The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner is a "small business party" as the term is defined at section 57.111(3)(d). On June 21, 2010, the Petitioner applied to acquire an existing alcoholic beverage "quota" license from another licensee. The Petitioner had to pay a fee to transfer the license pursuant to section 561.32(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), which provides as follows: Before the issuance of any transfer of license herein provided, the transferee shall pay a transfer fee of 10 percent of the annual license tax to the division, except for those licenses issued pursuant to s. 565.02(1) and subject to the limitation imposed in s. 561.20(1), for which the transfer fee shall be assessed on the average annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the 3 years immediately preceding transfer and levied at the rate of 4 mills, except that such transfer fee shall not exceed $5,000; in lieu of the 4-mill assessment, the transferor may elect to pay $5,000. Further, the maximum fee shall be applied with respect to any such license which has been inactive for the 3-year period. Records establishing the value of such gross sales shall accompany the application for transfer of the license, and falsification of such records shall be punishable as provided in s. 562.45. All transfer fees collected by the division on the transfer of licenses issued pursuant to s. 565.02(1) and subject to the limitation imposed in s. 561.20(1) shall be returned by the division to the municipality in which such transferred license is operated or, if operated in the unincorporated area of the county, to the county in which such transferred license is operated. (emphasis added). License transfer applicants are required to provide gross sales records pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-5.010(2)(b), which provides as follows: An applicant for a transfer of a quota liquor license shall provide records of gross sales for the past 3 years or for the period of time current licensee has held license in order that the division may compute the transfer fee. An applicant may, in lieu of providing these records, elect to pay the applicable transfer fee as provided by general law. The gross sales records provided to the Respondent by the Petitioner were for the five-month period between January 21 and June 21, 2010, and totaled $573,948.94 for the period. To compute the transfer fee, the Respondent divided the reported gross sales ($573,948.94) by five to estimate an average monthly gross sales figure of $114,789.79.2/ The Respondent multiplied the estimated average monthly gross sales by 12, to estimate annual gross sales of $1,377,477.48. The Respondent then applied the 4-mill rate to the estimated annual gross sales and determined the transfer fee to be $5,509.91. The Respondent also calculated the transfer fee through a formula set forth on a form that had been challenged as an unadopted rule by an applicant in a 2008 proceeding. While the 2008 rule challenge was pending, the Respondent commenced to adopt the form as a rule, but the dispute was ultimately resolved without a hearing, after which the Respondent discontinued the process to adopt the rule. According to the formula on the form, the transfer fee was $5,599.50. Because both of the Respondent's calculations resulted in transfer fees in excess of $5,000, the Respondent required the Petitioner to pay the statutory maximum of $5,000. The Petitioner paid the $5,000 transfer fee under protest. The Petitioner asserted that the appropriate transfer fee should have been $765.27. The Petitioner's calculation used the reported five months of gross sales ($573,948.94) as the total annual gross sales for the licensee. The Petitioner divided the $573,948.94 by three to determine a three-year average of $191,316.31 and then applied the 4-mill rate to the three-year average to compute a transfer fee of $765.27. On March 17, 2011, the Petitioner filed an Application for Refund of $4,234.73, the difference between the $5,000 paid and the $765.27 that the Petitioner calculated as the appropriate fee. The Application for Refund was filed pursuant to section 215.26, Florida Statutes, which governs requests for repayment of funds paid through error into the State Treasury, including overpayment of license fees. Section 215.26(2) requires that in denying an application for a tax refund, an agency's notice of denial must state the reasons for the denial. As authorized by section 72.11(2)(b)3, Florida Statutes, the Respondent has adopted rules that govern the process used to notify an applicant that a request for refund has been denied. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61-16.002(3) states as follows: Any tax refund denial issued by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation becomes final for purposes of Section 72.011, Florida Statutes, when final agency action is taken by the Department concerning the refund request and taxpayer is notified of this decision and advised of alternatives available to the taxpayer for contesting the action taken by the agency. By letter dated May 9, 2011, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that the request for refund had been denied and stated only that "[w]e reviewed the documentation presented and determined that a refund is not due." The Respondent's notice did not advise that the Petitioner could contest the decision. On May 16, 2011, the Petitioner submitted a Request for Hearing to the Respondent, asserting that the Respondent improperly calculated the transfer fee by projecting sales figures for months when there were no reported sales. On August 4, 2011, the Respondent issued a letter identified as an "Amended Notice of Denial" again advising that the Petitioner's refund request had been denied. The letter also stated as follows: The Division cannot