Findings Of Fact The following are the facts to which the parties have stipulated: A Complaint to Determine Paternity was filed in Duval County, Florida, in May of 1984, alleging that Archie L. Atkins was the father of Jimmy Lemont Pickney. Jimmy Lemont Pickney was born on May 1, 1971, to Betty Ruth Pickney. The birth certificate of the child did not indicate the name of the father. In his Answer to Complaint, Archie L. Atkins denied any knowledge with regard to the paternity issue, and denied that he was, in fact, the father of the minor child who was thirteen years old at the time the petition was filed. A jury trial was held on the issue of paternity. At that time, Archie L. Atkins testified that although he had met Betty Ruth Pickney, he had not had sexual intercourse with her and was unaware that she had conceived a child which she claimed to be his. However, in March of 1985 the jury determined that Archie L. Atkins was, in fact, the father of Jimmy Lemont Pickney. A Final Judgment of Paternity was entered by The Honorable John S. Cox on March 21, 1985. (Copy attached) The Court reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of child support to be paid by Archie L. Atkins and to establish a public assistance child support obligation and to tax costs. In its Order of Modification, the Court determined that the sum of $8,611.50 was the public assistance child support obligation owed by the Defendant to the State of Florida for assistance paid on behalf of the minor from October 1974 to April 1, 1985. (Copy attached) The Defendant was ordered to pay $25 per week for the support of the minor child and $5 per week toward the public assistance child support obligation. Approximately one year after the commencement of child support, it was determined that Archie L. Atkins was then in contempt due to his failure to make the payments previously ordered on April 8, 1985. Specifically, he was $897.78 behind through March 21, 1986. Mr. Atkins was ordered to pay $897.78 instantly plus $250 to be applied toward the public assistance child support obligation. (Copies attached) Mr. Atkins paid both the $897.78 and the $250 as ordered by the Court. At the same time the Court entered its Contempt Order, the Court directed that future payments be deducted from Mr. Atkins' pay check by his employer, the United States Postal Service. Archie Atkins and his wife, Richardine Atkins, overpaid their 1985 Federal Income taxes in the amount of $1,605.21 and were entitled to a refund in that amount. However, the Office of Child Support Enforcement sought to intercept that tax refund and to apply it toward the public assistance child support obligation. Mr. Atkins was notified of the interception on June 2, 1986, and requested a hearing on June 19, 1986.
Recommendation For the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order in this case to the effect that the Department is not entitled to intercept Archie L. Atkins' federal tax refund unless and until Atkins is delinquent in the periodic court-ordered payment, and to the further effect that any federal tax refund which may already have been intercepted shall be returned to Atkins. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 4th day of November, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Craig Hemphill, Esquire Assistant Counsel Child Support Enforcement Program 105 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Daniel Richardson, Esquire 1004 First Union Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent is subject to a civil penalty for alleged violation of Section 400.424(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 58A-5, Florida Administrative Code, through failure to provide a timely prorated refund following the death of a resident of Respondent’s facility.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of assisted living facilities, and, in this case, specifically “Holly Hill Care Center” in Holly Hill, Florida. Holly Hill Care Center is operated by a corporation owned by Harry Hartman, President, and Mr. Hartman’s wife. Pursuant to a complaint, Ernest H. Cartwright, a health care evaluator employed by Petitioner, conducted an investigation on November 20, 1997, of Respondent’s facility. The complaint, alleging that a timely prorated refund had not been made to a beneficiary following death of a resident, was confirmed. Beatrice Raverini moved into Holly Hill Care Center on August 24, 1997, and died on September 1, 1997. Her personal belongings were removed from her room on September 8, 1997. While the policy of the facility is to process refunds on the first day of the month following termination, an error in communication occurred between the onsite administrator and the facility’s bookkeeper who is located off-site. As a consequence, the refund was not mailed on October 1, 1997. A refund check was prepared and mailed on or about November 1, 1997, and deposited by Mrs. Raverini’s beneficiary on November 14, 1997, in Canada. Approximately 53 days elapsed before the refund was made. Section 400.424(3)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that the refund occur within 45 days or less. The refund check processed and mailed by Respondent erroneously refunded 958 dollars instead of 616 dollars. Since the room was not vacated of personal belongings until September 8, 1997, the refund should have been calculated from that date instead of the date of September 1, 1997. Respondent refunded 342 dollars in excess of what was owed to the beneficiary.
