2018, Taxpayer timely filed an Application for Refund with Respondent Department of Revenue (the "Department"), which is the agency responsible for the administration of the state's tax laws. Relying on a report dated February 1, 2018 (the "Deal Pricing Analysis" or "DPA"), which had been prepared for Taxpayer by Bernice T. Dowell of Cynsur, LLC, Taxpayer sought a refund in the amount of $495,013.05. As grounds therefor, Taxpayer stated that it had "paid Documentary Stamp Tax on personal property in addition to real property." Taxpayer's position, at the time of the refund application and throughout this proceeding, is that its stamp tax liability should be based, not on the total undifferentiated consideration of $125 million given in the exchange for the Hotel Business, but on $77.8 million, which, according to the DPA, is the "implied value" of——i.e., the pro-rata share of the lump-sum purchase price that may be fairly allocated exclusively to——the RE transferred pursuant to the Agreement. Taxpayer claims that, to the extent it paid stamp tax on the "implied values" (as determined in the DPA) of the TPP ($7 million) and ITPP ($40.2 million) included in the transfer of the Hotel Business, it mistakenly overpaid the tax.1/ On February 23, 2018, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Make Refund Claim Changes, which informed Taxpayer that the Department planned to "change" the refund amount requested, from roughly $500 thousand, to $0——to deny the refund, in other words. In explanation for this proposed decision, the Department wrote: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the [special warranty deed] was recorded. Please provide supporting information regarding allocation of purchase price on or around the time of the sale." This was followed, on April 2, 2018, by the Department's issuance of a Notice of Proposed Refund Denial, whose title tells its purpose. The grounds were the same as before: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the document was recorded." Taxpayer timely filed a protest to challenge the proposed refund denial, on May 31, 2018. Taxpayer argued that the $125 million consideration, which Purchaser paid for the Hotel Business operation, necessarily bought the RE, TPP, and ITPP constituting the going concern; and, therefore, because stamp tax is due only on the consideration exchanged for RE, and because there is no requirement under Florida law that the undifferentiated consideration exchanged for a going concern be allocated, at any specific time, to the categories or subcategories of property transferred in the sale, Taxpayer, having paid stamp tax on consideration given for TPP and ITPP, is owed a refund. The Department's tax conferee determined that the proposed denial of Taxpayer's refund request should be upheld because, as he explained in a memorandum prepared on or around December 27, 2018, "[t]he taxpayer [had failed to] establish that an allocation of consideration between Florida real property, tangible personal property, and intangible property was made prior to the transfer of the property such that tax would be based only on the consideration allocated to the real property." The Department issued its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial on January 9, 2019. In the "Law & Discussion" section of the decision, the Department wrote: When real and personal property are sold together, and there is no itemization of the personal property, then the sales price is deemed to be the consideration paid for the real property. [2] Likewise, when the personal property is itemized, then only the amount of the sales price allocated for the real property is consideration for the real property and subject to the documentary stamp tax. The first of these propositions will be referred to as the "Default Allocation Presumption." The second will be called "Consensual-Allocation Deference." The Department cited no law in support of either principle. In its intended decision, the Department found, as a matter of fact, that Taxpayer and Purchaser had not "established an allocation between all properties prior to the transfer" of the Hotel Business. Thus, the Department concluded that Taxpayer was not entitled to Consensual-Allocation Deference, but rather was subject to the Default Allocation Presumption, pursuant to which the full undifferentiated consideration of $125 million would be "deemed to be the consideration paid for the" RE. Taxpayer timely requested an administrative hearing to determine its substantial interests with regard to the refund request that the Department proposes to deny. After initiating the instant proceeding, Taxpayer filed a Petition to Determine Invalidity of Agency Statement, which was docketed under DOAH Case No. 19-3639RU (the "Rule Challenge"). In its section 120.56(4) petition, Taxpayer alleges that the Department has taken a position of disputed scope or effect ("PDSE"), which meets the definition of a "rule" under section 120.52(16) and has not been adopted pursuant to the rulemaking procedure prescribed in section 120.54. The Department's alleged PDSE, as described in Taxpayer's petition, is as follows: In the administration of documentary stamp tax and surtax, tax is due on the total consideration paid for real property, tangible property and intangible property, unless an allocation of consideration paid for each type of property sold has been made by the taxpayer on or before the date the transfer of the property or recording of the deed. If the alleged PDSE is an unadopted rule, as Taxpayer further alleges, then the Department is in violation of section 120.54(1)(a). Although the Rule Challenge will be decided in a separate Final Order, the questions of whether the alleged agency PDSE exists, and, if so, whether the PDSE is an unadopted rule, are relevant here, as well, because neither the Department nor the undersigned may "base agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule." § 120.57(1)(e)1., Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the