Findings Of Fact On February 27, 1980, Respondent converted one of its service station fuel tanks from gasoline to diesel. The tank was cleaned by Garrison Petroleum Equipment Company at Pinellas Park. Respondent paid $67.08 for this service. That same day, Respondent received 5,176 gallons of No. 2 diesel fuel from Jack Russell Oil Company, Inc., of Clearwater, a Union 76 dealer. On March 18, 1980, a standards inspector employed by Petitioner took samples from the Respondent's gasoline and diesel pumps. These samples were delivered to Petitioner's portable laboratory in Clearwater where they were analyzed. The gasoline was found to be satisfactory, but the diesel sample showed fuel contamination. The tests were conducted in accordance with the methods and standards established by Rule 5F-2.01(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the "flash point" of the diesel sample was 88 degrees F, but must be 125 degrees F or above to meet the established standard. Petitioner's inspector then returned to the Pronto Car Wash station where he issued a stop-sale order to Respondent. Subsequently, the inspector accepted Respondent's cash bond in lieu of fuel confiscation. This procedure, agreed to by both parties, allowed Respondent to pay $865.36 to the State of Florida and retain the contaminated fuel. Respondent originally paid $5,286.25 for 5,176 gallons of diesel fuel. He had sold 736 gallons of this amount at the time of the stop-sale order on March 18, 1980. Total sales of this diesel fuel amounted to $865.36, which was the amount of bond demanded by Petitioner. Respondent paid $200 to Patriot Oil, Inc., to remove the contaminated fuel, but received a $3,225 credit for this fuel. Respondent does not deny that the fuel was contaminated, but seeks to establish that he acted in good faith. Respondent had the tank cleaned prior to the diesel changeover and dealt with established tank cleaning and fuel wholesaling companies. In addition, he kept the tank locked at all times after delivery of the fuel. Respondent does not contest forfeiture of his bond, but seeks refunds of state and federal taxes paid on the unsold fuel. However, Respondent was correctly informed that refund of tax payments will require him to communicate with agencies which are not parties to this proceeding.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter its order declaring forfeiture of Respondent's $865.36 bond posted in lieu of confiscation of contaminated diesel fuel. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephenson Anderson Pronto Car Wash 220 34th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Whitton, Chief Gasoline and Oil Section Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-8584
The Issue The parties stipulated that the quality of the gasoline was not at issue and that the sole issue was the reasonableness of the amount of the bond. The amount of the bond is based upon the price of the mislabeled gasoline sold or estimated to have been sold, not to exceed $1,000.00. The factual issue became how much gasoline had been sold since the tanks were mislabeled by IGS.
Findings Of Fact On June 4, 1985, a regular sampling inspection was conducted by staff of the Department of Agriculture at the Lil General Food Store, 2099 S. Goldenrod Road, Orlando, Florida. This inspection revealed that the regular unleaded gasoline had a 10.3 percent alcohol content but was not properly labeled, as required by law, as containing alcohol. The inspector accepted a $1,000.00 bond in the absence of any evidence by the vendor that less than 1,000 gallons at a price of $1.00 per gallon of mislabeled gasoline had been sold. On June 5, 1985, a regular sampling inspection was conducted by staff of the Department of Agriculture at the Circle K Store, 29495 S.W. 152nd Avenue, Homestead, Florida. This inspection revealed that the regular unleaded gasoline had a 9.6 percent alcohol content but was not properly labeled, as required by law, as containing alcohol. The inspector accepted a $1,000.00 bond in the absence of any evidence by the vendor that less than 1,000 gallons at a price of $1.00 per gallon of mislabeled gasoline had been sold. IGS refurbishes gasoline pumps, painting and replacing the labels on the pumps. IGS was engaged in this activity for Circle K in May 1985 and during that month refurbished both of the pumps subsequently cited by the Department of Agriculture. The Respondent was given the opportunity to present evidence regarding the date the signs on the pumps were refurbished and the amount of gasoline pumped after that date. The Respondent was unable to present evidence on the amount of gasoline actually pumped. The pumps in question had been refurbished nearly a month before the inspections.