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 Whether Respondent Office of the Comptroller should refund to Petitioner taxes paid pursuant to Chapter 199 and 201, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the facts set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9 of the Petition herein, as follows: The agencies affected in this action are the Department of Revenue, Tallahassee, Florida, and the Office of the Comptroller, Tallahassee, Florida. The Petitioner is Zimmer Homes Corporation, 777 Southwest 12th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. Zimmer Homes Corporation, on or about December 12, 1974, conveyed a piece of property described as follows: All of that part of the Southeast quarter of Section 10, Township 44 South, Range 42 East, of Palm Beach County, Florida, lying North of the North right-of-way (r/w) line of Forest Hill Boulevard, less the West 40 feet thereof for road right-of-way and less the East 40 feet thereof. The sellers paid the necessary excise tax on documents and intangible tax as follows: a. $11,250.00 total consideration $3,750,000.00 of Section Florida 201.02(1) Statutes b. 3,900.00 based upon note of $2,600,000.00 Section Florida 201.07 Statutes c. 1,542.00 based upon note of $1,027,906.00 Section Florida 201.07 Statutes d. 4,125.00 based upon total consider- ation of $3,750,000.00 Section Florida 201.021(1) Statutes e. 5,200.00 based upon mortgage secur- ing note of $2,600,000.00 Section Florida 199.032(2) Statutes f. 2,055.81 based upon mortgage secur- ing note of $1,027,906.00 Section Florida 199.032(2) Statutes A lawsuit was commenced for reasons not relevant to this Petition and the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida entered a Final Judgment on July 12, 1978, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". In the Final Judgment the Court determined that the Purchasers had a right to rescind the transaction. The Court ordered that all obligations of the parties arising out of the Purchase and Sale Agreement were cancelled and that the Purchasers were entitled to a sum of money in order to restore the parties to their original positions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On March 22, 1979, pursuant to Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, Zimmer Homes Corporation applied for a refund of the excise tax on the documents in an amount as specified in Paragraphs 4(a), 4(b), 4(c) and 4(d), above. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On April 3, 1979, pursuant to Section 199.252, Florida Statutes, and Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, Zimmer Homes Corporation applied for a refund of the intangible tax paid in an amount as specified in Paragraphs 4(e) and 4(f) above. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). According to a letter from the Office of the Comptroller dated April 23, 1979, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", the Office of the Comptroller indicated that they concurred with the findings and conclusions of the Department of Revenue in denying the refund request on the excise tax on documents as specified in paragraph 6 above. As grounds therefore, it was indicated that the refund requests were denied because the statute of limitations under Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, barred the request for refund. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). By letter dated April 26, 1979, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C", the Office of the Comptroller indicated that they concurred with the findings of the Department of Revenue on denying the refund for intangible taxes which had been paid as specified above. As grounds therefore it was indicated that the request was denied because the applicable statute of limitations had run. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2).