Rule Challenge was consolidated with this case for hearing. The Department, in fact, has taken a PDSE, which is substantially the same as Taxpayer described it. The undersigned rephrases and refines the agency's PDSE, to conform to the evidence presented at hearing, as follows: In determining the amount stamp tax due on an instrument arising from the lump-sum purchase of assets comprising both RE and PP, then, absent an agreement by the contracting parties to apportion the consideration between the categories or subcategories of property conveyed, made not later than the date of recordation (the "Deadline"), it is conclusively presumed that 100% of the undifferentiated consideration paid for the RE and PP combined is attributable to the RE alone. According to the PDSE, the parties to a lump-sum purchase of different classes of property (a "Lump—Sum Mixed Sale" or "LSMS") possess the power to control the amount of stamp tax by agreeing upon a distribution of the consideration between RE and PP, or not, before the Deadline.2/ If they timely make such an agreement, then, in accordance with Consensual-Allocation Deference, which is absolute, the stamp tax will be based upon whatever amount the parties attribute to the RE. If they do not, then, under the Default Allocation Presumption, which is irrebuttable, the stamp tax will be based upon the undifferentiated consideration. Simultaneously with the issuance of this Recommended Order, the undersigned is rendering a Final Order in the Rule Challenge, which determines that the PDSE at issue is an unadopted rule. This determination precludes the undersigned, and the Department, from applying the PDSE as an authoritative rule of decision in determining Taxpayer's substantial interests. The undersigned concludes further, for reasons set forth below, that the PDSE does not reflect a persuasive or correct interpretation of the applicable law. Rather, because the stamp tax is assessed only against the consideration given in exchange for RE, the law requires that, in determining the amount of stamp tax due on an instrument arising from an LSMS, a pro-rata share of the undifferentiated consideration must be allocated to the RE. The amount of the undifferentiated consideration that is reasonably attributable to the RE conveyed in an LSMS is a question of fact. To prove its allegation that only $77.8 million of the consideration received from Purchaser for the Hotel Business, and not the entire $125 million, is attributable to the RE conveyed in the LSMS, Taxpayer relies upon the DPA and the testimony of Ms. Dowell, who authored that report. The Department did not present any expert testimony to rebut the opinions of Ms. Dowell concerning the allocation of the undifferentiated consideration. Rather, the Department argues that Ms. Dowell's opinions are unreliable as a matter of law and should be disregarded, if not excluded as inadmissible——a position that depends heavily upon the Daubert standard for screening expert testimony, which does not apply in administrative proceedings, for reasons that will be explained in the Conclusions of Law. Alternatively, the Department asserts, based on Taxpayer's 2015 federal income tax return, that the amount paid for the RE component of the Hotel Business was actually $122 million. Although this argument is inconsistent with the Department's main position, because it concedes that the allocation is a disputable issue of material fact, rather than a legal conclusion driven by the Default Allocation Presumption or Consensual-Allocation Deference, as applicable, the Department is correct that the tax return can be viewed as evidence in conflict with Ms. Dowell's testimony; the undersigned will resolve the evidential conflict in favor of Ms. Dowell's testimony, in findings below. Primarily, though, the Department eschews evidence bearing on the pro-rata allocation of the consideration on the grounds that the Default Allocation Presumption conclusively establishes the taxable amount as a matter of law. In other words, the Department considers Ms. Dowell's opinions to be irrelevant, regardless of her credibility as an expert witness—— or lack thereof. In this respect, the Department has made a strategic error because the Default Allocation Presumption, besides being extralegal, is both irrational and arbitrary. It is irrational to assume that the seller in an arm's length transaction would simply give away valuable PP for nothing of value in return. It is arbitrary automatically to assign all of the undifferentiated consideration paid in an LSMS to one category of property transferred, i.e., RE, to the exclusion of the other property types exchanged. Systematically allocating the entire purchase price to any other involved property class, e.g., TPP, would be equally (un)justifiable. Put another way, there is no rational answer to the question: Why not deem the entire purchase price allocable to the personal property? Why not a 50/50 split instead? Or 60/40? The Default Allocation Presumption, in short, is not even a reasonable inference. Without the Default Allocation Presumption to trump the DPA, the Department is left with the representations of value in the Form 4797 attached to Taxpayer's 2015 federal income tax return as its best, indeed only, rebuttal evidence. The form is used to report gain or loss from sales of business property, such as, in this instance, the Hotel Business. In its return, Taxpayer reported gross sales prices of $20 million for the hotel land, $102 million for the hotel building, and $3 million for the hotel's furniture, fixtures, and equipment. In other words, Taxpayer represented to the Internal Revenue Service that $122 million of the undifferentiated consideration for the Hotel Business was attributable to RE, with the balance going towards TPP. Notably, Taxpayer did not list, much less assign value to, any "section 197 intangible" property, such as goodwill, going concern value, workforce in place, business