The Issue The issues presented concern the request by Petitioner for a refund of $700 paid to the Florida Public Service Commission as a filing fee related to an application for a rate increase of its passenger fares.
Findings Of Fact The facts presented are based upon a stipulation offered by the parties. Those facts were accepted for purposes of this Recommended Order by the interlocutory Order of November 21, 1983. In keeping with that action and pursuant to the parties' stipulation of facts, the following facts are found: (See Stipulation of Facts and all exhibits attached to this Recommended Order.)
The Issue Dr. Mark H. Feldman maintained a practice in podiatry at 1101 West Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A widening and upgrading of Broward Boulevard resulted in a taking of a portion of the building in which Dr. Feldman maintained his practice. Because the widening of this highway was a part of a federal aid project, the doctor became eligible for certain payments to businesses as provided in the manual of Right-of-Way Bureau operating procedures and incorporated by reference into the Florida Administrative Code as Chapter 14-1. The provisions concerning payments to businesses include payment of actual reasonable expenses in moving the business and personal property, direct loss of tangible personal property in moving or discontinuing the business and actual reasonable expenses in searching for a replacement business. Further, in lieu of payment for actual moving and losses as indicated above, a fixed payment may be paid. Dr. Feldman applied for a fixed payment and was denied by the Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation based its denial on two grounds: Dr. Feldman had already received payments for reasonable expenses, direct less of personal property and discontinuing his business, and for search of a replacement business site; and Dr. Feldman was ineligible for a fixed payment because the doctor maintained a commercial enterprise with more than one establishment, which was not being acquired by the State or the United States and was engaged in the same or similar business. Dr. Feldman asserted that he accepted payment because of the representation of employees of the Department and that he did not maintain two (2) business locations.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Mark H. Feldman maintained a practice in podiatry at 1101 West Broward Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A portion of the building in which Dr. Feldman maintained his practice was taken by the State under a construction project, which was partially federally funded, to widen Broward Boulevard. As a result of this taking, it was necessary for Dr. Feldman to move his practice. Dr. Feldman became eligible for certain payments to businesses required to move because of such construction. Dr. Feldman asserted that prior to receipt of the Department's notice, he engaged in discussions with representatives of the Department regarding his options. Dr. Feldman requested consideration for fixed payment in lieu of actual moving expenses, which resulted in a preliminary investigation by the Department of Transportation. This investigation revealed that in addition to maintenance of his practice at 1101 West Broward Boulevard. Dr. Feldman also was listed in the telephone directory and in the building directory as maintaining offices at 7301 North University Drive, Tamarack, Florida. This second location was not affected by any taking. Based upon this information, the Department made a determination that the doctor was not eligible for fixed payment in lieu of actual moving expenses because Dr. Feldman's business affected by the taking was part of a commercial enterprise having at least one other establishment which was not being acquired by the State or the United States and which was engaged in the same or similar business. See Right-of-Way Bureau Operating Procedures Manual, 4.3.7E(1)(b). Based upon this initial denial, and having received notice that he could only be guaranteed 90 days' occupancy, Dr. Feldman applied for actual expenses, which were paid. Thereafter, Dr. Feldman submitted his application for fixed payment in lieu of actual moving expenses, which was denied on the basis that he had received actual moving expenses. Approximately one year prior to the announcement by the Department of the incipient taking of the property of 1101 West Broward Boulevard, Dr. Feldman had been in practice with another podiatrist, Harry Westridge. Dr. Westridge originally maintained his practice at 1101 West Broward Boulevard. Dr. Westridge had joined Dr. Feldman's practice at 7301 North University Drive in Tamarack several years ago. In April of 1977, Dr. Westridge purchased Dr. Feldman's practice at North University Drive. As a part of their agreement, Dr. Feldman took over the lease and personal property located at 1101 West Broward Boulevard. Further, as a part of their agreement, Dr. Feldman agreed to permit Dr. Westridge to utilize his name in conjunction with the Tamarack practice. Both doctors explained that this was because Dr. Westridge was a newcomer to the area and was purchasing the "good will" in Dr. Feldman's practice, and it protected Dr. Feldman's investment if Dr. Westridge was unable to meet his obligations under the purchase agreement. However, both doctors testified that subsequent to Dr. Westridge's purchase of the practice Dr. Feldman did not maintain regular office hours at the Tamarack address, did not regularly see patients at the Tamarack address, and had seen approximately twelve (12) patients at the Tamarack address between April of 1977, and April of 1978. This included consultations and referrals to Dr. Feldman by Dr. Westridge. The nature of his surgical practice in podiatry prevented Dr. Feldman from waiting to move his practice until the Department of Transportation took his property where he was located. Further, Dr. Feldman could not afford to move his practice without assistance. Dr. Feldman only applied for payment of his actual expenses, which he received, when he was initially told he did not qualify for in-lieu of payment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Transportation pay Dr. Feldman a fixed payment in lieu of actual expenses and offset any amounts paid to Dr. Feldman against the fixed payment. