The Issue Whether Kohl's Corporation (Kohl’s or Petitioner), is entitled to the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund sought and whether its certification as a Qualified Target Industry (QTI) should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact OTTED is the state entity charged with the responsibility of managing and overseeing the tax refund program for QTI businesses in the State of Florida. See § 288.106, Fla. Stat. EFI processes applications from companies seeking to be established as a QTI. Normally, the time line for review of a QTI application from submission to approval or disapproval is approximately three to six months. If approved the QTI executes an agreement with OTTED. Additionally, the QTI must obtain approval from the local government cited to participate in the tax refund program. In this case Kohl’s applied to become a QTI. The negotiations between Petitioner and various entities occurred over the course of two years. Ultimately, Petitioner executed an agreement dated August 30, 2006, that provided, in part: OTTED has determined that the QTI Business has met all of the requirements necessary to become certified as a QTI Business for participation in the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program pursuant to Section 288.106, Florida Statutes, and The QTI Business’ Application for Certification as a Qualified Target Industry Business and all of its attachments are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as “Exhibit A,” and considered part of this Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Agreement and subject to the terms herein, * * * 4.0 QTI BUSINESS DESCRIPTION: The QTI Business is or will be an operating unit of Kohl’s Florida Management, FEIN # 13-3357362. The QTI Business understands and agrees that the requirements in Sections 7.0, 8.0, 9.0 and Exhibit C of this Agreement pertain only to the project described in Section 5.0 of this Agreement for the business unit described in Section 4.0(a) of this Agreement. * * * 5.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project includes the location of the QTI Business’ headquarters in Osceola County. * * * 7.0 DUTIES OF THE QTI BUSINESS: The QTI Business agrees that: The total amount of new full-time equivalent jobs in Florida that the QTI Business is, or will be, dedicating to this project is at least 100 as measured by the definition(s) in “Exhibit C,” Criteria for Measurement of Achievement of Terms Agreed to Under the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program, and that these jobs will be fully implemented by December 31, 2008. The average annual wage of project jobs will be at least $51,554 as measured by the definition(s) in “Exhibit C”. * * * 9.0 DUTIES OF OTTED: * * * (d) OTTED will not pay more than five times the amount of Local Financial Support received for each fiscal year * * * 10.0 TERMINATION: (a) The Agreement may be terminated by OTTED upon failure of the QTI Business to comply with any material term or condition of this Agreement or a decision by the QTI Business either not to proceed with the project defined in Section 5.0 or to proceed with that project in a location outside of Osceola County, Florida. In conjunction with Petitioner becoming a QTI Business the Board of County Commissioners for Osceola County, Florida, entered Resolution No. 05-072R. That document provided, in pertinent part: WHEREAS, Project 05-0509 is considering a Regional Corporate Headquarters project in Osceola County, Florida; and WHEREAS, the company is creating 100 new positions with an average wage at least 200% above the average wage in Osceola County, Florida; and WHEREAS, Osceola County acknowledges that the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program, Section 288.106, Florida Statutes, requires continued local financial support from the County equal to 20 percent of the annual tax refund for the qualified target industry business. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The Board hereby recommends that Project 05-0509, be approved as a Qualified Target Industry Business. It is undisputed that the “Project 05-0509” referred to in the resolution was Petitioner’s project. Thus, the resolution recognized that Petitioner would be establishing a “regional corporate headquarters” in Osceola County. OTTED expected that the regional corporate headquarters would create not fewer than 100 jobs at an average annual wage for the project jobs of at least $51,554. On or about January 30, 2008, Petitioner submitted a QTI Business Tax Refund Claim. Petitioner maintains that the agreement did not require that the new jobs be created in Osceola County and that the requisite number of jobs have been established. Petitioner further asserts that Kohl’s has invested substantial capital to build facilities in Florida and to create jobs such that to deny the refund is inequitable to the Petitioner. Petitioner did not create 100 high wage jobs ($51,554 or more) for persons working in Osceola County, Florida. Petitioner did, however, create more than 100 such jobs in Florida based upon new management positions at its newly established retail outlets. Osceola County will not provide local support for Petitioner’s refund request. OTTED disapproved the refund request and notified Petitioner that the QTI Business Agreement would be terminated. Petitioner challenged those decisions of OTTED. Petitioner is a national retailer with over 1,000 stores nationwide in 49 states as of December 2009. Petitioner opened its first department store in Wisconsin in 1962. Petitioner entered the Florida market in 2005. As of 2005, Petitioner had 732 stores operating in 41 states. On November 15, 2005, Petitioner completed a General Project Overview describing its proposed QTI job creation project. The project description carried identifying codes based upon the North American Industry and Classification System Code (NAICS) to identify the functions of the jobs that Petitioner would be creating. In this case, the codes utilized were consistent with corporate management not retail or retail support. NAICS is a recognized coding system that is used by businesses to identify the work performed by its employees. The job function description dictates the appropriate NAICS code to specify. As of December 2009, Petitioner had established 48 stores throughout Florida. From those stores it identified 116 full-time equivalent jobs that it claimed met the terms of the QTI Business Agreement. Three of the jobs identified are located in Osceola County.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development enter a final order denying the QTI Business refund claim submitted by Petitioner and revoke Kohl’s status as a QTI Business. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Michelle Dennard, Esquire Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 1902 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ruth A. Kallio-Mielke Deloitte Tax LLP 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1400 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-3824 Dale Brill, Director Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development The Capitol, Suite 1902 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the "Administrative Complaint for Revocation of Certificate of Registration" (Administrative Complaint) filed with DOAH on September 13, 2011, and, if so, the action that should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for administering the revenue laws of the State of Florida, including the imposition and collection of the state's sales and use taxes pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and the state's corporate income taxes pursuant to chapter 220. Petitioner provides unemployment compensation tax collection services under contract with the Agency for Workforce Innovation through an interagency agreement pursuant to section 443.1316. Respondent is an active for-profit corporation with its principal address at 4401 Annette Street, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409. Respondent is a "dealer" as that term is defined by section 212.06(2), and holds certificate of registration number 60-8014787127-3. Respondent failed to timely file sale tax returns for the months of February and June 2011. Petitioner assessed Respondent an estimated tax liability of $2,000 for the months of February 2011 and June 2011. Respondent filed returns but failed to timely remit payment for the sale and use tax in the amount of $24,529.84 due and owing for the months of June, September, and December 2008; March, June, September, and December 2009; January through December 2010; and January, April, and May 2011. Due to its failure to timely file and/or remit taxes due, Respondent is liable for interest in the sum of $2,505.56, penalty in the sum of $2,526.36, and fees in the sum of $2,687.47, as of July 1, 2011. Respondent is an employing unit as defined in subsection 443.036(2), and is subject to the unemployment compensation tax provisions of chapter 443, as provided in section 443.1215. Respondent failed to timely file unemployment compensation tax reports for the calendar quarters ending June 30, September 30, and December 31, 2009; March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31, 2010; and March 31 and June 30, 2011. As a result, Petitioner assessed Respondent an estimated unemployment compensation tax liability of $4,500.00 as of July 1, 2011. Due to its failure to timely file the unemployment compensation tax reports, Respondent is liable for interest thereon in the sum of $490.06, penalty in the sum of $450.00, and fees in the sum of $443.31, as of July 1, 2011. Respondent issued Petitioner worthless checks for the unemployment taxes due for the calendar quarters ending June 30, 2006; December 31, 2008; and March 31, 2009. As a result, Respondent still owes Petitioner unemployment compensation taxes in the sum of $425.34, interest in the sum of $119.09, and fees in the sum of $111.70. Respondent is required to file with Petitioner corporate income tax returns each year pursuant to the provisions of chapter 220. Respondent failed to timely file corporate income tax returns and/or pay the tax due to Petitioner for the tax years 2008, 2009, and 2010. Due to its failure to timely file corporate income tax returns and/or pay the tax due, Respondent is liable for penalties in the sum of $450.00 and fees in the sum $25.00, as of July 1, 2011. Petitioner has issued and filed against Respondent delinquent tax warrants, notices of liens, or judgment lien certificates in the public records for the collection of delinquent sales and use tax, delinquent unemployment compensation tax, and delinquent corporate income tax. Petitioner served upon Respondent a Notice of Conference on Revocation of Registration via mail on May 23, 2011, advising Respondent of a conference to be held June 22, 2011. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent at the conference scheduled on June 22.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order that revokes Respondent's certificate of registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy Terrel, Acting General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Lisa Vickers, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Joseph Mellichamp, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Michael Lawrence Cohen, Esquire Michael L. Cohen Law Offices 1803 South Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Revenue Litagation Bureau The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner owes State of Florida use tax and local government infrastructure tax on the alleged use of three airplanes.