records, operating systems, permits, licenses, trade names, etc. See 26 U.S.C § 197(d). Taxpayer's Form 4797 statements regarding the cumulative sales price of the RE are admissions that, arguably at least, conflict with Ms. Dowell's opinions as expressed in the DPA. See § 90.803(18), Fla. Stat. What is to be made of these admissions? They are not binding, of course. Taxpayer is free to disavow or distinguish the statements in its Form 4797, which is essentially what it has done. Different taxes, different rules, different reasons—— in these general terms, Taxpayer strives to deflect attention from, and dismiss as irrelevant any serious consideration of, its federal income tax filing. Taxpayer's position is not without merit because, in fact, the stamp tax is fundamentally different from the federal income tax, as are the laws governing these noncomparable revenue raising measures. On the other hand, Taxpayer did declare the gross sales prices of the land, building, and TPP to be as described above, and these statements of apparent historical fact would seem to be true regardless of the specific tax purposes that prompted their making. There is more to this evidence than Taxpayer would have it. Ultimately, however, the undersigned finds the Form 4797 evidence to be less persuasive than the DPA, for several reasons. First, it is undisputed that ITPP was conveyed in the LSMS of the Hotel Business, and this ITPP included section 197 intangibles. But: Was Taxpayer required to segregate, and report separately, the gross sales price of these section 197 intangibles on its Form 4797? The undersigned does not know. Or, was Taxpayer allowed (or even obligated) to put the value of the section 197 intangibles onto, say, the building? Again, the undersigned does not know. To evaluate the persuasive force of the Form 4797 admissions, however, one needs to know these things. If Taxpayer were not required, for example, to report separately the value of the section 197 intangibles, and if, further, there were tax advantages in not doing so, then the admissions at issue would not be very probative. There is no evidence in the record regarding how, from May 2012, when Taxpayer acquired the Hotel Business, Taxpayer valued the attendant section 197 intangibles, for federal income tax purposes. It is possible that, for reasons undisclosed in this proceeding, Taxpayer never segregated the cost of the section 197 intangibles but instead allowed the value of the ITPP to be taxed as part of the value of the building. In any event, topics such as the proper classification of business property under the Internal Revenue Code; the different amortization periods applicable to various types of property; the tax planning strategies an owner might cautiously, aggressively, or even illegally employ to minimize its liability; and the common mistakes made, or advantages overlooked, by tax preparers, are complex and beyond the scope of the current record.3/ As a result, the statements regarding asset prices in Taxpayer's 2015 federal income tax return, which sit in the record practically devoid of meaningful context, are consistent with too many alternative possibilities to be credited as persuasive admissions about the respective values of the land and building in question.4/ Second, as mentioned, Taxpayer did not state, on the Form 4797, that ITPP was sold for a price of $0, in which case one might expect Taxpayer also to have reported a loss on the sale of section 197 intangible property. Rather, Taxpayer did not disclose the sale of any ITPP in the LSMS at issue. This is important, from a weight-of-the-evidence standpoint, because it is an undisputed historical fact that valuable ITPP was conveyed to Purchaser in the subject transaction, which makes it unreasonable to infer a gross sales price of $0 for the ITPP. Imagine, however, the probative force the Form would have had if Taxpayer had listed a gross sales price of, say, $1 million for the ITPP, together with corresponding reductions in the prices of the RE and TPP; in such a hypothetical situation, the Form 4797 admissions would have been much more persuasive as an apportionment of the undifferentiated consideration. As it stands, however, the reasonably inferable likelihood is that Taxpayer did not report the sales price of the ITPP because it did not report the sale of ITPP——not because there was no sale (for there was) or because the sales price was $0 (which is unlikely), but for other reasons, unknowable on the instant record. Third, for purposes of levying Taxpayer's 2015 real estate property taxes, the Miami-Dade Tax Collector appraised the RE at $39 million. (This figure is the higher of two contemporaneous assessments by the local taxing authority.) This is less than one-third of $122 million——but, in contrast, constitutes 50% of Ms. Dowell's pro-rata allocation of consideration to the RE. There is no evidence in the record regarding the reliability of the local tax collector's appraisals of hotel property, or specifically the percentage of fair market value such assessments are reasonably likely to reflect. Therefore, the undersigned does not place too much weight on the 2015 ad-valorem tax assessments. Still, one cannot help but notice that Ms. Dowell's opinions on the RE's implied value are much closer to the Miami-Dade County Tax Collector's appraisal than the Form 4797 admissions.5/ Having found that the Form 4797 admissions possess some, but not much, probative value regarding the allocation of the undifferentiated consideration, the DPA emerges largely unscathed. As fact-finder, the undersigned has the discretion, nevertheless, to reject, as not credible, the expert testimony of Ms. Dowell. But he credits her opinions, both because Ms. Dowell is a qualified authority on the subject matter, and because the opinions she has expressed are objectively reasonable and logically supported. As for Ms. Dowell's credentials, she has a bachelor of science degree and a master of science degree, both in