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Mark H. Feldman 6468 Racket Club Drive Lauderhill, Florida 33319 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was issued a permit to erect a sign on the site in question in 1971 and has renewed this permit annually since that time. At the time the initial permit was issued, the interchange to the 1-275 was not paved or opened to the public for access to the I-275. On October 19, 1971 Petitioner leased the property for this proposed sign at a minimum rental of $175 per month and has paid this rent since the execution of the lease (Exhibit 1). The boundary line between St. Petersburg and Pinellas County runs through the paved portion of the interchange in the vicinity of the site for the proposed sign. This site is outside St. Petersburg city limits. Petitioner now desires to erect the sign for which it holds a permit but, before spending the $40,000 estimated cost for this sign, reapplied for a permit to insure Respondent would not demand the sign be removed because it is within 500 feet of an interchange. The site of the proposed sign is located within 500 feet of the interchange to the I-275. The interchange is both within and without the corporate limits of St. Petersburg, and the site of the sign is outside the corporate limits of St. Petersburg in an unincorporated portion of Pinellas County. Since leasing the property, Petitioner has made lease payments in excess of $15,000 and has paid annual permit fees of $12 each to Respondent for the north and south facings of the permitted sign.
The Issue Whether Irene Lieberman is entitled to attorney fees and costs from Lorenzar Brown, as provided in Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes, and if so, the amount.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ilene Lieberman (Lieberman) served as mayor of the City of Lauderhill, Florida (City). The City and Broward County entered into an agreement (Grant) in January, 1992, for a Self-Help Home Ownership and Repair Program in the amount of $117,500, which provided for funding and administration of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects. Pursuant to the Grant, the City would be reimbursed for allowable project expenses. On July 13, 1992, the City Commission passed Ordinance No. 92-161, which approved budget adjustment BA 92-86 for the transfer of $123,000 from various budget accounts to establish the budget for the CDBG program. When entering the CDBG budget into the City's computer system, the data entry operator made some coding errors. Budget adjustment BA-92-86 showed that $22,500 was to be budgeted for account number 3110. However, when it was keyed into the computer system, the $22,500 was coded to account number 3121, which was the account for the City Attorney's hourly charges. No funds were entered as budgeted for account number 3110. Budget adjustment BA-92-86 showed that $25,000 was to be budgeted for account number 3122. However, when keying the entry, the data entry operator entered $25,500 instead of the $25,000. Lorenzar Brown (Brown), the Respondent, obtained a copy of the City Expenditure Status Report for July, 1992 (July Expenditure Report). The report reflected the errors that were made when the budget information was placed in the computer system. The report indicated that there were no expenditures made from account number 3121, the account for the City Attorney hourly charges. In July or August, 1992, Brown talked to Marcia Berkely, who was the City Planner, concerning whether CDBG funds were being used to pay City Attorney fees. Ms. Berkely advised Brown that the CDBG funds were not being used to pay the City Attorney. Brown did not show Ms. Berkely the July Expenditure Report. On August 31, 1992, Brown made a presentation to the City Commission, expressing his "concerns about the present taxpayer's dollars being expended to pay fees to the city attorney of the City of Lauderhill." Brown referenced the City's July Expenditure Report, stating, "In reviewing the monthly expenditure report for July, there was a number of other accounts budgeted to the city attorney." In particular Brown was concerned about CDBG funds being used for City Attorney's fees. Brown stated: This last month an additional $40,000.00 of Community Development Block Grant was recom- mended by the Mayor and approved by the City Commission to be used for city attorney fees. This also passed by the Ordinance 92-161. The community, especially the taxpayers, request that the City Commission look into or investigate the action of the Mayor, on the part of the Mayor in recommending that the City Commission use Block Grant Funds for the city attorney fees contrary to the contract approved by the Commission by Resolution 91-83 which was passed on July 13th, 1992. Brown's presentation was made during the communications from the public portion of the City Commission meeting. According to the policy of the City Commission, the Mayor and City Commission members are not