Recommendation The bonds of $1,000.00 in the two instances above were reasonable and justified, given the violations of Section 5F-2.03(7), Florida Administrative Code (1875 Supp.) and Section 525.06, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of December 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 10th day of December, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Mayo Building - Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patrick J. Donnelly, President IGS - Identification and Graphic Services Company, Inc. 3331 W. Main Tampa, Florida 33607
Findings Of Fact For the period of time from January 1, 1986, through December 31, 1989, Co-Op Oil Company, Inc., was a wholesaler and retailer of motor fuel (gasoline) and special fuel (diesel) in the Florida west coast area and held Motor Fuel License Number 09_000447 and Special Fuel License No. 10-003477. During this time, each month Co-Op reported and paid motor fuel and special fuel tax based on the number of "net" gallons purchased during the preceding month. "Net" gallons are an industry standard. They are measured at a temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Meanwhile, during the same month, Co-Op sold motor fuel and special fuel through metered pumps and charged customers motor fuel and special fuel tax on the metered gallons sold through the pumps. Both motor fuel and special fuel are volatile. They expand and contract significantly as temperatures rise and fall. Since the temperature in an underground storage tank generally is around 71-72 degrees Fahrenheit, the "gross" gallons of motor fuel and special fuel stored in Co-Op's underground tanks and for resale to customers generally exceeds the "net" gallons it purchased by approximately one percent. Additional expansion, or some contraction, of the fuels can occur in transit from the tank to the metered pump, depending on outside temperature. As a result, the "gross" gallons pumped through the meter and sold to customers can differ from the "net" gallons purchased by Co-Op Oil. "Losses" due to contraction in cold tempertures also can occur, but a reasonable "shrinkage" allowance was factored into the Department's calculations. (Additional losses can occur due to spillage and evaporation. However, tax is still due on fuel lost to spillage and evaporation.) Except for Chapters 206 and 212, Part II, motor fuel taxes after January 1, 1988, the Department has interpreted the applicable statutes to: (1) require Co-Op to report and pay motor fuel and special fuel taxes monthly on the "gross" gallons it sells to its customers, plus any fuel it loses to spillage or evaporation; (2) hold Co-Op, as a licensee who collects more tax on motor fuel and special sold than was paid on the same gallons purchased, to be liable for the difference; and (3) hold Co-Op, as a licensee who purchased gasoline tax free, recorded such purchases at "net," and adjusted sales on its tax returns to "net," and sold such fuel at "gross," to be liable for the difference in tax. The Sampling Method The parties agreed that, due to the voluminous records that would be the subject of a detailed audit of all pertinent transactions, an audit using a sampling method is not only appropriate but also a practical necessity. The parties agreed that it would be appropriate to average the months of July, a hot month, and December, cold month, to obtain a valid and accurate average for the amount of gains (or losses) in volume of motor and special fuel due to expansion (or contraction) from the "net" gallonage purchased for resale through the metered pumps. An audit of the sample months reveals the following pertinent information (expressed in gallons): Month Motor Fuel Special Fuel JULY, 1986 Beginning Inventory 139,777 37,263 Amount of Fuel Purchased 622,543 124,809 Amount of Fuel Sold 639,640 125,591 Ending Inventory 126,740 37,167 DECEMBER, 1986 Beginning Inventory 103,046 33,648 Amount of Fuel Purchased 644,966 112,297 Amount of Fuel Sold 627,361 106,795 Ending Inventory 119,169 39,608 JULY, 1987 Beginning Inventory 88,937 30,769 Amount of Fuel Purchased 485,783 66,382 Amount of Fuel Sold 471,823 73,261 Ending Inventory 109,542 24,378 DECEMBER, 1987 Beginning Inventory 85,210 30,678 Amount of Fuel Purchased 552,977 76,584 Amount of Fuel Sold 535,767 78,667 Ending Inventory 102,497 28,311 JULY, 1988 Beginning Inventory 17,863 Amount of Fuel Purchased 61,499 Amount of Fuel Sold 52,380 Ending Inventory 27,197 DECEMBER, 1988 Beginning Inventory 24,195 Amount of Fuel Purchased 52,492 Amount of Fuel Sold 47,242 Ending Inventory 29,293 JULY, 1989 Beginning Inventory 19,829 Amount of Fuel Purchased 45,817 Amount of Fuel Sold 42,834 Ending Inventory 25,386 DECEMBER, 1989 Beginning Inventory 20,114 Amount of Fuel Purchased 54,323 Amount of Fuel Sold 55,520 Ending Inventory 18,824 (Under Chapters 206 and 212, Part II, motor fuel was taxed on purchases, as reported and paid by Co-Op, after December 31, 1987, so only special fuel totals are shown after that date.) Additional Taxable Gallons: Motor Fuel Adding the beginning inventory and purchases yields the "available fuel" for the month. Subtracting the ending inventory from this figure yields the month's "inventoried fuel accounted for." "Gain" from expansion of fuel above the "net" gallons purchased would equal the difference between a larger amount of fuel sold through the meters, the "metered sales," and a smaller "inventoried fuel accounted for." "Loss" from contraction of fuel below the "net" gallonage purchased (plus other possible losses from spillage, leakage or evaporation) would equal the difference between a larger "inventoried fuel accounted for" and a smaller amount of fuel sold through the meters, the "metered sales." Using the arithmetic operations described in the preceding paragraph on the samples of motor fuel, it can be calculated that Co-Op had gains of: 4,060 gallons for July 1986; 6,645 gallons for July 1987; and 77 gallons for December 1987. In the month of December 1986, there was a loss of 