finance. She has worked in the field of property valuation for around 30 years. Working for major hotel companies, Ms. Dowell routinely performed the sort of allocation of value between asset classes that she has conducted in this case. In 2007, Ms. Dowell formed Cynsur, Inc., which performs value allocations for hospitality industry clients, predominately for taxation purposes, as here. Ms. Dowell has conducted approximately 1,000 deal pricing analyses for clients around the country. In the niche of implied value allocations between the categories of property transferred in LSMS transactions involving hotel operations, Ms. Dowell is clearly an experienced, knowledgeable, and credible expert. The DPA that Ms. Dowell prepared is not an independent appraisal of the hotel property per se, but an allocation of the undifferentiated consideration, which uses estimates of value as the basis for dividing the lump-sum purchase price into three shares, each representing an amount reasonably attributable to a type of property conveyed in the LSMS. The estimates of value that provide the grounds for determining the implied price-per- category are a kind of appraisal, but the DPA is not designed or expected to produce a total valuation that might exceed, or fall short of, the $125 million lump-sum purchase price that is being apportioned. Again, to be clear, the goal of the DPA is to divide the $125 million into asset classes, not to verify whether $125 million was the fair market value of the Hotel Business in 2015, because the stamp tax applies, not to fair market value as such, but to that portion of the undifferentiated consideration fairly attributable to the RE conveyed. Ms. Dowell's approach to apportionment is to determine the "implied values" of the RE and TPP by analyzing the income an owner would expect to receive on a separate investment in the RE or TPP, as the case may be, apart from the Hotel Business as a whole. She starts with a discounted cash flow analysis of the Hotel Business as a going concern, using the Purchaser's pro forma projections as developed at the time of the LSMS. In this instance, Purchaser had presented a five-year projection of cash flow to analyze the investment, which assumed that the Hotel Business would be sold at the end of year five. Using Purchaser's assumptions, Ms. Dowell determined that the hotel acquisition would yield an implied rate of return on (and of) investment of 11.99%. With this in mind, Ms. Dowell sought to quantify the present value of the income that an owner would expect to receive on an investment in the hotel RE alone, based on a hypothetical or proxy rent for this asset in isolation. To determine the hypothetical rent, Ms. Dowell needed to make certain assumptions, which are set forth in the DPA. She determined, ultimately, that 12% of gross operating revenue represents a reasonable approximation of the proxy rent for the RE assets in question. Of course, the assumptions underlying this determination are not necessarily, or even probably, the only reasonable assumptions that could have been made. The Department, however, did not offer any expert opinion evidence that challenged Ms. Dowell's assumptions, nor did it present alternative rental scenarios. Ms. Dowell discounted the projected, five-year RE income stream at 10%, reflecting the more conservative nature of a pure RE investment as compared to an investment in the Hotel Business as a going concern. The Department did not offer any expert opinion testimony disputing this discount factor. Ms. Dowell concluded that the net present value of the RE at issue was $77,803,500 ($77.8 million when rounded), which represents about 62% of the undifferentiated consideration for the Hotel Business. The undersigned credits this opinion and finds that $77.8 million is a reasonable allocation of consideration to the RE component of the Hotel Business. Ms. Dowell performed a similar analysis of a hypothetical standalone investment in the hotel TPP and calculated a net present value of $7 million, using a discount rate of 11%. This left the remainder of $40,196,500 to be allocated to ITPP. For present purposes, the breakdown between TPP and ITPP is relatively unimportant because the stamp tax is not payable on consideration given for PP of any stripe. Indeed, the ultimate factual determination that $77.8 million of the undifferentiated consideration is reasonably attributable to RE is the material finding; from that, it follows mathematically that the remaining balance of $47.2 million reflects consideration for the PP, however that figure might be allocated between TPP and ITPP. Thus, having found that $77.8 million is a reasonable allocation of consideration to the RE component of the Hotel Business, the undersigned is bound to determine that $47.2 million is a reasonable allocation of consideration to the PP. Because Taxpayer paid stamp tax on $125 million instead of $77.8 million, it overpaid the tax and is due a refund. It is undisputed that the amount of the stamp tax that Taxpayer paid on the excess consideration above $77.8 million is $495,013.05.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order approving Taxpayer's claim and authorizing payment of $495,013.05 to Taxpayer as a refund of overpayment of the stamp tax, plus statutory interest if and to the extent section 213.255, Florida Statutes, requires such additional compensation. (If a dispute of material fact arises in connection with the payment of interest, the Department should return the matter to DOAH for a hearing.) DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The individual taxpayers purchased a motel giving not secured by a mortgage on the motel as a portion of the consideration paid to the grantors. The individual taxpayers subsequently conveyed an undivided one-half interest in the motel to 6804 East, Inc., a corporation wholly owned by the individual taxpayers. Although no consideration was recited in the conveyance, the corporation assumed responsibility for 50 