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for refund of tax paid under Chapters 199 and 201, Florida Statutes, be approved. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard B. Burk, Esquire Scott, Burk, Royce and Harris 450 Royal Palm Way Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Barbara Harmon, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing the following relevant facts are found. On November 25, 1974 the Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida entered a Final Judgement dissolving the marriage of James Richard Fortner, Jr. and his wife Joyce Adrienne Fortner, granting the father custody of the parties' minor child, James Richard Fortner, III, and incorporating the Property Settlement Agreement (Agreement) entered into by the parties and ordering the parties to comply with the Agreement. Paragraph 2 of the Agreement provides for the father to have the care, custody and control of the minor child, James Richard Fortner, III. The husband agreed to totally support the minor child and waived any contribution from the wife. Further, the father agreed to "always take care of and totally support the minor child." Subsequent to the Final Order dissolving the marriage, the father's mother, Mary J. Fortner, gained physical custody of the minor child. It is unclear how the grandmother gained custody of the minor child since there is no order granting her custody. Subsequent to the grandmother gaining custody of the minor child, she applied for AFDC and was granted public assistance. On June 20, 1985 the Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida, entered an Order of Support against the Petitioner in favor of the Department and Mary J. Fortner in the amount of $51.50 per month ($50.00 support + 1.50 fee) to repay the state of Florida for public assistance expended on the minor child. Subsequent to this Order of Support on June 28, 1988, the Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida heard a Motion for Contempt and Review for Increase. On August 3, 1988 the court entered an order continuing the matter until September 8, 1988 and ordered the Department to investigate how the grandmother, Mary J. Fortner obtained custody of the minor child from James R. Fortner, Jr. The court file reveals that the hearing scheduled for September 8, 1988 was never held nor does the court file in this case or the dissolution of marriage case reveal any order finding Petitioner in arrears for any child support. The Department claims $547.00 for reimbursement of monies paid through the AFDC program to Mary J. Fortner and $2,047.51 for reimbursement of monies paid to the custodial foster parents for the minor child. There was no evidence that the Department ever attempted to investigate how Mary J. Fortner gained custody of the minor child or ever attempted to collect any of the public assistance funds expended on the minor child from the minor child's father who was granted custody of child and who waived child support from the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order to the effect that the Department is not entitled to intercept the Petitioner's federal tax refund and further recommend that any federal tax refund which may already have been intercepted shall be returned to Adrienne Horne. DONE and SUBMITTED this 29th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 29th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Respondent in this case. The Petitioner did not file any proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1.-2. Covered in Preliminary Statement. 3.-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Not material. First sentence adopted in Finding of Fact 7, otherwise not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Not material or relevant. Not a finding of fact but a quotation of Section 409.256(1), Florida Statutes, and the Department assertion as to the effect of the Order of Support which should handled in the conclusions of law. Copies furnished to: Adrienne J. Horne P.O. Box 2554 Lake Placid, FL 33852-2534 Lisa A. Heerman, Esq. Mensh and MacIntosh, P.A. 5536 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33707 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to a waiver of the bond requirement set forth Section 559.927, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Ladatco is a "seller of travel" as that term is defined in Section 559.927(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Ladatco deals exclusively in wholesale travel packages. Ladatco primarily packages and sells tours of Central and South America to retail travel agents. Until the last few years, the retail travel agents handled virtually all of the ticketing involved in the packages. Changes in the industry have resulted in Ladatco becoming more involved in the ticketing aspect as part of the services it provides in assembling the packages. However, Ladatco has very little direct contact with consumers. Ladatco originally began operations in 1967 as a subsidiary of another company. Ladatco has been conducting business in its current corporate form since 1976. Michelle Shelburne has been working for the company since 1969. She has been the president of Ladatco for at least the last ten years and she owns fifty percent (50 percent) of the outstanding stock. Annie Burke and Rosa Perez are the other officers of the company and they each own approximately twenty two and half percent (22 1/2 percent) of the stock. Both Burke and Perez have worked for Ladatco since approximately 1970. The remaining five percent of the outstanding stock is owned by an attorney who has represented Ladatco since 1967. Ladatco has seven other full time employees and operates