Findings Of Fact Charles and Dorothy Tolbert own and operate American Aircraft International, Inc. (American). American is in the business primarily of selling and brokering aircraft sales. Most of American's business involves brokering in which American earns a commission or fee for putting together a seller and buyer and bringing the transaction to a conclusion. On a much less frequent basis, American will purchase an airplane for resale. American advertises the availability of its airplanes, both brokered and American-owned, for either sale or lease. However, American has not had occasion to lease one of its own aircraft except as part of a lease-purchase agreement. American does not make any other use of airplanes it offers for sale or lease, except as necessary for maintenance and repairs and for demonstration to prospective purchasers or lessees. Such use would be cost-prohibitive. Fuel, crew, and insurance costs would be well in excess of the cost of a ticket on a commercial airline. American's insurance policy only covers the use of the planes for demonstration and maintenance purposes. On February 6, 1990, American traded for a King Air 200, N56GR, serial number 059, at an acquisition value of $650,000. The King Air 200 was delivered to American from Carlisle, Kentucky, and held by American for resale purposes only and was flown only for purposes of maintenance and repairs and for demonstration to prospective purchasers. When it was sold in 1991 to an English company, BC Aviation, Ltd., American had flown the aircraft only 7 hours. The aircraft was delivered out-of- state in May 1991. In July 1991, American bought a kit for a home-built aircraft called the Renegade, serial number 445. The kit was manufactured and sold by a company in British Columbia, Canada. American's intent in purchasing the kit was to build the airplane and decide whether to become a dealer. It took a year and a half to build, and by the time it was completed, American decided not to pursue the dealership. In September of 1991, American sold the Renegage to the Tolberts. The Tolberts registered the Renegade in September 1994, under N493CT. At first, the Tolberts did not pay sales tax on their purchase of the Renegade. They thought that, since they owned American, no sales tax was due. When the Department audited American and pointed out that sales tax was due, the Tolberts paid the tax in December 1994. In 1991, American also purchased a King Air B90, N988SL, serial number LJ438, for $175,000. The King Air B90 was held by American for resale purposes only and was flown only for purposes of maintenance and repairs and for demonstration to prospective purchasers. In July 1991, American sold the aircraft to Deal Aviation of Chicago, Illinois. However, Deal could not qualify for its own financing, so American agreed to lease-sell the aircraft to Deal. Under the lease-purchase agreement entered into on July 21, 1991, the purchase price was $269,000, payable $4,747.85 a month until paid in full. (The agreement actually said payments would be made for 84 months, but that would amount to total payments well in excess of the purchase price; the evidence did not explain this discrepancy.) American continued to hold title to the aircraft and continued to make payments due to the bank on American's financing for the aircraft. The lease- purchase agreement must have been modified, or payments accelerated, because American transferred title to the aircraft in April 1993. The Department asserted that a Dolphin Aviation ramp rental invoice on the King Air B90 issued in August for the month of September 1991 reflected that the aircraft was parked at the Sarasota-Bradenton Airport at the time of the invoice, which would have been inconsistent with American's testimony and evidence. But the invoice contained the handwritten notation of Dorothy Tolbert that the airplane was "gone," and her testimony was uncontradicted that she telephoned Dolphin when she got the invoice and to inform Dolphin that the invoice was in error since the plane had not been at the ramp since Deal removed it to Illinois on July 21, 1991. As a result, no ramp rent was paid after July 1991. Indeed, the Department's own audit schedules reflect that no ramp rent was paid on the King Air B90 after July 1991. The Department also presented an invoice dated September 16, 1991, in the amount of $3400 for engine repairs done on the King Air B90 by Hangar One Aviation in Tampa, Florida. The invoice reflects that the repairs were done for American and that they were paid in full on September 19, 1991, including Florida sales tax. The Department contended that the invoice was inconsistent with American's testimony and evidence. But although American paid for these repairs, together with Florida sales tax, Mrs. Tolbert explained that the repairs were made under warranty after the lease-purchase of the airplane by Deal. A minor engine problem arose soon after Deal removed the airplane to Illinois. Deal agreed to fly the plane to Hangar One for the repairs, and American agreed to pay for the repairs. After the repairs were made, Hangar One telephoned Mrs. Tolbert with the total, and she gave Hangar One American's credit card number in payment. She did not receive American's copy of the invoice until later. She does not recall if she: noticed the Florida sales tax and did not think to question it; noticed it and decided it was not enough money ($179) to be worth disputing; or just did not notice the Florida sales tax. When American's certified public accountant (CPA), Allan Shaw, prepared American's federal income tax return for 1990, he included the King Air 200 as a fixed capital asset on the company's book depreciation schedule and booked $26,146 of depreciation on the aircraft for 1990 on a cost basis of $650,000. For federal tax purposes, he took the maximum allowable depreciation deduction on the aircraft ($92,857) by attributing a seven-year life to the aircraft and using the double declining balance method of calculating depreciation. The next year, 1991, Shaw included the both the King Air B90 and the Renegade as fixed capital assets on the company's book depreciation schedule. He booked $9,378 of depreciation on the B90 on a cost basis of $175,000 and $1,872 on the Renegade on a cost basis of $25,922 for part of the year 1991. For federal tax purposes, he took the maximum allowable depreciation deduction on the B90 ($12,507) by attributing a seven-year life to the aircraft and using the double declining balance method of calculating depreciation. This depreciation was subtracted from the "gross income from other rental activities" on Schedule K of the return in the amount of $22,796, which represented the payments from Deal under the lease-purchase agreement. The Renegade was depreciated for the same amount as its book depreciation, and no income was recorded as having been generated from use of the Renegade. The next year, 1992, Shaw again included the both the King Air B90 and the Renegade as fixed capital assets on the company's book depreciation schedule. He booked $35,613 of depreciation on the B90 and $5,555 on the Renegade. For federal tax purposes, he took the maximum allowable depreciation deduction on the B90 ($25,014) by attributing a seven-year life to the aircraft and using the double declining balance method of calculating depreciation. This depreciation was subtracted from the "gross income from other rental activities" on Schedule K of the return in the amount of $51,737, which again represented the payments from Deal under the lease-purchase agreement. The Renegade was depreciated for the same amount as its book depreciation, and no income was recorded as having been generated from use of the Renegade. It is not clear from the evidence why American's CPA decided American was entitled to claim depreciation on the three aircraft in question. (Shaw also depreciated another airplane in 1989 which was before the period covered by the Department's audit.) Shaw's final hearing and deposition testimony was confusing as to whether he recalled discussing the question with the Tolberts. He may have; if he did, he probably discussed it with Mrs. Tolbert. Meanwhile, Mrs. Tolbert does not recall ever discussing the question of depreciation with Shaw. In all likelihood, Shaw probably made his own decision that American could depreciate the airplanes to minimize income taxes by claiming that they were fixed capital assets used in the business and not just inventory items being held for resale. For the King Air B90, there were lease payments Shaw could use to justify his decision; but there were no lease payments for the King Air 200 or the Renegade. The evidence was not clear whether there were lease payments for the airplane Shaw depreciated in 1989. For the next year, 1993, Shaw included the Renegade as a fixed capital asset on the company's book depreciation schedule and booked $7,712 of depreciation on the Renegade. For federal tax purposes, the Renegade was depreciated for the same amount as its book depreciation, and no income was recorded as having been generated from use of the Renegade. When the Department audited American starting in July 1994, tax auditor William Berger saw the depreciation schedules and tax returns, both of which indicated to him that the three airplanes in question were used by the company, but no sales or use tax was paid on them. (He also pointed out the Tolberts' failure to pay sales tax on the purchase of the Renegade from American, and the Tolberts later paid the tax, as previously mentioned.) As a result, on July 26, 1995, the Department issued two notices of intent. One was to make sales and use tax audit changes which sought to assess American $56,097.77 in use taxes, together with delinquent penalties of $14,657.36 and interest through July 26, 1995, in the amount of $31,752.61, for a total of $102,507.74, with subsequent interest accruing at the rate of $18.44 per day. The second was to make local government infrastructure surtax audit changes which sought to assess American $609.99 in the surtax, together with delinquent penalties of $163.14 and interest through July 26, 1995, in the amount of $256.33, for a total of $1,029.46, with subsequent interest accruing at the rate of $.20 per day. It is not clear from the record how the Department arrived at the use tax and surtax figures. The alleged use tax assessment should have been calculated as $51,061.32 (six percent of the acquisition costs of the airplanes), and the alleged surtax assessment should have been calculated at the statutory maximum of $50 per item, for a total of $150. On August 28, 1995, American made a partial payment of $5,496.44 on the Department's use tax and surtax audit change assessments, intending to leave a disputed assessed amount of $51,061.32 in use tax and $150 in surtax. It is not clear from the record what American intended the $5,496.44 to apply towards. American filed an Informal Protest of the use tax and surtax audit change assessments on February 26, 1996. The Informal Protest contended that the use tax and surtax were not due and that the federal income tax depreciation schedules were "not determinative." On October 6, 1996, the Department issued a Notice of Decision denying American's protest primarily on the ground that the depreciation of the aircraft for federal income tax purposes constituted using them for use tax purposes. After receiving the Notice of Decision, on November 4, 1996, American filed amended tax returns to remove the depreciation of the airplanes (together with the "gross income from other rental activities" on Schedule K of the 1991 return). (Although CPA Shaw refused to admit it, it is clear that American's federal income tax returns were amended in order to improve its defense against the Department's use tax and surtax assessments.) As a result of the amended returns, American had to pay an additional $15,878 in federal income tax on the 1990 return; there was no change in the tax owed on any of the other returns. On November 6, 1996, American filed a Petition for Reconsideration on the ground that the returns had been amended and the additional federal income tax paid. On January 10, 1997, the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration denying American's Petition for Reconsideration on the ground that "subsequent modifications made to the federal income tax returns will have no affect [sic] upon" the use tax and surtax assessments.