allowed to respond to comments made during this portion of the meeting. Comments from the public officials are made during communications from the public officials portion of the meeting. Lieberman asked the Vice Chair of the City Commission to allow her to respond to Brown's presentation immediately after Brown concluded but she was not allowed to do so. Brown was unable to stay for the comments from the public officials because he had to pick up his daughter. He apologized to the Commission and told them that he had to leave. During the comments from public officials, Lieberman explained the purpose of the Community Development Block Grant Program. She stated that $40,000 was not used for City Attorney fees but that the CDBG budget did include a line item for "legal matters that are incident to home ownership." She invited the public to spend time with her and Marcia Berkely to discuss the attorney fees issue. By memorandum dated September 8, 1992, Brown advised the City Commission that he had not received a response from the Mayor's office concerning his request made on August 31, 1992, that the City Commission "investigate the propriety of the Mayor's office in recommending that the City Commission use BLOCK GRANT FUNDS for the City's Attorney fees. (92-161)." Brown did not reference the July Expenditure Report. By letter dated September 16, 1992, Richard J. Kaplan (Kaplan), Commission Vice Chair, advised Brown that the Mayor had responded to Brown's comments at the City Commission meeting on August 31, 1992, and attached a copy of the minutes of the meeting. Kaplan additionally told Brown that he had checked the ordinances cited by Brown and found that one was in error. By memorandum dated September 16, 1992, Kaplan forwarded a copy of Brown's September 8 correspondence to Lieberman and requested that she respond to Brown in writing. By letter to Kaplan dated September 21, 1992, Brown stated that he had reviewed the ordinances and the information submitted to Kaplan, that they were correct and that if the City Commission failed to investigate his allegations, that "the concern (sic) residents of Lauderhill will be compelled to file a complaint with the Ethics Commission and or the Bar Association." Brown did not reference the July Expenditure Report. Lieberman responded to Brown by letter dated September 29, 1992. She attached a copy of the budget for the CDBG program, budget adjustment request BA 92-86, Ordinance 92-161, and a portion of the transcript of the August 31, 1992, City Commission meeting. She advised that there had been no misappropriation of City funds and that according to the budget adjustment $5,500 was coming from the City Attorney's budget to the CDBG budget as matching funds from the City for the program. The budget adjustment contained a $25,000 line item for legal services for closing costs, and included the $5,500 from the City Attorney's budget. She invited Brown to contact her directly if he had any further questions. She did not review the July Expenditure Report in the preparation of her response. Brown never contacted Lieberman after the August 31 City Commission meeting to resolve any questions that he may have had. Based on prior dealings with her, he felt that she made him feel small and little and that she embarrassed and belittled him at City Commission meetings; therefore he did not feel comfortable directly asking her questions concerning the attorney fees issue. Brown never asked anyone in the City's finance department, including Donald Giancoli, the Director of Finance, Assistant City Administrator for the City, to explain the differences between budget adjustment 92-86 and the July Expenditure Report. On October 3, 1992, Brown executed Commission on Ethics Complaint No. 92-157 against Lieberman, alleging that she had violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, in that she "breached the public trust by solicitation in recommending that the City Commission Board use Community Block Grant funds for the City Attorney fees." On November 12, 1992, Brown executed an amendment to Complaint No. 92-157, enclosing additional information, which included a copy of the July Expenditure Report. Prior to filing the Complaint, Brown spoke with Theresa Gillis, the Director of the Community Development Division of Broward County. She administered the Community Development Block Grant Programs for the County including the Grant to the City of Lauderhill. He told her that the City had violated the terms of the Grant by getting reimbursed for attorney's fees. He did not reference the July Expenditure Report. Ms. Gillis checked the reimbursements made to the City and found that the City had not violated their obligations under the CDBG Program. If she had been aware of the July Expenditure Report showing funds being budgeted to the City Attorney account, she would have been concerned and asked the City for an explanation. On December 7, 1992, the Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Ethics issued a Recommendation of Legal Insufficiency, stating that the allegations in Complaint No. 92-157 were legally insufficient to indicate a possible violation of Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. On February 2, 1993, the Chairman of the Commission on Ethics filed a Public Report and Order Dismissing Complaint, stating that on January 28, 1993, the Commission on Ethics voted to adopt the Executive Director's legal sufficiency analysis and to dismiss Complaint No. 92-157. On January 19, 1993, Brown filed a complaint with The Florida Bar against Lieberman. The complaint stemmed from remarks Lieberman made at a December 7, 1992 City Commission meeting. The