out of an office building that is owned jointly by Shelburne, Perez and Burke. Under Section 559.927(10)(b), Florida Statutes, a seller of travel is obligated to post a performance bond or otherwise provide security to the Department to cover potential future claims made by travelers. The security required by this statute is for the benefit of consumers and may be waived by the Department in certain circumstances. On or about May 27, 1994, Ladatco submitted an Application for Security Waiver (the "Application") pursuant to Section 559.927(10)(b)5, Florida Statutes. In lieu of audited financial statements, Ladatco submitted a copy of its 1993 income tax return with the Application. Line 30 of that income tax return reflects a net loss for tax purposes of $100,722. In reviewing an application for a bond waiver, the Department looks at the taxable income on the income tax return. It is the Department's position that if a company shows a loss for tax purposes, it is lacking in financial responsibility and is ineligible for a bond waiver. Based on this policy, the Department denied Ladatco's Application by letter dated August 2, 1994. The certified public accountant who has handled all outside accounting services for Ladatco since 1977 testified at the hearing in this matter. He submitted a history of operations for the company from 1985 through 1993. The accountant explained that, in 1986, Ladatco acquired a very expensive computer system with customized software. The cost of this system was depreciated over a five year period. In addition, until 1991, the company operated out of a building that it owned. The building was sold to the individual principals of the company in 1991. During the years the company owned the building, a significant amount of depreciation was generated for tax purposes. The large depreciation expenses for the years 1986 through 1991 generated losses for tax purposes which have been carried over for future years. Thus, while the company's operations for 1993 generated a profit of $65,000, the loss carry over resulted in a net loss for income tax purposes. The current year forecast for the company, based upon existing bookings, projects a net income in excess of $64,000 for the year ending December 31, 1994. In sum, an isolated look at the taxable income loss reflected on the 1993 income tax return does not provide an accurate picture of the financial responsibility of this company. This closely owned company has been in business for approximately twenty eight (28) years. The three principals in the company have all been with the firm for more than twenty four (24) years. The company has demonstrated a great deal of stability and, while profitability has fluctuated from year to year, the company has continually met its obligations for more than a quarter century. There is every indication that it will continue to do so in the future. Ladatco has maintained a bond with the Airline Reporting Corporation ("ARC") for approximately two and a half years. The amount of the bond varies from year to year, but is generally in the vicinity of $35,000. The statute provides that a company which has successfully maintained a bond with the ARC for three years is entitled to a security waiver. While the ARC bond only protects the airlines and not the travelers, Ladatco will qualify for a waiver under this provision in approximately May of 1995. There is no indication of any unresolved complaints against Ladatco nor is there any evidence of civil, criminal or administrative action against the company.
Recommendation Based upon the forgoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order granting Ladatco's application for security waiver pursuant to Section 559.927(10)(b)5, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of December 1994. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 16th day of December 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Only the Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact. The following constitutes my ruling on those proposals. Adopted in pertinent part Finding of Fact 6 and also addressing the Preliminary Statement and in the Conclusions of Law. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Finding of Facts 7 and 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Michelle D. Shelburne, President Ladatco, Inc. d/b/a Ladatco Tours 2220 Coral Way Miami, Florida 33145 Jay S. Levenstein, Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: By Order of the Circuit Court of Pasco County, Florida, dated September 14, 1987, it was determined that Petitioner owed $1,560.40 in back child support payments which had been assigned to the state of Florida by the mother of the child on February 1, 1983, for assistance received by her from the state of Florida. Additionally, Petitioner was ordered to pay: (a) child support in the amount of $178.00 per month; (b) %15.00 per month on the arrearage and; (c) $5.00 per month clerk's fee for a total of $198.00 per month. Subsequent to this circuit court order, Respondent moved to intercept Petitioner's 1987 federal income tax refund, and Petitioner protested. An informal administrative hearing was held and the Respondent entered a Final Order wherein it was agreed between the parties that Petitioner owed $1,020.40 in past-due child support payments as of March 22, 1988. Although this figure of $1,020.40 cannot be reconciled with the Clerk's records in Pasco County, it is the figure agreed upon by the parties as being due as of March 22, 1988, and was used to intercept the Petitioner's 1987 federal income tax refund. On October 7, 1988, Petitioner, by order of the Circuit Court of Pasco County, Florida, was granted custody of the