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order withdrawing the assessment of use tax and local government infrastructure surtax, delinquent penalties, and interest against American. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Albert J. Wollermann, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue Whether Respondent, Neighborhood Grill, Inc., d/b/a Neighborhood Sports Grill (Respondent), failed to remit monies owed to Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Department) pursuant to the surcharge provisions found in Section 561.501, Florida Statutes (2006). If so, whether the Department should impose discipline against Respondent for that failure.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Department has been the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons holding alcoholic beverage licenses. At all times material to the allegations of this matter Respondent has held license number 60-13254, series 4-COP., which was duly issued Respondent by the Department. At all times material to the allegations of this matter, Respondent was obligated to pay monthly surcharge taxes to the Department pursuant to the provisions of Section 561.501, Florida Statutes (2006). Respondent elected to have these surcharge taxes based on the "purchase method," i.e., based on the volume of alcohol Respondent purchased from its suppliers during the month.2 The Department routinely audits licensees to compare the surcharge taxes remitted by the licensee with the records maintained by the licensee’s suppliers and/or by the licensee. The purpose of the audit is to verify that surcharge tax paid by a licensee was based on a correct calculation of its surcharge tax obligation. In this case, the Department audited Respondent for the subject audit period of October 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. Mr. Marrero began the subject audit by issuing an engagement letter to Respondent that included a questionnaire. In addition to other information, the questionnaire requested Respondent to identify its beverage suppliers. Respondent did not respond to the engagement letter or to the questionnaire. Based on records available to him, including information as to Respondent’s beverage suppliers gathered during prior audits, Mr. Marrero was able to identify Respondent’s major beverage suppliers. Consistent with the Department’s policies, Mr. Marrero contacted Respondent’s beverage suppliers to obtain records of all sales of alcoholic beverages those suppliers had made to Respondent during the subject audit period. Those beverage suppliers then provided their records to establish the beverages sold to Respondent during the subject audit period. Based upon those records Mr. Marrero determined the volume of alcoholic beverages purchased by Respondent during the subject audit period and calculated the surcharge tax due and owing to the Department for the subject audit period. Mr. Marrero compared the amount of the surcharge tax he calculated with the surcharge tax paid by Respondent to the Department for the subject audit period. Based upon that comparison, Mr. Marrero determined that Respondent had failed to remit the correct surcharge taxes payment based on underpayment, non-payment, and late payment. More specifically, Mr. Marrero calculated that the Respondent owed the Department additional surcharge tax in the principal amount of $6,265.06; surcharge interest in the amount of $589.93; and surcharge penalties in the amount of $3,467.05. Mr. Marrero determined that Respondent owed the Department the total amount of $10,322.04. Mr. Torres reviewed the audit prepared by Mr. Marrero and verified its accuracy. Mr. Marrero and Mr. Torres have the requisite education, training, and experience to conduct the subject audit (in the case of Mr. Marrero) and to review the subject audit to verify its accuracy (in the case of Mr. Torres). The subject audit accurately reflects the amounts Respondent owes the Department. On May 5, 2008, the Department provided Respondent a copy of its audit summary and demanded payment of the amounts due. Respondent has not paid any portion of the total sum ($10,322.04) identified as being due by the audit summary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a Final Order providing that the Respondent owes it surcharge taxes in the principal amount of $6,265.06, surcharge interest in the amount of $589.93, and surcharge penalties in the amount of $3,467.05, for a total amount of $10,322.04. The Final Order should give the Respondent a period of 30 days to remit the full amount $10,322.04 or make acceptable arrangements for the payment. The Final Order should revoke Respondent’s license if Respondent fails to timely remit the full amount due or make acceptable arrangements for such payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2009.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this case are what amount of federal income tax expense is properly included as an expense in Premier's excessive profits filings for the years 2005-2007, and in light of that deduction, how much Petitioner must refund as excessive profits pursuant to section 627.215, Florida Statutes (2009)?
Findings Of Fact Premier is a foreign insurer authorized to write workers' compensation insurance in the State of Florida. As a workers' compensation insurer, Premier is subject to the jurisdiction of the Office. Premier began writing workers' compensation insurance coverage in Florida on January 1, 2005. The Office is a subdivision of the Financial Services Commission responsible for the administration of the Insurance Code, including section 627.215. Section 627.215(1)(a) requires that insurer groups writing workers' compensation insurance file with the Office on a form prescribed by the Commission, the calendar-year earned premium; accident-year incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses; the administrative and selling expenses incurred in or allocated to Florida for the calendar year; and policyholder dividends applicable to the calendar year. Insurer groups writing types of insurance other than workers' compensation insurance are also governed by section 627.215. Its purpose is to determine whether insurers have realized an excessive profit and if so, to provide a mechanism for determining the profit and ordering its return to consumers. Insurer groups are also required to file a schedule of Florida loss and loss adjustment experience for each of the three years prior to the most recent accident year. Section 627.215(2) provides that "[t]he incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses shall be valued as of December 31 of the first year following the latest accident year to be reported, developed to an ultimate basis, and at two 12-month intervals thereafter, each developed to an ultimate basis, so that a total of three evaluations will be provided for each accident year." Section 627.215 contains definitions that are critical to understanding the method for determining excess profits. Those definitions are as follows: "Underwriting gain or loss" is computed as follows: "the sum of the accident-year incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses as of December 31 of the year, developed to an ultimate basis, plus the administrative and selling expenses incurred in the calendar year, plus policyholder dividends applicable to the calendar year, shall be subtracted from the calendar-year earned premium." § 627.215(4). While the sum of the accident-year losses and loss adjustment expenses are required by the statute to be developed to an ultimate basis, the administrative and selling expenses are not. "Anticipated underwriting profit" means "the sum of the dollar amounts obtained by multiplying, for each rate filing of the insurer group in effect during such period, the earned premium applicable to such rate filing during such period by the percentage factor included in such rate filing for profit and contingencies, such percentage factor having been determined with due recognition to investment income from funds generated by Florida business, except that the anticipated underwriting profit . . . shall be calculated using a profit and contingencies factor that is not less than zero." § 627.215(8). Section 627.215 requires that the underwriting gain or loss be compared to the anticipated underwriting profit, which, as previously stated, is tied to the applicable rate filing for the insurer. Rate filings represent a forecast of expected results, while the excess profits filing is based on actual expenses for the same timeframe. The actual calculation for determining whether an insurer has reaped excess profits is included in section 627.215(7)(a): Beginning with the July 1, 1991, report for workers' compensation insurance, employer's liability insurance, and commercial casualty insurance, an excessive profit has been realized if the net aggregate underwriting gain for all these lines combined is greater than the net aggregate anticipated underwriting profit for these lines plus 5 percent of earned premiums for the 3 most recent calendar years for which data is filed under this section. . . Should the Office determine, using this calculation, that an excess profit has been realized, the Office is required to order a return of those excess profits after affording the insurer group an opportunity for hearing pursuant to chapter 120. OIR B1-15 (Form F) is a form that the Office has adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69O-189.007, which was promulgated pursuant to the authority in section 627.215. The information submitted by an insurer group on Form F is used by the Office to calculate the amount of excessive profits, if any, that a company has realized for the three calendar-accident years reported. The terms "loss adjustment expenses," and "administrative and selling expenses," are not defined by statute. Nor are they defined in rule 69O-189.007 or the instructions for Form F. Form F's first page includes section four, under which calendar-year administrative and selling expenses are listed. Section four has five subparts: A) commissions and brokerage expenses; B) other acquisition, field supervision, and collection expense; C) general expenses incurred; D) taxes, licenses, and fees incurred; and E) other expenses not included above. No guidance is provided in section 627.215, in rule 60O-189.007, or in the instructions for Form F, to identify what expenses may properly be included in the Form F filing. There is no indication in any of these three sources, or in any other document identified by the Office, that identifies whether federal income taxes are to be included or excluded from expenses to be reported in a Form F filing. While the form clearly references taxes, licenses, and fees incurred under