Florida Bar declined to pursue the matter, determining that his complaint did not reveal any violations of the Rules Regulating Attorneys. On February 18, 1993, Brown filed a lawsuit against Lieberman, alleging that she had defamed him in the December 7, 1992 meeting. During the January 25, 1993, City Commission meeting, Brown publicly stated that he would personally support a recall petition against Lieberman. He took this position due to Lieberman's comments against him at the December 7, 1992, meeting. Around the time that Lieberman first became mayor in 1988, she and Brown had some discusssions concerning a citation which he had received from the code enforcement board for failure to pay for garbage service at his premises. Brown was very angry and accused Lieberman of violating his constitutional rights. At a City Commission meeting in approximately September, 1992 while Lieberman was responding to a question, Brown told the gentleman seated next to him that she was lying. Brown's voice was loud enough that it was heard twenty feet away by Richard Korte, the Director for Code Enforcement for the City. After Brown filed the complaint against Lieberman, City Attorney Richard Michelson represented Lieberman as Mayor in his role as City Attorney. The City paid for these services out of the City Attorney's monthly $3,500 retainer. The total number of hours provided by the City Attorney relating to Brown's complaint and the instant fee proceeding was 23.1 hours. After Brown's complaint was dismissed, Samuel Goren was retained to represent the Mayor. Mr. Goren filed the instant fee petition. The total number of hours for Mr. Goren's law firm was 16.2 hours. After the fee petition was filed, Stuart Michelson (no relation to Richard Michelson) was retained to represent the Mayor. The total number of hours for Stuart Michelson through November 18, 1993 was 33.675. The total number of hours spent in hearing by Stuart Michelson was 17.5 hours, which included closing argument by telephone conference. Stuart Michelson spent one hour in taking the deposition of Thomas Bradley. Stuart Michelson's law clerk provided 5.45 hours of services. Each of the attorneys providing services in representing Lieberman in the complaint by Brown and in the fee petition charged the City at $125 per hour. The services of the law clerk were billed at $50 per hour. The City paid for the services provided through November 18, 1993. Jeffery Pheterson, who was qualified as an expert on attorney's fees issues, opined that based on the rates customarily charged locally the rate of $125 per hour is a modest, reasonable rate for the services provided by the attorneys. He also opined that the rate of $50 per hour for paralegal services was also a reasonable rate for the services provided. At the final hearing, counsel for Brown stipulated that the rates for Stuart Michelson and Samuel Goren were reasonable. The rates of $125 per hour for attorney services and $50 for paralegal services are reasonable rates for similar services in the community. Mr. Pheterson opined that the 23.1 hours of service provided by Richard Michelson, City Attorney, the 16.2 hours of service provided by Samuel Goren's firm, the 33.675 hours provided by Stuart Michelson and the 5.45 hours provided by Stuart Michelson's law clerk were reasonable. The hours of service provided by the above attorneys and law clerk through November 18, 1993, were reasonable. Additionally, the 17.5 hours spent by Stuart Michelson at the final hearing is reasonable and the one hour spent in taking the deposition of Thomas Bradley was reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Ilene Lieberman's Verified Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 6th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1180EC To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Respondent Lieberman's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraphs 3-25: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 26: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 27-29: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 30: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 31-33: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 34-35: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 36-37 Accepted in substance. 10 Paragraph 38: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 39-40: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 41: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 42: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 43: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 44: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 45: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 46-47: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 48: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The second sentence is accepted to the extent that he filed the complaint because his concerns were not answered but rejected to the extent that it states that he filed the complaint a day or two after he received Lieberman's letter. Paragraph 49: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Brown knew that the July Expenditure Report showed funds being budgeted from the CDBG program to the City Attorney. The second sentence is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 50-51: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 52-55: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 56: Accepted in substance to the extent that Brown never told Lieberman personally that the expenditure report showed money going to the City Attorney, but rejected to the extent that he never referenced the expenditure report in her presence because