1,482 gallons. The net gain in motor fuel for those months was 9,300 gallons. Meanwhile, the total purchases of motor fuel for those months was 2,306,269 gallons. Comparing the net gain with the total purchases yields a gain or error ratio of .004032487 for motor fuel. The total number of gallons of motor fuel purchased by Co-Op during 1986 and 1987 was 14,190,105. Application of this gain ratio to the total number of gallons purchased yields 57,223 "additional taxable gallons" of motor fuel for 1986 and 1987. Computation of Additional Motor Fuel Tax, Penalty and Interest Multiplying each month's additional taxable gallons by .057 for the Chapter 212, Part II, motor fuel tax, and by .04 for the Chapter 206 motor fuel tax, the total taxes due for motor fuel are $3,262.29 for Chapter 212, Part II, and $2,288.92 for Chapter 206. Computed at 12 percent per annum or 1 percent monthly, interest or motor fuel taxes under Chapter 212, Part II, Fla. Stat., was $2,592.51 through July 28, 1993, with daily interest accruing at $1.07 per day from that day forward. Also computed at 12 percent per annum or 1 percent monthly, interest on the motor fuel tax under Chapter 206, Fla. Stat., was $1,500.15 through July 28, 1993, with daily interest accruing at $.75 per day from that day forward. To calculate the penalty for motor fuel for both Chapter 212, Part II, and Chapter 206, the tax due is multiplied by 25 percent to arrive at total amounts for penalties of $815.57 and $572.23, respectively. Additional Taxable Gallons: Special Fuel Using the same arithmetic operations described for motor fuel, the taxable gains for special fuel can be calculated for the sample months. (Special fuel was taxable upon resale at the pump for the entire audit period, and the sample months are examined for the entire audit period.) These calculations show the total net gain for the eight month sample period to be 3,892 gallons, as follows: Month Gain/Loss Gallons 686 458 488 284 215 152 July, 1986 December, 1986 July, 1987 December, 1987 July, 1988 December, 1988 July, 1989 Gain Gain Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain + + + - + - +2,574 December, 1989 93 Loss - (net gain) +3,892 Meanwhile, the total purchases of special fuel for those months was 594,203 gallons. Comparing the net gain with the total purchases yields a gain or error ratio of .00655 for special fuel. The total number of gallons of special fuel purchased by Co-Op during the years 1986 through 1989 was 3,910,608. Application of the gain ratio for special fuel to the total number of gallons purchased yields 25,614 "additional taxable gallons" of special fuel for 1986 through 1989. Computation of Additional Special Fuel Tax, Penalty and Interest Multiplying each month's additional taxable gallons of special fuel by $.057 per gallon for the Chapter 212, Part II, special fuel tax, and by $.04 per gallon for the Chapter 206 special fuel tax (except for the months July, 1987, through December, 1987, for which they are multiplied by the $.09 per gallon tax during that period of time), yields Chapter 212, Part II, special fuel tax due in the amount of $1,460.32, and Chapter 206 special fuel tax due in the amount of $1,171.76. Computing interest using exactly the same method as for the motor fuel taxes yields interest on the special fuel tax due under Chapter 212, Part II, in the amount of $1,067.32 through July 28, 1993, with daily interest accruing at $.48 per day from that day forward, and in the amount of $858.69 for the special fuel tax due under Chapter 206 through July 28, 1993, with daily interest accruing at $.39 per day from that day forward. The penalty for overdue special fuel tax for both Chapter 212, Part II, and Chapter 206 is calculated at 25 percent of the tax due, for total amounts of penalty of $365.08 and $292.94, respectively. The total of special fuel tax, interest and penalty due as of July 28, 1993, was $2,892.72 for special fuel under Chapter 212, Part II, and $2,323.29 for special fuel under Chapter 206. Rejection of Co-Op's Proposed Alternative Method Co-Op pointed out that for the month of July, 1986, it sold 17,097 gallons more than it purchased, but that for the subsequent sample months it was actually purchasing more gallons than it was selling. Co-Op argues that this demonstrates the payment of tax on 31,695 gallons more than it actually sold. However, a review of each month shows that, although purchases did exceed sales in several months, the ending inventories generally were larger than the number calculated by subtracting metered sales for the month from the total of beginning inventories plus purchases for the month. Actual dip stick measurements of the inventory in the tanks demonstrates a net increase over the computed book inventory of 9,300 gallons for motor fuel and 3,892 gallons for special fuel. In addition, sales of motor fuel for 1986 and 1987 totalled 14,247,541 gallons (8,228,593 for 1986, and 6,018,948 for 1987), while total purchases for that same period were only 14,190,105 gallons. For special fuel, sales of special fuel for 1986 through 1989 totalled 3,962,263 gallons (1,685,959 for 1986, 945,775 for 1987, 721,547 for 1988, and 608,982 for 1989), while total purchases of special fuel were only 3,910,608 gallons. In each case, due to expansion gains in the fuels, sales always exceeded purchases. Local Option Taxes The Chapter 336 local option taxes on motor fuel were not affected by the amendments to Chapters 206 and 212, Part II, effective January 1, 1988. The total that Co_Op reported for motor fuel purchases for the period January 1, 1986, through December 31, 1989, was 24,798,440. Multiplying by the gain ratio for motor fuel of .004032487 yields 100,000 gallons of additional taxable motor fuel. Adding the additional taxable gallons of motor fuel to the 25,614 gallons of additional taxable special fuel yields of 125,614 additional taxable gallons or net gain for the period. Throughout the audit period, the local option tax rate under Section 336.025 was $.04 per gallon