section 4(D), the instructions do not delineate what types of taxes, licenses, and fees should be included. The instructions simply state: "for each of the expenses in item 4, please provide an explanation of the methodology used in deriving the expenses, including supporting data." On or about June 30, 2009, Premier filed its original Form F Filing with the Office pursuant to section 627.215 and rule 69O-189.007. Rule 69O-189.007 requires that a Form F be filed each year on or before July 1. On March 19, 2010, the Office issued a Notice of Intent, directing Premier to return $7,673,945.00 in "excessive profits" pursuant to section 627.215. Premier filed a petition challenging the Office's determination with respect to the amount to be refunded, based in part on its position that federal income tax expense is appropriately included as an expense for calculation of excess profits. The parties attempted to resolve their differences over the next year or so. As part of their exchange of information, Premier subsequently filed three amendments to its Form F filing on December 11, 2009; on June 21, 2010; and on January 13, 2012. In each of its amended filings, Premier included the federal income tax expense attributable to underwriting profit it earned during the 2005-2007 period. These expenses were included under section 4(E). As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, Premier filed a challenge to the Office's policy of not allowing federal income taxes to be used as an expense for excess profits filings as an unadopted rule. On July 5, 2012, a Final Order was issued in Case No. 12-1201, finding that the Office's Policy regarding the inability to deduct federal income taxes as an expense for excess profits filings met the definition of a rule and had not been adopted as a rule, in violation of section 120.54(a). The Final Order in Case No. 12-1201 directed the Office to discontinue immediately all reliance upon the statement or any substantially similar statement as a basis for agency action. At this point, the parties have resolved their differences with respect to all of the calculations related to the determination of excess profits, with one exception. The sole issue remaining is the amount, if any, that should be deducted as an administrative expense for payment of federal income tax. The parties have also stipulated that, before any adjustment to federal income tax is made, Premier's underwriting profit for 2005 was $2,923,157 and for 2006 was $2,119,115. For 2008, Premier suffered an underwriting loss of $785,170. Premier's federal income tax rate for all three years was 35%. The maximum amount of underwriting profit that a company can retain is the net aggregate anticipated profit, plus five percent of earned premiums for the calendar years reported on workers' compensation business. For the 2005-2007 reporting years, Premier's maximum underwriting profit is stipulated to be $1,189,892. Anything over this amount is considered excessive profits which must be returned to policyholders. The parties also agree that, prior to any deduction for federal income tax paid by Premier, the amount of excess profit earned by Petitioner and subject to return to policyholders is $3,067,220. Premier has filed a fourth amended Form F, which incorporated all of the stipulations of the parties to date. The fourth amended Form F also includes an allocation of federal income tax expense based upon the statutory allocation methodology outlined in section 220.151, Florida Statutes (2009). Section 220.151 provides the statutory method for allocating federal income tax expenses for purpose of paying Florida corporate income taxes. This section directs that insurance companies shall allocate federal taxable income based on the ratio of direct written premium the insurance company has written in Florida for the relevant period, divided by the direct written premium anywhere. Premier paid its Florida corporate income tax based upon this statutory methodology. Consistent with the methodology in section 220.151, Premier allocated its federal taxable income to the State of Florida based upon the percentage of direct premium written on risks in Florida, and reduced the amount of its federal taxable income by the amount investment income reflected on its federal tax return. Premier then multiplied the Florida portion of its taxable income by its 35% federal tax rate, resulting in the federal income tax expense allocated to Florida. For the year 2005, Premier's federal taxable income according to its tax return is $7,614,512.89. After subtracting investment income listed on the tax return of $969,051.97, the taxable income attributable to premium is $6,645,460.92. For 2006, Premier's federal taxable income according to its tax return is $6,577,534.06. After subtracting investment income of $2,011,614.86, the taxable income attributable to premium is $4,565,919.20. For 2007, Premier's federal taxable income according to its tax return was $4,359,742.88. After subtracting investment income of $2,266,291.99, the taxable income attributable to premium is $2,093,450.89. For the three years combined, the federal taxable income was $18,551,789.83. The amount of investment income subtracted was $5,246,958.82, leaving a balance of taxable income attributable to premium as $13,304,831.01. For the years 2005 through 2007, Premier paid $2,665,079.51; $2,302,136.92; and $1,525,910.01 respectively, in federal income tax. During those same years, Premier wrote 58.8388%; 51.2514%; and 29.8536%, respectively, of its direct premium in Florida. Allocating a portion of Premier's federal tax income and income tax liability to Florida, consistent with section 220.151, results in a calculation of Florida's portion of taxable underwriting income. For 2005, this amount is $3,910,109.46; for 2006, $2,340,097.51; and for 2007, $624,970.45. The total amount of federal taxable income allocated to Florida for the three-year period of $6,875,177.42. The taxable income is then multiplied by the applicable tax rate of 35%, which results in a federal income tax expense allocated to Florida of $1,368,538.46 for 2005; $819,034.13 for 2006; and $218,739.45 for 2007, totaling $2,406,312.10 for the three-year period at issue. The undersigned notes that Premier only writes workers' compensation insurance. It does not write other lines of insurance, which makes the allocation of earned premium much simpler than it would be for a company writing multiple lines of insurance. Under the methodology described above, Premier determined that $2,406,312.10 is the appropriate amount of federal income tax expense to be deducted for calendar years 2005-2007, resulting in an excess profit pursuant to section 627.215, of $660,907. Mr. Hester, a certified public accountant and president of Premier, testified that this methodology was used by Premier in determining its Florida corporate income tax liability. The methodology described above uses the amounts that Premier actually paid in taxes, and therefore reflects the actual expense experienced by Premier. It is accepted as a reasonable method. According to Mr. Watford, the Office does not determine the methodology that must be used in allocating expenses. The insurance company provides the methodology and the data to support it, and then the Office determines whether, in a given case, the methodology is appropriate. Premier points out that the Office has provided no guidance on how to allocate federal income tax expense for excess profits reporting. That no guidance has been offered is understandable, inasmuch as the Office holds firmly to the belief that no allowance for federal income tax expense should be made. Nonetheless, the Office reviewed the method provided by Premier and did not find it to be reasonable. Premier included in its Form F filing for the years 2005-2007 a deduction for the portion of Florida corporate income tax expense not related to investment income. The Office accepted the Florida corporate income tax deduction, which is calculated using the same allocation method Premier used to allocate federal income tax expense. Indeed, the Office acknowledged at hearing that it has permitted the methodology of direct written premium in Florida divided by direct written premium written everywhere for the determination of other expenses for excess profits filings, and has only rejected the methodology on one occasion. However, it has not accepted this same methodology for determining the appropriate amount of federal income tax expense and does not believe it to be a reasonable methodology. The rationale for this distinction is that, in Mr. Watford's view, federal income tax is "a totally different type of expense." Mr. Watford did not consult an accountant or certified public accountant in making the determination that the methodology used was impermissible. Mr. Watford opined that in order to determine that a proposed methodology is reasonable, the insurance company would need to have an adjustment in the profit factor, i.e., submit a new rate filing for the years in question; have a projected tax expense that did not exceed the expense he calculated, based on the effect on future tax expenses caused by the return of excess profits; and submit a methodology that was "appropriate for the insurance company." This approach is rejected. First, the rate filing is supposed to be a forecast, and the Office cited to no authority for adjusting the forecast in light of actual events. Further, Mr. Watford admitted that in this instance, the profit and contingencies factor is already at zero for the years at issue, and section 627.125 provides that no factor less than zero can be used to determine excess profits. Second, the excess profits statute specifies that the deduction for administrative and selling expenses is for those expenses incurred in Florida or allocated to Florida for the current year. Unlike incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses, administrative and selling expenses are not developed to an ultimate basis, which appears to be what the Office is attempting to require. Administrative expenses are incurred by calendar year.1/ Other than the net cost of re-insurance, the Office has not permitted any expense that is to be valued at a date that is later than the end of the calendar year(s) at issue in the excess profits filing. The future effect of these expenses would be considered in the year that effect is realized. Third, allowing whatever is "appropriate for the insurance company" is simply too nebulous a standard, to the extent it is a standard at all, to apply.2/ As noted by Mr. Hester, federal income tax liabilities are governed by the Internal Revenue Code and its attendant regulations, and not tied specifically to underwriting gain or loss.3/ Similarly, Florida corporate income tax liabilities are governed by Florida's taxing statutes. The fact that their calculation is not governed by the Florida Insurance Code does not change the fact that they are administrative expenses borne by the insurance company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office enter a Final Order finding that $2,406,312.10 may be deducted for federal income tax expense incurred or allocated to Florida for purposes of section 627.215, and that Premier must return $660,907.90 in excessive profits to its policyholders. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 2012.