he did at the August 31, 1992, City Commission meeting. Paragraph 57: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 58: Rejected as cumulative. Paragraphs 59-69: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 70-71: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 72-73: Rejected as mere recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 74-75: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 76-77: Rejected as mere recitation of testimony. Paragraph 78: Accepted in substance to the extent that he refers to the ordinance but not as to the expenditure report. Lieberman did not address the expenditure report which Brown referenced in the August 31 meeting. Paragraph 79: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 80-81: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 82-88: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 89: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 90-92: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 93: Accepted in substance to the extent that there was a posting error. Paragraphs 94-95: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 96: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 97: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 98: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 99: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 100-102: Rejected as constituting argument. Complainant Brown's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is accepted to the extent that the responses did not make any reference to the July Expenditure Report which Brown brought up during his presentation at the August 31, 1992, City Commission meeting. The third sentence is accepted in substance to the extent that Brown let Kaplan know that he was not satisfied with the responses. Paragraphs 5-6: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 7: The first sentence is accepted to the extent that Brown had a copy of the Expenditure Status Report prior to the August 31, 1992, City Commission meeting and rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence that Brown received the document from the City's finance department. The evidence is not clear how Brown received the document. The last sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 8-10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: The first and third sentences are accepted in substance. The second sentence is accepted in substance except that the July Expenditure Report was not attached to the original complaint but to an amendment to the complaint. Paragraph 12: Accepted in substance to the extent that Lieberman personally did not expend funds or was obligated to pay the attorney's fees. Paragraph 13: Rejected to the extent that his services were included in his retainer fee. Paragraph 14: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Stuart R. Michelson, Esquire 1111 Kane Concourse, Suite 517 Bay Harbor Islands, Florida 33154 Anthony J. Titone, Esquire 7471 West Oakland Park Blvd., Suite 110 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33319 Bonnie Williams Executive Director Florida Commission On Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, Esquire General Counsel Ethics Commission 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Carrie Stillman Complaint Coordinator Commission on Ethics Post Office Box 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was properly assessed tax on the delivery fee of rental equipment as part of the "gross proceeds" of the rental operation.
Findings Of Fact Florida Hi-Lift, Petitioner, is in the business of selling, leasing, repairing and transporting aerial lift equipment. Petitioner enters into rental agreements with customers who rent specific equipment F.O.B. Petitioner's location. The lease agreement sets a fixed price for the rental of the equipment and allows the customer to pick up the equipment with the customer's own conveyance, hire a carrier to pick up the equipment, or request the equipment be picked up and delivered by Petitioner's conveyance. The customer pays for the transportation of the equipment by whichever method of transportation is selected. The rental charge is unaffected by the mode of transportation selected by the lessee. Petitioner charged the customer sales tax on the rental of the equipment but not on the charges for transporting the equipment with Petitioner's conveyances. The audit here involved covers the period February 1, 1984, through January 31, 1987, and assesses a total tax, penalty and interest through September 11, 1987 of $23,727.59 with interest at $5.29 per day until paid (Exhibit 2). The major portion of this tax and the only part contested herein is assessed on Petitioner's charges to its lessees for transportation of the equipment. The equipment rental contract/invoice (Exhibit 9) under charges lists options, Damage Waiver nine per cent, Fuel, Delivery Pickup, and Other, with tax which Petitioner computed only on the rental charge for the equipment. The Damage Waiver charge of nine percent was based on the rental price but no evidence was submitted regarding the basis for this charge. Regardless, no sales tax was added to this charge and a sales tax on this charge is not an issue. Petitioner's sole witness, the auditor who initially assessed the sales tax on the transportation charge, testified that his decision to assess sales tax for this charge was influenced by the fact that charges for leasing and transportation were included on the same invoice. Petitioner has a separate liability policy to cover equipment being transported on Petitioner's vehicles apart from the coverage of the equipment while not in transit.