for Lake and Lee County and $.06 per gallon for Manatee and Orange County. Polk County started with a $.04 per gallon rate and increased that to a $.06 per gallon rate in September, 1986. Pinellas and Citrus County increased the tax rate from the beginning figure of $.04 per gallon to $.06 per gallon in September, 1987. Because of the difference in rates between counties and the changes of rates within counties, it is necessary to calculate effective tax rates and compute the percentage of reported taxable gallons for Co-Op's business in each of the respective counties, as follows: Ratio of Reported Effective Tax County Gallons Rate .051 .040 .040 .060 Citrus 21 percent Lake 01 percent Lee 03 percent Manatee 11 percent .060 .050 .055 Orange 02 percent Pinellas 37 percent Polk 25 percent Taking the total net gain of 125,614 gallons and multiplying it by the appropriate percentage (i.e., the ratio of fuel sold in an individual county) yields the total taxable gains in each county. To ascertain the additional local option taxes due under Section 336.025, Fla. Stat., the total taxable gains calculated for each county option tax must be multiplied by each county, as follows: County for the purposes of the local effective tax rate for Tax Due Citrus $1,345.33 Lake 50.25 Lee 150.74 Manatee 829.05 Orange 150.74 Pinellas 2,323.86 Polk 1,727.19 Total $6,577.14 The statutory 25 percent penalty on the past due local option taxes amounts to $1,644.29. The statutory interest due on the past due local option taxes amounted to $4,415.33 through July 28, 1993, and has been accruing at a daily rate of $2.16 from that date (the date of the hearing). In sum, as of July 28, 1993, Co-Op owed local option tax under Section 336.025, penalty follows: and interest as Tax $6,577.14 Penalty 25 percent 1,644.29 Interest thru 7/28/93 4,415.33 Total $12,636.76 Interest continues to accrue at the $2.16 daily rate. Of the seven counties in which Co_Op was doing business that had enacted the local option tax under Section 336.025, Fla. Stat., only Lake, Lee and Manatee Counties had enacted the Section 336.021, Fla. Stat., tax of $.01 per gallon. They had only approximately 14.26 percent of the 125,614 additional taxable gallon (net gain) for purposes of local option taxes, or 17,913 additional taxable gallons. Using the statutory 1 percent taxable rate, Co-Op owes the following additional taxes: County Total Tax Percent Ratio Tax Due 8.60 Lake 171.93 5 Lee 171.93 28 48.14 Manatee 171.93 67 115.19 The statutory 25 percent penalty on the additional Section 336.021 local option tax amounts to $42.98. At the statutory rate, interest owing on the additional Section 336.021 local option tax totalled $127.97 through July 28, 1993, with interest accruing at the rate of $.06 per day thereafter. In sum, as of July 28, 1993, Co-Op owed local option tax under Section 336.021, penalty and interest in the amount of $342.88, with interest accruing at $.06 per day from that day forward. Estoppel Since 1957, each month Co-Op reported and paid motor fuel and special fuel tax based on the number of "net" gallons purchased during the preceding month. Four years before the audit which is the subject of this case, Co-Op was audited and was not told that it was in error in reporting and paying motor fuel and special fuel tax based on the number of "net" gallons purchased. However, at all times when Co-Op reported and paid motor fuel and special fuel tax based on the number of "net" gallons purchased, it also collected tax from the ultimate purchasers on the number of "gross" gallons pumped through the meter. Offer to Compromise Penalty The Department, in its Notice of Decision and Notice of Reconsideration offered to compromise the penalty on all taxes from the 25 percent level to a 5 percent level, but Co-Op protested both of these notices. The offer of compromise was only good for the duration of the Closing Agreement which was attached to the Notice of Reconsideration. In light of the prior audit, which did not alert Co-Op that it was reporting and paying taxes incorrectly, it could perhaps initially have been argued by Co-Op that its failure to report and pay these taxes when due was reasonable, and not fraudulent or willful neglect or negligence. But the prior audit cannot justify its decision to contest its liability for these taxes through formal administrative proceedings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a final order finding the Petitioner, Co- Op Oil Company, Inc., liable for the following taxes: Ch. 212, Part II, Motor Fuel.--$6,670. 37, with interest accruing at $1.07 per day from July 29, 1993. Ch. 212, Pt. II, Special Fuel.-- $2,892.72, with interest accruing at $.48 per day from July 29, 1993. (3) Ch. 206, Motor Fuel.--$4,361.30, with interest accruing at $.75 per day from July 29, 1993. (4) Ch. 206, Special Fuel.--$2,323.39, with interest accruing at $.39 per day from July 29, 1993. Ch. 336.025, Motor/Special Fuel.-- $12,636.76, with interest accruing at $2.16 per day from July 29, 1993. Ch. 336.021, Motor/Special Fuel.-- $342.88, with interest accruing at $.06 per day from July 29, 1993. TOTAL - $29,277.42, with interest accruing at $4.91 per day from July 29, 1993. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. 