The Issue What relief, if any, should be provided by Petitioner to Respondent as the result of an accidental overpayment, and the subsequent recoupment of the overpayment?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Mills has been employed by DOC for approximately four years, and was employed by DOC as of the date of hearing. Due to human error in implementing a new payroll system (KRONOS), on March 17, 2017, Ms. Mills was overpaid in the amount of $494.01. The error affected over 5,000 employees of DOC. To address the overpayment, DOC corrected the error by deducting $247.01 from Ms. Mills’ regular paycheck of April 27, 2017, and $247.00 from Ms. Mills’ regular paycheck of May 12, 2017, for a total adjustment of $494.01. Due to the erroneous overpayment, an excess amount of federal income tax withholding ($155.65) was withheld from Ms. Mills’ paycheck of March 17, 2017. Dave Vermette, DOC’s senior personnel manager, attempted to determine whether it was possible to correct the excess federal income tax withheld by reducing future federal tax withholding during the remainder of 2017. Unfortunately, it was determined that such an adjustment could not be made. To address Ms. Mills’ concerns that the erroneous overpayment might affect her eligibility for means-tested public assistance, on June 1, 2017, DOC provided Ms. Mills with a letter explaining the overpayment so that Ms. Mills could show it to any of the agencies from which she receives benefits based on her income. The letter made clear that Ms. Mills was in no way responsible for the overpayment and offered to respond to any questions that other agencies might have about the incident. The June 1, 2017, DOC letter confirmed that, as of that date, Ms. Mills’ year-to-date earnings statement was correct. At hearing, Ms. Mills testified that she was concerned that the overpayment might jeopardize her eligibility for assistance from the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF). However, at hearing she presented no evidence that her eligibility would, in fact, be affected. If in the future Ms. Mills’ eligibility for assistance from DCF is adversely affected by DOC’s overpayment error, she will have an opportunity at that time to contest DCF’s determination pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 120, Florida Statutes. DOC did not purposely overpay Ms. Mills, and the amount of the overpayment was quickly recouped by DOC. DOC has taken all reasonable steps to mitigate any potential effects of the overpayment error. The excess federal income tax withholding will be recovered by Ms. Mills when she files her 2017 federal income tax return. Other than the speculative effect on Ms. Mills’ eligibility for DCF assistance, Ms. Mills did not establish that she had suffered injury in fact as a result of the overpayment error. At hearing, and in her PRO, Ms. Mills was non-specific about the relief that she was requesting. In her PRO, Ms. Mills stated that she “respects this court’s ability and duty to determine an appropriate final order based on all information related to this case.” She went on to state that if there is a monetary award, it should in no way be considered to be additional income accruing to her. Ms. Mills failed to prove that she had suffered any injury as the result of the DOC error. Thus, even if the undersigned was inclined to recommend monetary relief, there is no basis in this record upon which to determine an appropriate monetary award.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition filed by Nancy E. Mills be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy Mills 191 Nursery Road Monticello, Florida 32344 (eServed) Maria Shameem Dinkins, Esquire Department of Corrections 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Julie L. Jones, Secretary Department of Corrections 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 (eServed) Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel Department of Corrections 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 (eServed)
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner's application for licensure as a nonresident life, health and variable annuities insurance agent should be denied on the basis of his having pled guilty and been convicted of a felony. Embodied within that general issue are the issues of whether the felony involved is one of moral turpitude and whether the conviction, and the circumstances surrounding it, demonstrate that the Petitioner lacks fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Preston Hursey, Jr., filed an application for qualification in Florida as a nonresident life, health and variable annuities agent. The application was filed on November 13, 1989. On April 9, 1990, the Department of Insurance issued a letter of denial with regard to that application based upon a felony conviction of the Petitioner in the past. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with enforcing the licensure, admission and continuing practice standards for insurance agents of all types, embodied in Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, and with regulating the admission of persons to licensure as insurance agents in the State of Florida. On August 12, 1988, an Information was filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, charging the Petitioner with three felony counts involving "aiding or assisting presentation of false income tax return". That is a felony violation of Title 26 U.S.C., Sections 7206(2). On November 15, 1989, the Petitioner was found guilty of three counts of aiding or assisting presentation of false income tax return in violation of that statutory section. The actual conduct for which he was convicted occurred prior to the charges. Prior to 1984, the Petitioner worked for some years as a medical examiner for insurance companies, taking medical histories, blood pressures, pulses and the like, for purposes of establishing insurance coverage for clients of the companies. Some time in early 1984, the Petitioner approached American Dynamics Corporation, as a client, with the intent of availing himself of the financial planning services of that company with the intent of saving on income taxes. The company was apparently counseling clients as to tax shelters in which they could invest or which they could claim, as a means of' avoidance of federal income tax. The Petitioner became very interested in that tax saving procedure and sometime in 1984 became involved with the firm as one of its financial counselor employees. The firm trained him in the service they offered to taxpayers, which involved financial planning by using trusts to defer taxes, as well as other means of sheltering income from tax liability. The company and the Petitioner counseled numerous clients and assisted them in taking advantage of alleged tax shelters, including the final act of preparing their tax returns. During the course of going to hearings with his clients, when their tax returns came under question by the Internal Revenue Service, the Petitioner became aware that apparently the service would not accept the tax shelter devices being used by his company and him as a legitimate means of avoiding taxes. He then sought legal advice from a tax attorney and received an opinion from him that the tax avoidance counseling methods, devices and tax return preparation the Petitioner and his employer were engaging in were not legal, and that the Petitioner should advise anyone he knew involved in such schemes to terminate their relationship. The Petitioner acted on that advice, terminated his relationship with the company and recommended to his clients that they terminate their relationship with the company and the tax avoidance devices being used. Through hindsight and learning more about relevant tax law in the last four to five years since the conduct occurred, the Petitioner realizes that the tax shelter schemes marketed by his employer at that time and, by himself, did not make financial or legal sense. The Petitioner at that time had very little training in financial counseling or advising and very little training in the Federal income tax laws arid regulations. In retrospect, after receiving much more such training as an agent of New York Life Insurance Company since that time, he realized the significance of the error he and his former employer committed. When the tax returns were prepared by the Petitioner and others employed with the firm involved, the tax return accurately reflected the gross income of he taxpayer, the "W2 forms", and all appropriate documentation. Then, the gross income of the taxpayer was shown as reduced by the amount of funds affected by the tax shelter system marketed by the Petitioner's former employer and the Petitioner. There was a statement on the tax return itself explaining the disparity in taxable income so that basically the Internal Revenue Service had the facts and circumstances of such situations disclosed to it. It, however, deemed anyone marketing such tax shelters as engaged in marketing "abusive tax shelters", in effect, in violation of the Internal Revenue Code. Ultimately, the Petitioner was prosecuted along with others involved in the transactions and suffered a felony conviction of three counts of violation of the statute referenced above. The Petitioner has steadfastly maintained both before and after his conviction that he had no intent to violate the tax laws of the United States, but rather believed, until he sought a legal opinion from a qualified attorney, that the service he was marketing was a legal one. After he came under prosecution by the Justice Department for the violation, the Petitioner cooperated fully with the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department. The felony violation of which he was convicted, by guilty plea, carried a sentence of three years imprisonment, one year for each tax return involved. That sentence was reduced by the court; however, in consideration of the circumstances of the Petitioner's offense and his cooperation with the prosecuting authorities, to one month of "work release", which he served by working during the day for senior citizens organizations and returning to a confinement facility in the evening. He also was required to render 200 hours of community service, which he has completed, and three years probation. Because of his excellent attitude and behavior and his demonstrated activities designed to further his education in the insurance and securities field, his successful pursuit of the insurance and securities marketing profession in other states and his obviously-positive motivation, his probation officer has recommended that his probation be terminated early, after only two years of it would have been completed in November, 1990. The sentence was reduced because of the Petitioner's positive record in his community, the fact that he had no prior criminal history and because of widespread support by responsible members of the community and by the probation officers who reviewed his case and situation. The judge, upon sentencing, also noted that he was impressed by the fact that the Petitioner wanted to continue to work in the insurance and securities field and was the sole support of a young son whom he was supporting and caring for as an active parent. He continues to do that. The record establishes that the Petitioner's conviction was the result of a guilty plea. That plea resulted from a negotiated "plea bargain" settlement with the prosecuting authorities. The Petitioner established with unrefuted testimony, that he never had any willful intent to commit a crime or defraud the Federal government and the Internal Revenue Service. While he had a general intent to offer the tax advice involved to clients and assist them in engaging in tax shelter arrangements and in preparing the related tax returns, he had no specific intent to commit