percent of the mortgage indebtedness which was stipulated to have been $96,250. Subsequently, 6804 East, Inc. transferred the property to 6804 Motel, Inc., another corporation wholly owned by the individual taxpayers. Again, no consideration was recited in the conveyance; however, 6804 Motel, Inc. assumed responsibility from 6804 East, Inc. for 50 percent of the indebtedness on the property. The Department of Revenue asserts that documentary stamp taxes are due on both of the transfers pursuant to Section 201.02, Florida Statutes, there having been only nominal documentary stamp taxes placed on the documents. The individual taxpayers and 6804 Motel, Inc., controvert the assessment of taxes on the basis that there was no consideration because the individual taxpayers were never relieved of any responsibility for the debt because they fully owned the two corporations and because they had such an equity investment in the purchase that they could not stand aside and see the corporations default. 6804 Motel, Inc. also questions the assessment of the taxes against it as the grantee in the transfer from 6804 East, Inc. In support of their arguments, the taxpayers introduced evidence that the individual taxpayers intended, prior to purchase, to convey an interest in the motel to 6804 East, Inc., and that after the transfer to 6804 Motel, Inc., the individual taxpayers paid all deficit operating expenses for the motel.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the Hearing Officer recommends that the petition of the taxpayers in this case is denied and that the documentary stamp taxes, as proposed in assessments M-65 and M-66, together with a 25 percent penalty and 1 percent interest per month on the unpaid tax be assessed. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of August, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph Monroe 7211 North Dale Mabry Tampa, Florida 33614 Maxie Broome, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact On May 8, 1986, Petitioner filed with the Department of Revenue, as agent for the Comptroller, an application for documentary stamp tax refund in the amount of $16,125.00. Subsequently, the Department of Revenue recommended that the application be denied and on November 24, 1986, the Comptroller issued an Order denying the application. Thereafter Petitioner duly requested an Administrative Hearing pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and such hearing was duly conducted by William J. Kendrick, Hearing Officer for the Division of Administrative Hearings, on April 13, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. On June 10, 1987, Hearing Officer Kendrick issued his Recommended Order in which he separately stated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommended that the application be approved. Copies of that Recommended Order have been furnished to all parties. Petitioner has filed no exceptions to the Recommended Order as of the date hereof, however, the Assistant Attorney General, representing the Comptroller in this matter, has filed exceptions to paragraph 5 of the hearing officer's Conclusions of Law which reads as follows. The tax imposed by Section 201.08, Florida Statutes, is levied on a written obligation to pay money, not on a security interest. Under the provisions of Section 201.09(2), a security interest (mortgage) is not subject to taxation if the written obliga- tion to pay money (promissory note) is exempt from the tax. Therefore, whether the transac- tion is exempt is dependent upon whether there was any material change in the promissory note and the renewal note, and not whether there as any material change in the mortgage. Since, in the instant case, there was no material change between the original promissory note and the renewal note, it follows that the subject transaction is exempt from the tax levied by Section 201.08, Florida Statutes. The Findings of Fact as determined by the Hearing Officer were by stipulated agreement of the parties filed with the hearing officer on June 8, 1987. Those findings are adopted as the Findings of Fact for this Order and were as follows: On February 2, 1981, a Mortgage and Security Agreement was signed by the proper corporate officers of SNW Corp. ("SNW"), PNW Corp ("PNW"), and KNW Corp. ("KNW"), all Florida Corporations securing a Note in the amount of $22,000,000.00 upon which documen- tary and intangible taxes were paid. On October 1, 1983, an Amendment to the Mortgage was signed by the appropriate corporate officers of SNW, PNW AND KNW. No documentary stamps were affixed to this document. On March 13, 1986, a Second Amend- ment to Mortgage and Security Agreement (the "Second Amendment") was signed by the appro- priate corporate officers of SNW, PNW, KNW, and Kenneth Wolofsky, Individually and as Trustee. The Second Amendment refers to the Mortgage and was intended to "secure that certain Renewal Note" from SNW, PNW AND KNW in the amount of $10,000,000.00. The Renewal Note was executed by Kenneth Wolofsky solely in his corporate capacity on behalf of KNW not individually or as trustee. Petitioner, Chicago Title Company, was acting in its capacity as agent for the borrowers and was responsible for having the Second Amendment to Mortgage and Security Agreement dated March 13, 1986, recorded. Documentary stamps were paid under protest upon recordation of the Second Amend- ment in the amount of $16,125.00. Petitioner filed an Application for Refund from the State of Florida for the documentary stamps paid on the Second Amend- ment which was denied by the Comptroller of the State of Florida. Thereafter, the Peti- tioner sought an administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's request for refund in the sum of $16,125.00 be GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact 1-6 are addressed in paragraphs 1-6, respectively. Respondent's proposed findings of fact 1-6 are addressed in paragraphs 1-6, respectively. COPIES FURNISHED: Warren