1550 J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: James E. Smith, President Co-Op Oil Company, Inc. 4911 - 8th Avenue South Gulfport, Florida 33707 Ralph R. Jaeger, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera, Esquire General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Phillips Petroleum Company, is the owner and operator of two retail gasoline stations situated at 2675 Volusia Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida and 13987 Walsingham Road, Largo, Florida. On July 6, 1989, Respondent's inspector, Ralph Myrick, made a routine inspection of the "super clean unleaded" gasoline at Petitioner's company-owned station at 2675 Volusia Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida. A sample of the super clean unleaded fuel was taken by inspector Myrick and was analyzed by Respondent. The analysis revealed that the super clean unleaded gasoline was contaminated with diesel fuel. On June 20, 1989, Petitioner converted its 4,000 gallon diesel tank to a super clean unleaded gasoline tank. During the conversion, Petitioner used a transport carrier to drain the diesel from the tank to a transport carrier. Petitioner thereafter utilized a maintenance contractor to pump all residue from the bottom of the tank until it was dry. Petitioner thereafter flushed the lines with 100 gallons of new gasoline product before refilling the tank with 3,700 gallons of super clean unleaded gasoline. The diesel which was pumped out and the 100 gallons used for flushing was returned to Petitioner's Jacksonville terminal by a transport carrier. On July 3, 1989, Petitioner received another 1,300 gallons of super clean unleaded gasoline and stored it in the converted tank which had previously been used to store diesel fuel. At the time of Respondent's inspection of the Daytona Beach station on July 6, 1989, Petitioner had sold to the public, at retail, approximately 2,337 gallons of the contaminated fuel. At the time of inspector Myrick's inspection on July 6, 1989, Petitioner was advised of the contamination problem and a "stop order" was issued to correct the problem. In lieu of confiscation, Petitioner posted a refundable bond in the amount of $1,000 and retained the fuel. Petitioner had its transport carrier to again completely drain the converted tank and Petitioner returned 2,663 gallons to its Jacksonville terminal. Petitioner ordered 2,600 gallons of new product which was returned to the subject station for sale. On March 12, 1990, inspector Myrick made a routine inspection of Petitioner's retail station at 13987 Walsingham Road, Largo, Florida. A sample of the detroleum product was taken and analyzed. Respondent's analysis of the sample taken from Petitioner's Largo station revealed that the fuel was below standard. Petitioner's agent Switz admitted that more than 1,000 gallons of fuel had been sold to retail customers at a price at approximately $1.00 or more per gallon. Petitioner placed a $1,000 cash bond in lieu of confiscation to continue operating and to retain the fuel which was analyzed and found to be below standard at its Largo station.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a refund of the bonds posted in the subject cases. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: R. H. Switz Phillips Petroleum Company 3021 Landing Way Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services May Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 John C. Whitton, Chief Bureau of Petroleum Inspection 3125 Conner Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mallory Horne, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is licensed as a dealer of special fuel pursuant to Florida Statutes 206 and has been assigned license Number 1627. The pertinent sections of Florida Statutes which are applicable to this case are ss206.86(1), (6), (8), 206.87, 206.89, 206.93, 206.94 and Ch. 212. The pertinent rules of the Department of Revenue applicable to special fuels sales involved herein is 12A-2.03. The deposition of Albert Colozoff and all answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for admissions are admissible as evidence and are to be made a part of the record in this cause. The Petitioner sold special fuels to Zamora Truck and Car Services, Roberts Equipment Company and Florida Petroleum, Inc. Petitioner was assessed by the Respondent for tax on 1,979,201 gallons of special fuel sold by it and paid tax and interest as set forth in the letter attached hereto as Exhibit A. That no penalty paid on any of the tax paid pursuant to that letter. That Petitioner did not remit taxes that were due during the month the sales of special fuel were reported on any of the sale to Zamora, Roberts or Florida Petroleum or the remaining 1,417,263 gallons sold. Zamora and Roberts represented to Belcher that they were purchasing all special fuel from Belcher for exempt agricultural use. Due to past dealings and delivery of the special fuel to a farm, Belcher believed and relied upon the facts represented to it by Zamora and Roberts. However, Belcher did not obtain written documentation of this agricultural use from Zamora or Roberts and did not furnish the Department with any such written documentation. Belcher did not obtain resale certificates or exemption certificates or dealer license numbers from Zamora, Roberts or Florida Petroleum. Nor did the report forms filed by Belcher contain resale certificates, exemption certificates or dealer license numbers from Zamora, Roberts or Florida Petroleum. An employee of the Department advised Belcher that Zamora and Roberts were under investigation for fraudulent failure to report taxes. Belcher paid sales tax on sales of special fuel in the amount of $18,589.53 on the sale of 538,030 gallons of special fuel. Zamora is not a licensed dealer of special fuels. Florida Petroleum is not a licensed dealer of special fuel. Roberts is not a licensed dealer of special fuel. Belcher did not fraudulently file incorrect monthly special fuels reports. The Department of Revenue audited Belcher and computed tax, penalty and interest due as set forth in the documents attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Department of Revenue advised Belcher of its duties regarding reporting requirements in the letters from L. N. Thomas attached as Exhibit C.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's assessment be upheld with respect to Petitioner's tax deficiency, penalty and interest as set forth in the assessments with adjustments to be made for payments paid by Petitioner under the "sales tax" theory. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James R. McCachren, Jr., Esquire Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William D. Townsend, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the state of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with regulating purveyors of gasoline sold at retail in the state of Florida, to ascertain if gasoline meets appropriate quality standards including the standards, embodied in the Department's rules for lead additive content. The Respondent is a corporation doing business in the state of Florida which engages in the retail sale of gasoline, including sale of such product at the Suwanee Swifty Store #265 at 1971 West Silver Springs Boulevard in Ocala, Florida. An agent of the Petitioner agency performed a routine inspection on a pump connected to a storage tank operated by the Respondent on September 12, 1990. The pump add storage tank contained gasoline offered for sale and some of which had been previously sold to the general motoring public. The gasoline contained in the storage tank was a mixture of unleaded gasoline and lead- containing regular gasoline (leaded regular). The pump which pumped the gas from that tank was labeled "regular", meaning that it was labeled for a gasoline containing lead. There is no dispute that the Respondent was selling gasoline which did not meet the standard for leaded regular gasoline because it contained an insufficient amount of lead. This situation arose because the Respondent had placed an order of unleaded regular gasoline from its supplier into the tank in order to begin converting that tank and pump from the sale of regular leaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline. As part of the switching process, unleaded gasoline was being added to the regular gasoline remaining in the pump or tank in order to convert the contents of the tank over to gasoline which could be legally sold as unleaded gasoline. Until the conversion process for the tank contents was complete the Respondent intended to and did sell the gasoline as leaded regular, because selling the gasoline at below the actual lead content of leaded regular during the conversing process would not harm customers and the price was set at below the current market price for leaded regular. If, on the other hand, the Respondent had sold the product in the tank and through that pump as unleaded gasoline, by re-labeling the pump before the actual contents of the tank served by it had been converted completely to unleaded gasoline, the labeling might have been strictly legal because the contents of the tank were below the legal standard for leaded regular authorized in Rule 5F-2.001(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code, but the selling of such gasoline which still contains some lead might harm the vehicles of the motoring public using it for vehicles designed to use only unleaded gasoline. In any event, because the Department's investigation revealed that the Respondent was selling gasoline through the pump labeled for regular leaded gasoline which did not meet the lead content standard for regular leaded gasoline, the Department seized the gasoline and immediately allowed the Respondent to post a bond in the amount of $1.26.9 per gallon times the number of gallons sold, for a total bond of $696.68. The Department seeks to assess an identical amount against the Respondent in this proceeding. Upon on the posting of the bond, the product was released back to the possession of the Respondent the next day and allowed to be sold after the pump was relabeled to indicate "unleaded plus". In fact, the allowing of the Respondent to resume sales of the product under the label "unleaded plus" may not be strictly legal either, because, in fact, the product when the resale of the product began still contained some lead content when resale began. In any event, however, the product being sold at the time the inspection was made was not of a quality equivalent to the appropriate standard in the above rule for "leaded regular" and therefore under the authority cited below the Department has the authority to make the assessment it seeks to impose against the bond posted by the Respondent. The assessment would be reasonable under circumstances prevailing under other similar cases in which the Department has imposed a similar amount of assessment. However, in the instant case, the Respondent established with unrefuted testimony that it was making an honest attempt to convert the gasoline in its tank and the pump to unleaded and that during the transition from the same tank of leaded regular to unleaded gasoline from that tank and pump it is normal and accepted in the industry for the product to contain some lead, albeit not enough to be truly in conformance with the above standard. Likewise it would have been inaccurate to label the pump at that point in the conversion process as "unleaded" because some residuum of lead remained in the product in the tank. The point is that the manner in which the Respondent sold the gasoline, by continuing to label it as regular, instead of unleaded, was less harmfully misleading to the public because the use of such gasoline in cars requiring leaded regular would not be harmful to the mechanical components of those vehicles. Because the pump at the time of the sales in question was labeled regular (meaning leaded regular) cars requiring unleaded gasoline would not have been filled at that pump with such drivers being aware of the necessity to only fill their car at pumps labeled "unleaded", etc. Thus the harm which can be posed to mechanical components of cars requiring unleaded gas by the fueling of the car with leaded gasoline was least likely to occur by the conversion method followed by the Respondent involving keeping the old regular leaded label until the gasoline in the tank was entirely converted over to a content and quality which equated to the legal standard for unleaded gasoline. Because of this, although it is undisputed that Respondent was selling gasoline from the pump in question which did not meet the legal standard for leaded regular, the Department should exercise its discretion in favor of returning the amount of the bond posted to the Respondent.