acts which he knew to be illegal when he committed them, nor which he believed amounted to fraud or deceit of the Internal Revenue Service. Although he pled guilty to a crime involving, by the language of the above--cited statute, the element of falsity, which bespeaks of deceit or fraud, the evidence shows that the Petitioner harbored no such fraudulent or deceitful intent. This is corroborated by the fact that the Petitioner and his clients disclosed all income on the tax return and simply disclosed that a portion of it was sheltered, which procedure was determined by the Internal Revenue Service to be illegal. There was no evidence of record to indicate that the Petitioner sought to conceal income or otherwise commit a false or fraudulent act in the course of his financial and tax advice to these clients, nor in the preparation of their tax returns for submittal. While the statute he is convicted of violating appears to involve the element of moral turpitude because it refers to false or fraudulent tax returns, it is a very general type of charge which can cover many types of activities or conduct. Consequently, one should consider the specific conduct involved in a given instance, such as this one, to determine whether the crime committed factually involved moral turpitude. Based upon the unrefuted evidence of record culminating in the findings of fact made above, it is clear that the Petitioner committed no conduct involving moral turpitude at the time the activity in question was engaged in for the above reasons. The Petitioner has been in no legal altercation, criminal or otherwise, before or since the instance which occurred in 1984. He has become licensed in Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia as an insurance agent and as a broker agent. He represents numerous insurance companies, including, for approximately five years, the New York Life Insurance Company and other reputable companies. He has pursued his continuing education requirements and has earned more requirements than he needs for licensure in Florida and Maryland. He is actively seeking to improve his professional standing and competence in the insurance and securities field and is highly motivated to continue doing so. A great deal of his motivation comes from the fact that he is the sole support of his young 11-year-old son. He enjoys the insurance profession because it gives him time to participate in his son's many school-related and extracurricular activities, such as football. The Petitioner's testimony, and the proven circumstances of the situation, establish without question that he is an honest, forthright person who has candidly admitted a past mistake and who has worked actively, in the approximate six years which have elapsed since the conduct was committed, to rectify that blemish on his record. His efforts to rehabilitate himself personally and professionally involved his active participation as a parent for his son in his son's school life and otherwise, and participation in church and community activities. During the time period which has elapsed since the conduct in question occurred, he has sufficiently rehabilitated himself both personally and professionally so as to justify the finding that he has demonstrated trustworthiness and fitness to engage in the business of insurance. Indeed, three other states, after having the circumstances of his conviction fully disclosed to them, have licensed him or retained him as a licensee insurance agent. The Petitioner is a navy veteran of Vietnam, having served three tours in the Vietnam war, for which service he was decorated. He had a number of security clearances, including a top secret security clearance based upon his work in the field of communications and cryptology during that war. This honorable service, the efforts he has made to improve himself personally and professionally before and since the subject conduct occurred, the fact that it was an isolated incident on his record, the fact that it did not involve any established intent to defraud or deceive on his part, the fact that he is an active, positive parental role model, community member and church member, and his general demeanor at hearing of honesty and forthrightness convinces the Hearing Officer that the isolated incident of misconduct he committed did not involve a demonstrated lack of fitness and trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. Quite positively, the Petitioner has demonstrated his fitness and trustworthiness to engage in that business.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for licensure as a nonresident life, health and variable annuities insurance agent should be granted. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 7th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3069 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted. 5. Rejected, as not clearly established by the evidence of record. 6-14. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted. 5. Rejected, as not clearly established by the evidence of record. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esq. General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Preston Hursey, Jr., pro se Post Office Box 43643 Washington, DC 20010 Willis F. Melvin, Jr., Esq. Andrew Levine, Esq. Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a public adjuster should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined after his conviction for aiding in the preparation of a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7206(2).
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Mr. Lesser be found guilty of violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes (1987), and that his licensure as a public adjuster be suspended for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of December, 1989. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-0502 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: 1 and 2. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Adopted in finding of fact 4. Implicit in findings of fact 5 and 6. Adopted in finding of fact 6. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Implicit in finding of fact 11. Rulings on findings proposed by Mr. Lesser: 1-11. Inapplicable. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Adopted in finding of fact 3, to the extent necessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in finding of fact 5. Adopted in finding of fact 5. Adopted in finding of fact 5, though finding of fact 5 includes certain logical deductions or inferences. Made more specific in findings of fact 5 and 6. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 7. Rejected. Not only were the laundering transactions illegitimate because they allowed Benevento Maneri to mischaracterize the source of their income, they also created false expenses for Lesser and Company, Inc., which artificially lowered the income of Lesser and Company, Inc., by the amount of the expense. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 7. It is difficult to determine what Mr. Lesser actually thought the source of the money was, but he knew it was illicit. See, finding of fact 7. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 8. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 9. 25 and 26. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 9. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 10 The extent of Mr. Lesser's danger cannot be determined from this record, although he was in some danger. Covered in finding of fact 9 Adopted as modified in finding of fact 11. Rejected. See, finding of fact 8. The IRS first contacted Mr. Lesser. He then went to Mr. Weinstein to set matters straight. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 11. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 4. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 12. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 12. A light sentence implies the factors set out in finding of fact 35, were taken into consideration, but does not prove that they were all the reasons the U.S. District Judge took into consideration. To the extent necessary, mentioned in finding of fact 12. Rejected as procedural. 38-51. Covered in findings of fact 13 and 14. The proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made in findings of fact 13 and 14. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Robert V. Elias, Esquire Office of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 William W. Corry, Esquire Jack M. Skelding, Jr., Esquire Patrick J. Phelan, Jr., Esquire Parker, Skelding, Labasky & Corry 318 North Monroe Street Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee Florida 32301 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact The marriage of Ronald Yelvington and Marsha Yelvington was dissolved some time prior to this proceeding. The couple had four children. On December 3, 1982, Ronald Yelvington executed a stipulation to repay arrearages of court-ordered child support due to the State of Florida in the amount of $4,542.00. Repayment was to be made at the rate of $5.00 per week. The stipulation acknowledged the four children and acknowledged that they had received public assistance from November 1, 1978 until October 31, 1981. The Department joined in the stipulation. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) On February 18, 1983, Circuit Judge E. L. Eastmore entered an order to repay debt and arrears, adopting the terms of the parties' stipulation. Payments were to be made to the Clerk of the Circuit Court and disbursed by the Clerk to the Department, as reimbursement for public assistance paid for the benefit of Yelvington's minor children. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) Ronald Yelvington has paid regularly, by payroll deduction. As of May 18, 1988, his balance due on the arrearages account was $3,286.70, including an additional arrearage of $119.70. (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) Until this proceeding, Mr. Yelvington was unaware that he was accruing an additional arrearage. He attributes the arrearage to the fact that his company changed to a bimonthly pay period. His current spouse, Carol Yelvington, called HRS and Lew Merryday's office to let them know that the pay period was different. They told her they would let the Yelvingtons know if there was a problem. The next contact was the notice of IRS intercept. HRS has a policy of pursuing IRS intercept even when the party is paying regularly under a stipulation regarding an arrearage, if the funds are available in a tax refund. Linda Bailey, the child Support Enforcement Supervisor, does not know how much is available in Mr. Yelvington's tax refund. She concedes that the policy causes confusion and resentment in a party who is making regular payments. Ronald Yelvington agrees that he owes the arrearage, although he does not understand the basis for the additional $119.70, or why no one informed him that he was getting behind for insufficient payroll deductions. He believes that intercept might be a speedy resolution, but he distrusts the figures stated by HRS. His former and current spouses vehemently object to the intercept, as they feel that the money would otherwise go to them and their children. Neither argues that the refund is partly theirs by virtue of having filed a joint tax return as a wage earner. HRS does not maintain an accounting of payments made under the child support enforcement program. It relies instead on the accounting provided by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, as it is the Clerk's office that is responsible for receiving and disbursing the funds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding that the Department should notify the Secretary of Treasury as provided in Title 42, U.S. Code, Section 644(a)(1), that Ronald Yelvington owes past-due support in an amount to be established at the time the notice is provided. That is, the sum of $3,286.70, owed as of May 18, 1988, should be reduced by those amounts paid by Mr. Yelvington since that date. It is further recommended that Ronald Yelvington be provided a copy of the Clerk of Circuit Court accounting of his payments on the arrearage established by Judge Eastmore's February 18, 1983 Order. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Lew Merryday, Jr., Esquire 425 North Palm Avenue Palatka, Florida 32077 Ronald M. Yelvington 5417 Coyote Trail Orlando, Florida 32308 Sam Power, HRS Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ms. Marsha Yelvington Martin 5834 Windermere Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Marsha Yelvington Post Office Box 608 Pierson, Florida 32080