child for which he had been paying child support, and was no longer required to pay child support for the child. There is evidence that Petitioner had custody of the child in September 1988, but the Order states that "custody is to be upon the signing of the order". This order did not address the issue of current child support or past-due child support. Subsequent to March 22, 1988, the Petitioner was obligated to pay child support for the months of April 1988, through September 1988, for a total of $1,068.00. ( Six months at $178.00 per month). An Income Deduction Order entered by the Circuit Court of Pasco County, Florida, required Petitioner's employer to deduct $198.00 per month from Petitioner's salary and remit same to the Clerk's office for the payment ordered by the court on September 14, 1987. Respondent's employer accomplished this by rendering payment in bi-weekly amounts of $91.75. During the period from March 22, 1988, through October 7, 1988, Petitioner should be given credit for monies deducted by his employer and remitted to the Clerk's office in the net amount of $1,301.25 (Fifteen payments of $91.25 minus $75.00 Clerk's fee). Two biweekly payments remitted by Petitioner's employer during this period were improperly entered into the Clerk's record but were corrected between October 24, 1988 and November 14, 1988. The 15 payments for which Petitioner has been given credit take into consideration the 2 payments improperly entered into the Clerk's record. Respondent should be given credit for $365.60, the amount Respondent received as a result of the 1987 federal income tax refund intercept. Respondent should also be given credit for the following: (a) HLA blood test refund of $210.00 and; (b) Clerk's refund of fees of $65.00. The total amount owed by Petitioner as of October 7, 1988 was $2,088.00 ($1,020.40 arrearage as agreed by the parties and set forth in Respondent's Final Order plus $1,068.00 child support payments Petitioner was obligated to pay between March 22, 1988 and October 7, 1988) minus a credit of $1,941.85 ($1,301.25 employer payments, plus $365.60 tax intercept credit, plus $210.00 HLA credit, plus $65.00 Clerk's credit) for a net amount owed of $146.55 ($2,088.40 total amount owed after March 22, 1988 minus a total credit of $1,941.85).
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conlusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witness, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner owes the state of Florida the sum of $146.55 in past-due child support payments, and providing for Respondent to intercept Petitioner's 1988 federal income tax refund for the amount of $146.55 unless Petitioner pays this amount to the Respondent prior to the Respondent filing a federal income tax refund intercept with the Internal Revenue Service, in which case no tax refund intercept would be necessary. RESPECTFULLY submitted and entered this 28th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0277 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. No posthearing Proposed Findings of Fact were submitted by the Petitioner. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1.-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 3.-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. Immaterial since the was an agreement as to the amount of arrearage owed as of March 22, 1988. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 12.-13. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Powers, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Judith Greene, Esquire CANDICE A. MURPHY, P. A. P. O. Box 4815 Clearwater Florida 34618 Roy K. Kalbach 512 12th Avenue Leisure Hills Brooksville, Florida 34610
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Revenue's denial of a refund of intangible tax should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, First Alachua Banking Corporation, is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of banking. On February 25, 2000, Petitioner filed a Florida intangible personal property tax return in which it reported intangible assets in Florida worth $42,829,500.64. Petitioner paid intangible tax in the amount of $61,617.47. Due to a change in the law, banks became exempt from intangible tax effective for taxes due on or after July 1, 1999.2/ On June 23, 2003, Petitioner filed an application for refund with the Department requesting a refund of intangible tax in the amount of $46,576.98. The reason given on the application for refund is "taxpayer exempt under Fla statute," citing Subsection 199.185(5), Florida Statutes. The application for refund was prepared by Mr. Bevis. Petitioner filed four applications for refund for the years 2000 through 2003. The Department issued refunds to Petitioner for 2001, 2002, and 2003. However, on July 7, 2003, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Make Tax Refund Claim Changes showing a proposed refund due of $0 for 2000. The explanation given by Linda Lyles, Refund Auditor, is as follows: EXPLANATION: I am denying your refund request for the following reason: Your refund has exceeded the 3 year statute of limitations per s. 215.26(2) Florida Statutes. Tax paid on or after October 1, 1994, but before July 1, 1999 has a five year limit, for tax paid after July 1999, the limit is 3 years from the date paid. Additionally r 12C-2.012(b) F.A.C. states, 'Form DR-26, Application for Refund, must be filed with the Department for tax paid on or after July 1, 1999 within 3 years after the date the tax was paid.' Your 2000 tax was paid on February 25, 2000, therefore your refund application should have been submitted by February 25, 2003. It was postmarked June 19, 2003. On July 21, 2003, Mr. Stevens