Recommendation That a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services granting the request of the Respondent for refund of the bond posted and that the Department elect to rescind its assessment-in the amount of $696.68. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Bruce Sheets, Manager Lewis Oil Company, Inc. Post Office Box 1282 Gainesville, FL 32602 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esq. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford, Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1991. Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Bldg. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
The Issue On February 24, 1987, the Petitioner posted a bond in the amount of $844.80 in lieu of confiscation of 1600 gallons of diesel fuel that was found to be below standard. The ultimate issue in this case is whether some or all of the bond should be refunded to the Petitioner. At the hearing the Petitioner testified on his own behalf. He did not call any other witnesses and did not offer any exhibits. The Respondent presented the testimony of two witnesses and offered one composite exhibit which was received in evidence without objection. Neither party requested a transcript of the hearing and both parties waived the right to file proposed recommended orders. Several days after the hearing, the Petitioner mailed to the Hearing Officer a copy of a letter written by an employee of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services regarding this matter. I have not based any findings of fact on the information in that letter because it was not received in evidence at the time of the hearing
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. On November 17, 1986, an employee of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (hereinafter "Department") inspected various fuels offered for sale at the Mobile Service Station located at 1-75 and State Road 236. The inspection revealed that a quantity of diesel fuel offered for sale at that service station was below standards. On November 18, 1986, an employee of the Department returned to the service station described above and issued a Stop Sale Notice regarding the substandard diesel fuel, placed a seal on the pump to prevent further retail sale of the substandard diesel fuel, and took a second sample of the diesel fuel for the purpose of confirmation testing. The second sample of the diesel fuel was also found to be below standards. The service station described above is owned by the Petitioner. The Petitioner leases the station to an operator and delivers the fuel that is sold at the service station. On November 18, 1987, when the Stop Sale Notice was issued, the person on duty at the service station called Petitioner's office to advise Petitioner that the Stop Sale Notice had been issued and that the diesel pump had been sealed. Mr. Glenn Jones, the president of Petitioner, was not at the office at the time of that call, but was informed about the Stop Sale Notice within the next few days. On February 24, 1987, another representative of the Department visited the subject service station and on that day Mr. Glenn Jones signed a Department form titled Release Notice or Agreement and posted a bond in the amount of $844.80. The terms and conditions of the bond are not part of the evidence in this case. Thereupon, the Department removed the seal from the diesel pump at the subject service station and the 1600 gallons of diesel fuel were released to the Petitioner. During the period between November 18, 1986, and February 24, 1987, diesel fuel could not be sold to retail customers at the subject service station because the diesel fuel pump was sealed. This inability to sell diesel fuel to retail customers for over 90 days caused the service station to lose a substantial amount of business. In the normal course of events, within no more than one week from the time a Stop Sale Notice is issued the owner of substandard fuel can arrange to post a bond and have the seal removed from the fuel pump. It is very unusual for it to take more than 90 days as it did in this case. Several circumstances contributed to the unusual delays in this case. Among those circumstances were the fact that during the period from November 18, 1986, to February 24, 1987, both Mr. Glenn Jones and the Department employee who was supposed to follow up on this matter suffered from serious illnesses. The matter was further complicated by the fact that the fuel samples were taken by a mobile testing unit and the mobile testing unit moved on to another area shortly after the samples in this case were taken. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record of this case regarding the retail price of the substandard diesel fuel which was the subject of the Stop Sale Notice on November 18, 1986, nor is there any evidence as to the amount of such fuel, if any, that was sold to the public.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issue a final order in this case to the effect that the petitioner, Glenn I. Jones, Inc., is entitled to a refund of the full amount of the bond it posted on February 24, 1987, in the amount of $844.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 9th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Glenn I. Jones Glenn I. Jones, Inc. Post Office Box 549 Lake City, Florida 32055 Harry Lewis Michaels, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc., #214 is a service station in the business of selling regular leaded, regular unleaded, and unleaded premium gasoline to the public. Store # 214's place of business is located at the intersection of East Avenue and U.S. Highway 98 in Panama City, Florida. On August 6, 1990, James Wood, the Department's inspector, visited the station to conduct an inspection of the gasoline Respondent was offering for sale to the consuming public from its tanks and related gasoline pumps. Mr. Wood took samples of all three types of gasoline offered for sale by Respondent. The samples were forwarded to the Department's laboratory in Tallahassee and were tested to determine whether they met departmental standards for each type of gasoline. The Departmental testing revealed that the regular-leaded gasoline did not contain any lead. The pumps had been mislabeled at the station and the station was in fact selling regular leaded gasoline as regular-unleaded gasoline. Since the leaded gasoline did not contain any lead, it fell below Departmental standards for leaded gasoline. The store had sold 2467 gallons of the mislabeled product. In light of the above facts, the Department elected to allow the Sunshine-Jr. Store, #214, to post a $1,000 bond in lieu of confiscation of the gasoline. The bond was posted on August 9, 1990. The Department assessed Sunshine-Jr. Stores, Inc., #214 the retail value of the product sold, which is equal to the posted bond. The assessment is reasonable and conforms to the amount of assessments imposed by the Department in similar cases.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the request of Sunshine Jr. Food Stores, #214 for refund of the bond posted be DENIED and that the assessment by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in the amount of $1,000 be sustained. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Milton Lawrence P. O. Box 2498 Panama City, Florida 32402 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At a routine inspection conducted on December 27, 1978 at Suncoast's Fine Station 45 at 825 49th Street, St. Petersburg, Florida, a sample of gasoline taken from the unleaded pump was returned to the mobile laboratory for testing. This test showed the lead content to exceed .110 grams per gallon. A stop sale order was placed on the pump from which the sample was taken and the sample was forwarded to Tallahassee for further testing to ascertain the exact lead content. The laboratory test conducted at Tallahassee showed the sample to have a lead content of .312 grams per gallon. In lieu of having the gasoline, on which the stop sale order was entered, confiscated, Respondent posted a bond in the amount of $1007.68 and the gasoline was released to be sold as regular gasoline. At the time the stop sale was placed on the tank it was determined that some 1441 gallons of excess lead gasoline had been sold from this tank since the tank was last filled. In lieu of confiscating the remainder of the gasoline in this tank, Petitioner was given the option of posting a bond in the amount of $1007.68, which represented the retail price of the gasoline sold from that tank. It is the forfeiture of this bond which Petitioner is contesting, and no evidence was submitted by Petitioner why the bond should not be forfeited.