The Issue Whether the "Additional Payment" made by Hernando HMA, Inc., d/b/a Brooksville Regional Hospital to Hernando County pursuant to a document entitled Lease Agreement, as amended, constitutes "rent" subject to sales tax under section 212.031, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Hernando HMA, Inc. (HMA) is a for-profit entity which operates Brooksville Regional Hospital, Spring Hill Regional Hospital, and other entities, as successor to an entity that was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings from 1993 to 1998, Regional Healthcare, Inc. (RHI). The Department is an agency of the State of Florida that has been delegated the responsibility to collect sales and use taxes imposed by chapter 212, Florida Statutes. In 1998, as part of RHI's bankruptcy plan, HMA and the County entered into various agreements, including a lease agreement (1998 Lease), regarding the use and operation of several RHI hospital properties and improvements owned by the County, and leased back to RHI. Under the 1998 Lease and other agreements, HMA agreed to continue to operate the hospital facilities for 30 years with possession of the real property and improvements to be returned to the County at the end of the lease term. Section 1.2W. of the 1998 Lease defined "Rental Payment" as follows: "Rental Payment" means all payments due from Lessee to Lessor or otherwise required to be paid by Lessee pursuant to the terms of this lease. The 1998 Lease further provided in section 3.3 under the heading "Rent": The annual rental payment of the Leased Premises for each year of the Lease Term (the "Rental Payment") shall be in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($300,000). This Rental Payment shall be paid to Lessor by Lessee on the Commencement Date and on each anniversary date of the Commencement Date during the Lease Term. The 1998 Lease also provided that HMA, as Lessee, would pay "all taxes, if any, prior to delinquency." Under the 1998 Lease, the County agreed to lease the premises in consideration of HMA’s timely payment of rent and timely performance of the other covenants and agreements required under the lease. It was an “event of default” under the lease if HMA failed to observe and perform any covenant, condition, or agreement on its part which could be cured by a payment of money. Remedies for default under the 1998 Lease included termination of the lease by the County and exclusion of HMA from possession of the leased premises. Even though the leased premises under the 1998 Lease were not subject to ad valorem taxes because they were owned by the County, during public discussions of the proposed 1998 Lease, an issue arose about HMA's responsibility for payment of fire assessments that would have been paid if the property was not immune or exempt from ad valorem taxes. HMA agreed, by separate agreement, to pay the fire assessments and buy a new ambulance to serve the community. The fire assessment agreement was by separate document that was included as part of the closing of the 1998 Lease and other agreements involving the hospital facilities in June 1998. The 1998 Lease was dated June 1, 1998. The 1998 Lease terms included a merger clause in section 15.6 entitled “ENTIRE AGREEMENT,” which provided: This lease may not be modified, amended or otherwise changed orally, but may only be modified, amended or otherwise changed by an agreement in writing signed by both parties. This Lease Agreement and its accompanying guaranty constitute the entire agreement between the parties affecting this Lease. This Lease Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements, and understandings between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter thereof, and no such outside or prior agreements shall be used to interpret or to construe this Lease. There are no promises, covenants, representations or inducements in addition to, or at variance with any of the terms of this Lease Agreement except the Guaranty. In 2001, the County and HMA began negotiations for relocation of the Brooksville Regional Hospital which was part of the leased premises described in the 1998 Lease. During the negotiations, HMA, through its attorney, Steven Mitchell, prepared a proposed comprehensive relocation agreement in consultation with former County Attorney Bruce Snow. Section 7.3 of the proposed relocation agreement contemplated revising the 1998 Lease and suggested the following preliminarily negotiated language for rental payments under a revised 1998 Lease: Rental Payments The Lessee shall pay to Lessor on the due date therefore as set forth in the Lease Agreement, the sum of Three Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) per annum. The Lessee shall pay to Lessor on an annual basis, either as rent or by virtue of a payment to Hernando County of the same sum to be used by Hernando County as it deems appropriate, an amount equal to the ad valorem taxes that would have been paid on the New Facility Site as improved with the New Facility if the New Facility Site were not owned by Hernando County but owned by a for-profit entity. In the event the New Facility Site and the New Facility located thereon are subsequently required by law to pay ad valorem taxes then the obligation to pay the amount described in Section 7.3(b) herein shall immediately terminate and Lessee shall be responsible for the payment of the appropriate ad valorem tax. The proposed comprehensive relocation agreement was discussed at public meetings held by the Hernando County Board of Commissioners on September 17 and September 25, 2001. The minutes of the September 25, 2001, meeting indicate that the County Administrator advised that the proposed relocation agreement contemplated that HMA would continue to pay $300,000 annually as rent, and “would make a payment-in-lieu of taxes annually to the County . . . .” The minutes also reflect that, in responding to a question from a commissioner regarding whether there should be language in the agreement that would protect the “payment-in-lieu of taxes” provision in the event the law changed: [Former County Attorney] Snow replied that it was his recommendation that there should be a provision that to the extent that the organic law of the State provided that facilities, such as the new hospital or other hospital under the lease, were taxable for ad valorem tax purposes, that that provision of the organic law would apply to ensure that that provision superseded. He explained that the lease provision to provide for an ad valorem tax payment was only to the extent that the organic law did not otherwise compel it so that the County would be receiving ad valorem tax under either scenario. The minutes from the September 25, 2001, meeting further state: Mr. Snow replied to County Attorney Garth Coller that there had been recent Supreme Court decisions which may have a bearing on the organic law to the extent that a decision of that nature indicated that the facilities were subject to ad valorem tax, notwithstanding the ownership issue, then they were subject to ad valorem tax and the lease would need to clarify that. He suggested that if the FS or Constitution should change, even in the absence of an interpretation of the Supreme Court decision, the change would obligate the payment of ad valorem taxes pursuant to the constitutional or statutory provisions. He explained that organic law pertained to provisions of FS or the Constitution as opposed to a Court decision. Mr. Snow’s reported reference to recent “Supreme Court decisions” regarding ad valorem taxes undoubtedly was referring the decision, among others, in Sebring Airport Authority v. McIntyre, 718 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1998). In that decision, rendered a few months after the County entered into the 1998 Lease, the Supreme Court of Florida stated with regard to municipal (as opposed to county) property: [T]here is nothing in article VII, section 3 that allows the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation municipally owned property or any other property that is being used primarily for a proprietary purpose or for any purpose other than a governmental, municipal or public purpose. To the extent section 196.012(6) attempts to exempt from taxation municipal property used for a proprietary purpose, the statute is unconstitutional. Id. at 298. The Sebring case did not address tax immunity of county property as distinguished from the issue of tax exemptions for the proprietary use of municipal property. The proposed “Rental Payments” language for revisions to the 1998 Lease, however, demonstrates that the drafters of the comprehensive relocation agreement were aware of the possibility that the Sebring rationale could be expanded and applied to county property. The comprehensive relocation agreement was approved by the County, and executed in late 2001. Attached as to that relocation agreement as Schedule C was an unsigned document entitled “First Amendment to Lease Agreement” that was not to be executed until the new facility was completed and transferred to the County. Subsection 3.3 of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement entitled “Rental Payments” provided: Rental Payments The Lessee shall pay to the Lessor on the due date therefore as set forth in the Lease Agreement, the sum of Three Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) per annum. The Lessee shall pay to the Lessor on an annual basis, either as rent or by virtue of a payment to Hernando County of an amount (“Additional Payment”) equal to the sum of the following: An amount equal to that portion of the ad valorem taxes that would have been paid to Hernando County on the Leased Premises (as modified by the substitution of the New Facility Site for the Current Hospital Site) if the Leased Premises were not owned by Hernando County but owned by a for profit entity; and An amount equal to that portion of the ad valorem taxes that would have been paid to the Spring Hill Fire and Rescue District, the Township 22 Fire District and/or any other special taxing district that may be established pursuant to law; and An amount equal to all special assessments levied by Hernando County through any Municipal Service Benefit Unit created by Hernando County pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.01, Florida Statutes; and An amount equal to all ad valorem tax levied by Hernando County through any Municipal Service Taxing Unit created by Hernando County pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.01, Florida Statutes. In no event shall the Additional Payments exceed an amount equal to a full ad valorem tax assessment