Findings Of Fact Certain hospital equipment ("Equipment") was sold in 1973 and 1974 by Hospital Contract Consultants ("Vendor") to F & E Community Developers and Jackson Realty Builders (hereinafter referred to as "Purchasers") who simultaneously leased the Equipment to Petitioner. These companies are located in Indiana. At the time of purchase, Florida sales tax ("Tax") was paid by the Purchasers and on or about March 18, 1974, the tax was remitted to the State of Florida by the Vendor. However, the Tax was paid in the name of Medical Facilities Equipment Company, a subsidiary of Vendor. In 1976, the Department of Revenue audited Petitioner and on or about April 26, 1976 assessed a tax on purchases and rental of the Equipment. On or about April 26, 1976, petitioner agreed to pay the amount of the assessment on the purchases and rentals which included the Equipment, in monthly installments of approximately Ten Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($10,000.00) each and subsequently paid such amount of assessment with the last monthly installment paid on or about November 26, 1976. On or about December, 1976, the Department of Revenue, State of Florida, checked its records and could not find the Vendor registered to file and pay sales tax with the State of Florida. Petitioner then looked to the State of Indiana for a tax refund. On or about January 4, 1977, Petitioner filed for a refund of sales tax from the State of Florida in the amount of Thirty Five Thousand One Hundred Four and 02/100 Dollars ($35,104.02). This amount was the sales tax paid to and remitted by various vendors for certain other equipment purchased in 1973 and 1974 and simultaneously leased. The amount of this refund request was granted and paid. Relying upon the facts expressed in paragraph 4 heretofore, Petitioner on or about June 2, 1977 filed with the Department of Revenue of the State of Indiana for the refund of the Tax. On or about June 7, 1979, the Department of Revenue of Indiana determined that the Vendor was registered in the State of Florida as Medical Facilities Equipment Company and therefore Petitioner should obtain the refund of the Tax form the State of Florida. So advised, Petitioner then filed the request for amended refund, which is the subject of this lawsuit, on July 16, 1979 in the amount of Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Sixteen and 28/100 Dollars ($17,216.28). This request for refund was denied by Respondent, Office of the Comptroller, on the basis of the three year statute of non-claim set forth in section 215.26, Florida Statutes. Purchasers have assigned all rights, title and interest in sales and use tax refunds to Petitioner. During the audit of Petitioner in 1976 the lease arrangement on the equipment apparently came to light and Petitioner was advised sales tax was due on the rentals paid for the equipment. This resulted in an assessment against Petitioner of some $80,000 which was paid at the rate of $10,000 per month, with the last installment in November, 1976. The auditor advised Petitioner that a refund of sales tax on the purchase of this equipment was payable and he checked the Department's records for those companies registered as dealers in Florida. These records disclosed that sales taxes on the sale of some of this rental equipment had been remitted by the sellers of the equipment but Hospital Contract Consultants was not registered. Petitioner was advised to claim a refund of this sales tax from Indiana, the State of domicile of Hospital Contract Consultants. By letter on March 18, 1974, Amedco Inc., the parent company of wholly owned Hospital Contract Consultants, Inc. had advised the Florida Department of Revenue that Medical Facilities Equipment Company, another subsidiary, would report under ID No. 78-23-20785-79 which had previously been assigned to Hospital Contract Consultants Inc. which had erroneously applied for this registration. (Exhibit 2) Not stated in that letter but contained in Indiana Department of Revenue letter of April 18, 1979 was the information that the name of Hospital Contract Consultants had been changed to Medical Facilities Equipment Company. The request for the refund of some $17,000 submitted to Indiana in 1976 was finally denied in 1979 after research by the Indiana Department of Revenue showed the sales tax had been paid to Florida and not to Indiana.