The Issue Whether Petitioner owes tax in the amount of $4,554.80 plus a penalty and interest on the sale of special fuel between December 1, 1976, and December 31, 1979.
Findings Of Fact Miami Tiresoles, Inc., sells both new and retreaded tires for cars and trucks. The company also sells gasoline and diesel fuel. It is licensed by the Department as a dealer in special fuels. As far as this case is concerned special fuel is number 2 diesel oil. Unless an exemption is met each gallon of special fuel sold by MTS is taxed by the Department at a rate of eight cents per gallon. The Department has given BITS a revised notice of proposed assessment of tax for the sale of special fuel in the amount of $4,551.88 plus a penalty of $455.48 and interest in the amount of $735.11 (through April 21, 1980). The tax figure on the assessment appears to reflect a typographical error. The Department's records (Exhibit A) indicate that for the period in question, 2/ MTS sold 56,936 gallons of special fuel subject to tax according to the Department's interpretation of the law. If a tax at a rate of eight cents per gallon is due, then the amount due should be $4,554.88 and not $4,551.88. The correct tax figure is reflected on the Department's work sheets but was probably misread when the figure was transferred to the revised Notice of Assessment issued on April 21, 1980. The foregoing assessment is based on MTS' invoices which reflect sales of special fuel to customers in amounts of more than 110 gallons at one time. Those sales were made to MTS customers who have filed with MTS a document called "Purchaser's Exemption Certificate". A typical example of such a certificate states: PURCHASER'S EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE The undersigned hereby certifies that the motor duel (sic) and/or special fuel pur- chased on 1-19-79 is for the following purpose as checked in the space provided. (X) Purchased for home, industrial, com- mercial, agricultural or marine purposes for consumption other than for the propul- sion of a motor vehicle. ( ) Purchased at bulk plant or terminal in volumes of not more than 110 gallons for delivery into a receptacle not connected to the fuel supply system of a motor vehicle for consumption other than for the propulsion of a motor vehicle. Purchaser is aware that if this exemption if (sic) falsely claimed, or if this certificate is not rescinded at the time he fails to quality (sic) for the exemption, he shall be liable for the taxes imposed under Chapter 206, F.S. Furthermore, by issuing this certificate, the purchaser also certifies that he does not have any motor vehicles which use special fuel for propulsion. This certificate is to continue in force until revoked by written notice to MIAMI TIRESOLES, INC. Purchaser Trade Name A ACME SANDBLASTING, INC. Street Address 9521 W. Oakmont Dr. ,Hialeah,Fla. 33015 BY /s/ The industrial customers of MTS (those who have filed an exemption certificate) are engaged in the construction business. They use the diesel fuel to operate bulldozers, front-end loaders, back hoes, sandblasters and similar equipment. None of the fuel is used for the operation of motor vehicles on the public highways of Florida. All the fuel in question is sold on the premises of MTS. At the time of sale it is placed either in the fuel tank of a particular piece of equipment such as a back hoe, or it is placed in a fuel storage tank mounted on the back of a truck. The storage tanks are not connected so they can provide fuel for the propulsion of the truck. They are used to transport fuel to the purchaser's particular job site. The storage tanks have a capacity of between 100 to 300 gallons. MTS does not have delivery trucks of its own and has no facilities for taking fuel to its customers' job sites. A single invoice of MTS which indicates a sale of 110 gallons of special fuel to an individual customer is frequently the result of a sale where multiple fuel tanks are filled at one time. For Instance, the customer may have a back hoe sitting on the rear of a flat-bed truck. He will fill the fuel tank in his back hoe and then perhaps fill an additional 55 gallon drum or two which would be on the truck. This would occur all in one transaction. The reason why the Department seeks to tax special fuel sold by MTS to its industrial customers in an amount exceeding 110 gallons is because the fuel was placed in the customers' own fuel tanks on the premises of MTS and not on the premises of the customer or at the customer's job site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a final order affirming its assessment for a special fuel tax against the Petitioner in the amount of $4,554.88 plus penalty and interest computed pursuant to Section 206.44, Florida Statutes (1979). DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of March 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 25th day of March 1981.