R. Tranzenfeld, Esquire Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1428 Brickell Avenue Forth Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Alan Burns, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On February 16, 1979, I-B-A, Inc., a Florida corporation, executed a Declaration of Trust pursuant to Section 689.071, Florida Statutes (1977), designating I-B-A, Inc., as Beneficiary and Lewis H. Harmon as Trustee. The trust agreement defined and declared the interest of the Beneficiary to be personal property only. Pursuant to the terms of the trust agreement I-B-A, Inc., conveyed legal title to the real property described in the Declaration of Trust to the Trustee by Warranty Deed. I-B-A, Inc., assigned its beneficial interest to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. Following the assignment, the Trustee, upon direction of the Beneficiary, conveyed legal title to the property to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. by Special Warranty Deed. These documents were all executed on February 16, 1979, and only minimal documentary stamps were placed on the Warranty Deed and the Special Warranty Deed. The consideration paid for the assignment of the beneficial interest from I-B-A, Inc., to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. was $49,101,000. On June 27, 1978, attorneys for taxpayer requested a private ruling from DOR respecting the documentary stamp taxes due on conveyances transferring real property through a Florida land trust established pursuant to Section 689.071, Florida Statutes. By letter dated July 10, 1978, DOR responded to this inquiry by opining that if the necessary documentation exists to comply with the statute the two recorded conveyances would require only minimal documentary tax stamps. One or more articles and/or editorials appeared in Miami newspapers following the February 16, 1979, transaction above discussed pointing out that some $200,000 in documentary stamp taxes had not been collected by the State on the transfer of a large downtown office building from one owner to another. On November 8, 1979, taxpayer received a Notice of Proposed Assessment under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, in which DOR claimed $268,939.10 in taxes, penalties and interest due on the Special Warranty Deed by which the Trustee conveyed the trust property to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. Following an informal conference between Taxpayer's attorneys and DOR, DOR on June 18, 1980, issued a Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, in which DOR claimed $283,939.76 in taxes, penalties and interest, with interest accruing at the rate of $66.18 per day. In this assessment DOR claimed taxes were due on the Special Warranty Deed from Trustee to Taxpayer or, in the alternative, on the assignment of the beneficial interest under the trust from I-B-A, Inc., to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. Both the Warranty Deed from I-B-A, Inc., to the Trustee and the Special Warranty Deed from the Trustee to One Biscayne Tower, N.V. were recorded. The Trust Agreement was not recorded. DOR's basis for the assessment issued in this transaction was that no recorded instrument contained a provision declaring the interests of the beneficiaries under the Trust Agreement to be personal property-only. Following receipt of the Revised Assessment, the Trustee and One Biscayne Tower, N.V. filed suit in the Circuit court in and for Dade County seeking to reform the Warranty Deed from I-B-A, Inc., to the Trustee to include a provision specifically stating that the interest of the beneficiaries under the Trust Agreement was personal property only. I-B-A, Inc., was joined as a defendant. On 18 July 1980, the parties to this suit submitted a stipulation to the court that final judgment may be entered ex parte without delay, reforming the Warranty Deed ab initio in accordance with the Complaint. By Final Judgment entered 12 August 1980, Circuit Judge Dan Satin reformed this Warranty Deed ab initio to include the language in a recorded instrument specified in Section 689.071(4), Florida Statutes. The purpose of the parties in setting up a Florida land trust through which to transfer the property was to avoid the payment of documentary stamp taxes and surtaxes on the $49,101,000 purchase price which a bankruptcy court had approved for the sale of this asset. Accordingly, the reformation of the Warranty Deed was to comply with the intent of the parties at the time the Warranty Deed was executed and delivered.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Findings contained in paragraphs 1-28, were stipulated to by the parties. Gary D. Miller and Katherine A. Miller made a note to Southeast Bank (Southeast) dated March 27, 1990, in the stated amount of $80,000 (the Note). Gary D. Miller and Katherine A. Miller (the Millers) executed a Future Advance Note, Modification and Cross-Collateralization Agreement (the Mortgage) in favor of Southeast dated March 27, 1990, and recorded in Volume 4178, page 2981, of the official records of Orange County, Florida. Southeast was doing business and in good standing on March 27, 1990. The Note was consolidated with a promissory note made by the Millers dated June 7, 1988 in the stated amount of $350,000 and replaced by a Consolidated Replacement Note dated April 9, 1991, in the stated amount of $371,250 (the Consolidated Note). The Consolidated Note was defined and secured in a Mortgage Modification Agreement between Southeast and the Millers dated April 9, 1991 and recorded at volume 4278, page 0065 of the official records of Orange County, Florida. Southeast was doing business and in good standing on April 9, 1991. First Union National Bank of Florida (First Union) is the owner and holder of the Note, the Consolidated Note and the Mortgage identified in paragraphs 1,2, and 4 above. The Department timely assessed documentary stamp taxes on the Note. The assessment covers the Consolidated Note. There is no evidence that documentary