wrote to Ms. Lyles requesting an informal conference, citing Subsection 215.26(5), Florida Statutes, and giving the following reasons why the return was not prepared correctly: Our client intends to demonstrate reasonable cause for failure to prepare the return correctly, detect such error, and timely file the refund request within the three-year statutory period. The principal reasons for failure to comply with the time limitations and conditions for a timely refund request were that: The Company's assistant secretary has prepared the intangible return for a number of years using the instructions provided in the intangible return package. He was unaware of the changes in statutes eliminating a Florida intangible return on bank assets. Furthermore, the intangible return instructions for the year 2000 were silent with respect to this change in tax law. The Company has engaged a certified public accounting firm to prepare their income tax returns and relies on this firm to provide relevant and timely information on bank income and other tax issues. This firm failed to notify the Company of the change in intangible personal property tax laws. In 2002, a Florida Department of Revenue audit was conducted in which the auditor obtained and reviewed copies of the intangible personal property tax return for January 1, 2000. The auditor should have known that banking assets were not subject to intangible tax and failed to advise the Company. We have enclosed a copy of the DR-840 for your convenience. The intervening audit referenced in Petitioner's letter of June 21, 2003, was a corporate income tax audit. In the Notification of Intent to Audit Book and Records, the auditor requested that Petitioner make its intangible tax return and intangible personal property records available for audit to determine whether Petitioner properly took a credit on its corporate income tax return for intangible tax paid in 1999. However, in accordance with the general practice of the Department, the auditor who conducted the corporate income tax audit did not audit Petitioner's intangible tax return. The Notification of Intent to Audit Book and Records identified the tax to be audited as Corporate Income Tax pursuant to Chapter 220, Florida Statutes. If an auditor determines during an audit that an examination of another tax is necessary, it is the policy of the Department that the auditor inform the taxpayer, add that tax to the Notification of Intent to Audit Book and Records, initial that change, and request the taxpayer to initial the addition. There is no indication in the audit file that any other tax was audited other than corporate income tax. On July 25, 2003, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Refund Denial regarding Petitioner's request for the 2000 intangible tax refund. On January 5, 2004, the Department issued a Notice of Decision of Refund Denial sustaining its earlier proposed decision to deny the refund request because the request was filed outside the three-year statute of limitations referenced in Subsection 215.26(2), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for a refund of intangible taxes. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2004.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's Federal Income Tax refund should be intercepted by Respondent?
Findings Of Fact On August 17, 1984, the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, entered an order finding Petitioner to be in arrears in child support payments in the amount of $6,400.49. As of July 21, 1988, Petitioner was in arrears in his child support payments in the amount of $6,954.52. Petitioner does not dispute that he is in arrears in his child support payments, but argues that Respondent should not take the entire refund, but should only take one-half.
Recommendation Therefore, based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order affirming the determination that Petitioner owes past-due support. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 24th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny E. Matthews 4435 Kenndle Road Jacksonville, Florida 32208 Warren J. Schulman, Esquire 331 East Union Street, Suite 1 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact During the discovery phase of this proceeding, the Department ascertained from Echo Artz that $4,070 (the "Uncontested Amount") of the assessed tax was not contested. That is, Echo Artz agreed that it owed at least that amount of the total tax assessment of $67,757.46 set forth in the Notice. Of the total amount set forth in the Notice, $54,626.25 was the tax portion and the remainder was interest. No penalties were imposed as of the date of the Notice of Proposed Assessment. The Uncontested Amount was approximately 7.5 percent of the tax portion and approximately 5.9 percent of the total assessment. At the final hearing, during discussion of the Department's Motion to Dismiss, Echo Artz stated that the Uncontested Amount was erroneous. Instead, it stated that $23,135 of the total tax assessment was actually uncontested. The total tax portion of the assessment should be, according to Echo Artz, $57,730. The revised uncontested amount was approximately 40 percent of the total tax portion. Echo Artz did not pay any of the Uncontested Amount or any of the revised uncontested amount pursuant to its own calculations. The Department asserts that inasmuch as Echo Artz failed to pay the Uncontested Amount prior to filing its request for formal hearing, the case must be dismissed as required by law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Revenue, enter a final order of dismissal. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 May, 2012.