on the New Facility Site as determined annually by the Hernando County Property Appraiser. In the event the Lessee and/or Lessor is required by law to pay ad valorem taxes on the Leased Premises or any portion thereof, the obligation to pay to Lessor the Additional Payment described in this Section 3.3 shall immediately terminate (and/or be adjusted, whichever is applicable), and Lessee shall be responsible for payment of the appropriate ad valorem tax. The First Amendment to Lease Agreement further provided, “[e]xcept as expressly modified herein, all other terms and conditions set forth in the [1998] Lease Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed.” The new hospital facility was completed and transferred to the County in 2005. On November 15, 2005, the County commission approved documents related to the transfer, including the First Amendment to Lease Agreement in the precise form as attached to the relocation agreement approved in 2001. The approval was obtained on a consent agenda, and the minutes reflect no further discussion by the commission or the public on the documents that were approved. In 2009, the Hernando County School District sued the County Property Appraiser, alleging that the properties subject to the 1998 Lease as amended by the First Amendment to Lease Agreement should not be exempt from ad valorem taxation. In a 13-page Order dismissing the School District’s action, Circuit Judge Daniel B. Merritt, Jr., distinguished the cases disallowing statutory ad valorem tax exemptions for properties owned by special tax districts or cities from the sovereign immunity against ad valorem taxes enjoyed by real estate owned by the State of Florida and its counties. In his ruling, Judge Merritt noted that Florida law specifically makes leasehold interests in governmental property subject to taxation, noting: The Legislature defines leasehold interests as intangible personal property and, hence, assessed by the Florida Department of Revenue, when: (1) rent is due; (2) the property is used for commercial purposes; (3) is not used for agriculture; (4) not financed with revenue bonds, and; (5) the lease is for an initial term of less than 100 years; §§196.199(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), 199.023(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), specifically preserved in Chapter 2006-312, Laws of Florida (2006). However, see below for further analysis with regard to presumed ownership of property leased for 100 years or more as set forth in §196.199(7), Florida Statutes. Judge Merritt also discussed those instances where “leased” property might not qualify as State or county property where lessees are the “equitable owners,” such as leaseholds of 100 years or more or where properties do not revert to the State until the end of a lease term. In his order, however, Judge Merritt noted that the tax immunity of the County was a fundamental attribute of county property and held that “under the terms of the Lease Agreements the Court concludes that HMA has merely the right to use and possession and is not the beneficial owner as a matter of law Hernando County’s immune property and improvements.” Judge Merritt’s Order was affirmed on appeal. School Board of Hernando County v. Mazourek, Case No. H-27-CA-2009-549 (5th Cir. 2009), per curiam aff’d, 2010 WL 4323055 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) In December, 2010, the Department notified the County it had been selected for a tax compliance audit under chapter 212, Florida Statutes, Sales and Use Tax. The audit period was from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2009. The County’s personnel were cordial and receptive during the audit process and the Department’s auditor determined that the books and records kept by the County had adequate internal accounting controls in place and sufficient data integrity. Out of the approximately 19 tax registration accounts the County has with the Department, the Department’s auditor found exception with only tax account #12445797, the tax collected and remitted under its lease with HMA. In her record review, the Department’s auditor noticed invoices and worksheets from the County to HMA, titled “Payment in lieu of taxes.” In examining the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement, Section 3.3 “Rental Payments,” the Department’s auditor determined that the County was not collecting sales tax on a portion of the rent received under that section. The monthly tax return filed by the County under account # 12445797 reflected that it was collecting and remitting the sales tax calculated on the $300,000.00 annual rent payment, but was not collecting and remitting sales tax calculated on the additional payments in lieu of taxes. The Department’s auditor determined the additional payments, required under the lease and made as a condition of occupancy, constituted a taxable transaction as additional rent consideration. The amount of the additional payments, made January 2007 and March 2008, as revealed on the County’s “Payment in lieu of taxes worksheets,” was multiplied by 6.5 percent to arrive at the additional tax amount due of $78,710.17. On December 9, 2010, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, Form DR 1215, advising the County of its audit findings, which included $78,710.17 in taxes due, $14,526.37 in accrued interest through December 9, 2010, and a $19,677.55 late payment penalty. On December 21, 2010, the Department issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment, Form DR 831, showing an assessment of $78,710.17 in tax and $14,707.51 in accrued interest, for a total of $93,417.68 through December 21, 2010, with interest accruing thereafter at the rate of $15.10 per diem. All penalty amounts were waived. At the final hearing, the County argued that the additional payments from HMA under the First Amendment to Lease Agreement were not rent, but rather separate payments to pay for County services. While the actual language used in the First Amendment to Lease Agreement appears to unambiguously indicate that the additional payments were rent, the County offered additional evidence of facts and circumstances beyond the terms of the lease itself in support of its argument that the additional payments were not rent. That evidence was admitted, without objection, and has been considered in determining the intention of the parties to the lease with regard to the additional payments. In addition to evidence that the lease drafters were aware of certain cases decided on the issue of whether the leased premises would be subject to ad valorem taxes, the County offered the testimony of Mr. Mitchell regarding the “Rental Payments” language found in the First Amendment to Lease Agreement. When asked whether there had been much negotiation over the format or wording of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement, Mr. Mitchell recalled: No, there really wasn’t other than, you know, the concept – what this amendment does is what we had agreed to pay rental payment. The rental payment was $300,000. And then, we also had agreed independently just to go ahead and pay the County for certain services that they were providing to us. And then we specified those. Those were independent payments, not part of the rental payment. Mr. Mitchell further testified: [B]asically, this property is free of ad valorem tax. That is why the school board filed their lawsuit because, of course, they were not getting any of the ad valorem taxes. So, the property is free of payment of ad valorem taxes. We’re paying our 300,000. It was very, very clear. However, HMA felt that the County was providing certain services, the fire districts and whatnot. So, independent of the rent, we paid this amount. If you read the section dealing – it’s 3.3.[2], or whatever it is, which I’ll read it to you, it talks about, at the very end – and they did it for whatever reason the property became taxable, you know, it effectively became taxable and we had to pay full ad valorem taxes on the property, then the specialties – these additional payments we called, you know, would go away and they, effectively, be part of rent. That's why it talks about it as such, and it was either additional payment and/or rent. Contrary to Mr. Mitchell’s recollection, section 3.3.2 of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement does not speak in terms of “additional payment and/or rent” but rather states that another payment would be made “either as rent or by virtue of a payment to Hernando County of an amount ('Additional Payment') . . .". Mr. Mitchell makes a valid point regarding the fact that HMA was concerned about having to pay both the additional payment and ad valorem taxes. Consistent with this concern, the lease amendment made it clear that HMA would not have to pay the additional amount if the property ever became subject to ad valorem taxes. Mr. Mitchell’s testimony in support of the County’s contention that HMA’s payment in lieu of taxes under the First Amendment to Lease Agreement was not rent, however, is unpersuasive. Considering the extrinsic evidence offered by the County, especially evidence of the parties concern that the subject County property might someday be subject to ad valorem taxes, together with the 1998 Lease, language negotiated for the proposed relocation agreement, and the actual terms of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement, it is found that the parties intended the language under the "Rental Payments" section to assure that HMA did not have to pay the additional amount twice. The extrinsic evidence offered by the County, however, was insufficient to support a finding that the parties intended to differentiate between “rent” and the “additional payment” or that, however characterized, the payment in lieu of taxes was not rent subject to assessment by the Department. If the parties had wanted to provide language that designated the payment in lieu of taxes as a payment for services instead of rent they could have, as they did in the Second Amendment to Lease Agreement entered into on September 13, 2011, just ten days prior to the final hearing in this case.2/ That Second Amendment to Lease Agreement changed the name of section 3.3 from “Rental Payments,” as found in the First Amendment, to “Rent and Additional Payment for County Services.” Pertinent subsections of the Second Amendment further provided: 3.3.2 Additional Payment for County Services. The Lessee shall pay to Lessor on an annual basis, as an additional payment (“Additional Payment”) for services provided by Hernando County [in its role as a service provider and local taxing authority], . . . * * * The Additional Payment is not intended to constitute “rent” and is not intended to create an event subject to Florida sales tax – but rather is intended to constitute a separate payment for the provision of services, payable to the local taxing authority, as provided in § 212.031(1)(c), Florida Statutes (which allow parties by contractual arrangement to distinguish between payments which are intended to be taxable and payments which are intended to be nontaxable), as this section may be amended or renumbered from time to time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, consistent with the Notice of Proposed Assessment dated December 21, 2010, and this Recommended Order, the Department of Revenue enter a final order finding that Petitioner owes tax and interest due totaling $93,417.68 through December 21, 2010, with interest accruing thereafter at the rate of $15.10 per diem, without penalties. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2011.