stamps are attached or affixed to the Note, the Consolidated Note or the Mortgage. No documentary stamp tax were paid on the Note, the Consolidated Note or the Mortgage. The Office of the Comptroller of the currency declared Southeast insolvent and appointed the FDIC as receiver for Southeast on September 19, 1991. The FDIC, as receiver, became the owner and holder of all of the promissory notes and mortgages formerly held by Southeast. The FDIC (as Receiver of Southeast, and corporately) and First Union entered into an Assistance Agreement dated September 19, 1991, under which the FDIC, as Receiver, sold and assigned to First Union the Consolidated Note and the Mortgage. The FDIC, as Receiver, executed an Assignment of Mortgage, subsequently filed in volume 588, page 589, of the official records of Orange County, Florida. First Union is not the same entity as Southeast (by name or otherwise). First Union purchased no portion of the stock ownership of Southeast, rather First Union purchased only those assets and liabilities of Southeast detailed in the Assistance Agreement. Under terms of the Assistance Agreement, First Union expressly assumed only certain specified liabilities. First Union did not expressly assume any liabilities of Southeast relating to payment of taxes under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes. Under the terms of the Assistance Agreement, the FDIC and First Union contractually agreed that the FDIC would indemnify First Union for "costs, losses, liabilities, expenses, judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement reasonably incurred in connection with claims against" First Union based upon a liability of Southeast that was not expressly assumed by First Union. A claim entitling First Union to indemnification from the FDIC under the terms of the Assistance Agreement is a claim for a liability for "taxes" of Southeast. The definition of "taxes" in the Assistance Agreement includes stamp taxes imposed by states, including interest and penalty. By a Notice dated January 5, 1995, Respondent issued an Official Request for Information to "Southeast Bank, National Association, First Union Bank/Barbara H. Smith." On March 1, 1995, Respondent issued to "Southeast Bank, NA, First Union Bank, N.A." a Notice of Intent to Make Documentary Stamp Tax and Discretionary Surtax Audit (the Notice of Audit). The Notice of Audit was received by First Union on March 22, 1995. First Union timely responded to the Notice of Audit by letter dated May 31, 1995, stating that "any transaction prior to September 19, 1991, which might precipitate liability becomes the responsibility of the FDIC." Respondent treated the May 31, 1995 letter of First Union as a protest of the audit. On June 20, 1995, Respondent issued to "Southeast Bank, N.A.-First Union Bank, N.A." a Notice of Proposed Assessment of $150.00 representing tax and interest on the original $80,000 note of March 27, 1990, or an assessment of tax and interest on the Consolidated Note. Southeast Bank remains under the receivership of the FDIC. Additional Facts FDIC's sale of the Note and Consolidated Note to First Union under terms of the September 19, 1991 Assistance Agreement imbued First Union with ownership rights inclusive of the right to receive payments of principal and interest on the Note and Consolidated Note, as well as the right to foreclose on the makers of the Note and Consolidated Note for nonpayment. Neither the Note or Consolidated Note qualify for exemption from documentary stamp taxes levied pursuant to provisions of Chapter 201, Florida Statutes. Documentary stamp taxes constitute an excise tax on documents, as opposed to a tax on the underlying transaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered upholding Respondent's full assessment of tax and penalty against Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 25th day of June, 1996. DON W. DAVIS, 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 June, 1996. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Petitioner's proposed findings (other than the 28 paragraphs of stipulated findings of fact) consisted of seven paragraphs denominated by letters A-G. No citation to the record was included in these proposed findings. Accordingly, the proposed findings, while reviewed and addressed to the extent possible by the foregoing findings of fact, are rejected. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-28. Stipulated facts adopted. 29.-32. Adopted, although not verbatim. COPIES FURNISHED: William W. Gallogly, Esquire First Union Corporation Legal Division 225 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Scott M. Covell, Esquire Dept. of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 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 This case involves the issue of whether the Petitioner, Robert P. Herring, should be required to pay documentary tax and documentary surtax on three quitclaim deeds transferring his ex-wife's interest in jointly owned property to the Petitioner. On May 3, 1982, the Department of Revenue, by letter, notified Mr. Robert P. Herring, through his counsel, Mr. Frank M. Townsend, that the Department intended to make an audit change pursuant to Chapter 201 of the Florida Statutes based upon a mortgage executed by Mr. Herring and recorded at Official Record Book 439, Page 654 of the Official Records of Osceola County. This mortgage was given by Mr. Herring in exchange for his ex-wife's transfer of her interest in the three parcels, which were the subject of the three quitclaim deeds referred to above. In response to the audit report, the Petitioner, on November 1, 1982, filed his request for a formal hearing and his written objection to the audit change. At the formal hearing in this matter, the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and called no other witnesses. The Respondent called as its only witness, Mr. John H. McCormick, a tax auditor for the Department of Revenue. The Petitioner offered and had admitted seven exhibits and the Respondent offered and had admitted nine exhibits. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the undersigned Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not adopted in this order, they were considered by the Hearing Officer and determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Prior to June 20, 1979, the Respondent, Robert P. Herring, along with his wife, Patricia L. Herring, owned three parcels of real estate located in Kissimmee, Florida. Those three parcels were held by Mr. and Mrs. Herring as tenants in the entirety. The parcels are more fully described as: A certain lot or parcel of land known as S. Florida RR survey Block 19, beginning at the most Northerly corner of Lot 3 and running South 47 degrees East, 142 Ft. South, 43 degrees West, 25 ft. North, 47 degrees West, 142 Ft. North, 43 degrees East, 25 ft. to the point of beginning, and more particu larly described in that instrument recorded in OR Book 364, Page 340, in the Public Records of Osceola County, Florida. A certain lot or parcel of land known as St. Cloud Block 251, Lots 19 thru 22 and more particularly described in that instru ment recorded in OR Book 339, Page 155 and 158 of the Public Records of Osceola County, Florida. A certain lot or parcel of land beginning at a point 110 ft. West of the Easterly line of Gov. Lot 3, plus 15 ft. at right angle to the center line of the Old Highway South 33 degrees West, 62.3 ft. South, 53 degrees East, 60.9 ft. North, 33 degrees East, 34.3 ft. North, 42 degrees West along the highway to the point of beginning and more particularly described in that instru ment recorded in OR Book 314, Page 391 of the Public Records of Osceola County, Florida. On June 20, 1979, Patricia A. Herring executed three quitclaim deeds transferring all her right title and interest in the above three parcels to the Petitioner, Robert P. Herring. The transfer was part of a divorce settlement and the stated consideration in the three quitclaim deeds was "love and affection". (See Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3, and 4). Prior to the transfer, there was outstanding indebtedness on the three parcels and these debts were secured by mortgages. The Petitioner and his wife were both liable on these debts and mortgages. In exchange for the transfer of Patricia A. Herring's interest in the three parcels, the Petitioner executed and delivered to Patricia A. Herring a promissory note in the amount of $58,800 secured by a mortgage on the three parcels. The Petitioner, Robert Herring, also assumed full liability for the outstanding indebtednesses on the three parcels. The Petitioner is and has been since June, 1979, making monthly payments of $529.05 to Patricia A. Herring, his ex-wife, in payment on the $58,800 promissory note and mortgage. The mortgage executed by Respondent and recorded in Official Record Book 439, Pages 654-656 of the Official Records of Osceola County and the assumption of the outstanding indebtedness on the three parcels were valuable consideration paid by the Petitioner to Patricia A. Herring for her interest in the three parcels. At the time of recording the three quitclaim deeds, the Petitioner paid no documentary tax as defined in Florida Statute 201.02 (1977) and paid no documentary surtax as defined in Florida Statute 201.021 (1977) After an examination of the official records of Osceola County, the Department of Revenue determined that the Petitioner owed documentary tax on the three quitclaim deeds in the amount of $176.40. The Department determined that the Petitioner owed documentary surtax on the three parcels in the amount of $64.90. On April 13, 1982, the Department of Revenue issued its Notice of Intent to Make Documentary Stamp Tax Audit Charges to Petitioner assessing the documentary tax in the amount of $176.40 and documentary surtax in the amount of $64.90. The documentary tax and documentary surtax assessed by the Department of Revenue were based upon the $58,800 promissory note and mortgage as the sole consideration paid by the Petitioner for the transfer of the three parcels. (See Respondent's Exhibit 9). Based upon the consideration of $58,800, the Petitioner owes documentary tax of $176.40 and documentary surtax of $64.90 on the three quitclaim deeds.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order requiring Petitioner to pay the documentary tax in the amount of $176.40 and documentary surtax of $64.90, plus accrued penalties and interest. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank M. Townsend, Esquire Post Office Box 847 Kissimmee, Florida 32741 Ms. Linda Lettera Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Randy Miller Executive Director Room 102, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On March 20, 1973 the taxpayer executed in Taylor County, Florida a promissory note for $500,000 at 9 percent interest per annum payable in 28 quarterly payments the last payment due April 1980, to Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, N.A. of North Carolina secured by a mortgage executed and recorded in Taylor County Tax stamp on the note were affixed and cancelled. On April 1, 1975, the taxpayer executed in Taylor County, Florida an amendment and modification to the aforementioned mortgage to the original mortgagee - obligee bank. Said amendment and modification provided for the payment of $419,000 of the original note plus $28,748.75 of accrued interest or interest to accrue between July 1, 1974 and April 1, 1975, payable in 21 payments the last payment due April 1980, at 10 percent interest per annum. The documentary tax stamps were not attached to this instrument.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusion of law recommends that the tax and penalty be assessed. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edgar M. Moore, Esquire Smith and Moore, P.A. Post Office Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph C. Mellichamp, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