process your refund application due to the fact that the transferee has not provided the Division records which show the average annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the three years immediately preceding the transfer. On September 14, 2011, the Respondent forwarded the Petitioner's Request for Hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH Case No. 11-4637). By letter dated October 10, 2011, the Respondent issued a "Second Amended Notice of Denial" which stated as follows: We regret to inform you that pursuant to Section 561.23(3)(a), Florida Statutes, your request for refund . . . in the amount of $4,234.73 is denied. However, the Division has computed the transfer fee and based upon the records submitted by you pursuant to Rule 61A-5.010(2)(b), F.A.C., the Division will issue the Applicant a refund in the amount of $2,704.20. The records referenced in the letter were submitted with the original application for transfer that was filed by the Petitioner on March 17, 2011. The Respondent's recalculated transfer fee was the result of applying the 4-mill levy directly to the reported five months of gross sales reported in the transfer application, resulting in a revised transfer fee of $2,295.80 and a refund of $2,704.20. On October 11, 2011, the Respondent filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Amended Notice of Denial, which was granted, over the Petitioner's opposition, on October 21, 2011. DOAH Case No. 11-4637 was resolved by execution of a Consent Order wherein the parties agreed to the refund of $2,704.20 "solely to preclude additional legal fees and costs," but the Consent Order also stated that the "Petitioner expressly does not waive any claim for attorneys' fees in this matter pursuant to F.S. 57.111." The Petitioner is seeking an award of attorney's fees of $8,278.75 and costs of $75, for a total award of $8,353.75. The parties have stipulated that the amount of the attorney's fees and costs sought by the Petitioner are reasonable. The Respondent failed to establish that the original calculation of the applicable transfer fee was substantially justified. The evidence fails to establish that there are special circumstances that would make an award unjust.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to its authority to regulate water and sewer rates, charges and rate structures embodied in Chapters 367, Florida Statutes, and 25-30, Florida Administrative Code, the Public Service Commission entered Orders numbered 16971 and 17058, which adopted specific guidelines and conditions for utilities to implement certain income tax impact charges for contributions-in-aid- of-construction ("CIAC gross-up charges"). (See Orders numbered 20409, p.3; 16971, p.2-4; and 17058). One of these conditions requires that utilities submit appropriate tariff sheets (rates and charges sheets) for the Commission's approval prior to implementation of the CIAC gross-up charge. CIAC is the payment or contribution of cash or property to a utility from a customer or entity seeking service from that utility in order to secure the provision of such services or to reserve it for a future time. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 changed the treatment of CIAC from being non-taxable to being taxable as income. A CIAC gross-up charge is a method by which a utility can recover that tax expense, represented by the income tax assessed against collected CIAC, through approved rates and charges to customers. The amount of CIAC tax impact funds collected by a utility is not itself treated as CIAC for rate-making purposes. The Respondent, St. Johns North Utility Corp., collected gross-up charges which were not authorized by its filed and approved tariff schedules (rate schedules), and without securing the requisite approval from the Commission. (See Orders numbered 20409 and 20762). The Commission was made aware of the charging of unauthorized CIAC gross-up charges by the Utility Respondent when a developer, Fruit Cove Limited, communicated with the Commission concerning its doubts about utility service being available for one of its subdivisions, when required, from the Respondent. Fruit Cove Limited had paid CIAC gross-up charges to St. Johns. On June 3, 1988, the Commission, through its staff, contacted Mr. Joseph E. Warren, the General Manager for the Respondent, and explained the Commission's requirements regarding the requisite pre-approval of the charging of CIAC gross-up charges. Mr. Warren agreed to file a written request for authorization to implement such charges. No request was filed, despite repeated admonitions and solicitations by the Commission and its staff and a lengthy opportunity to comply. Finally, Order No. 20409 was issued by the Commission on December 5, 1988, requiring the Utility to file a written request for authorization to implement CIAC gross-up charges within thirty (30) days of that Order. A written request was not timely filed, however. The Utility finally filed its written request for approval of these charges on September 5, 1989. The accompanying tariff sheets representing such charges were ultimately filed in response to Orders numbered 16971 and 20409, and Show Cause Order No. 20762. They became effective on September 15, 1989. The Commission, through its staff, also made repeated inquiries to the Utility regarding certain service availability charges and practices, initially by letter of July 29, 1988. The Utility was allowed until August 19, 1988 to make the requested responses. The letter was addressed to Mr. Joseph Warren at the Utility's mailing address of record. The Utility, however, did not provide written responses to the comments and questions by the Commission, despite repeated assurances that it would do so. Order No. 20409, issued on December 5, 1988, required the Utility to provide the full written responses to the July 29, 1988 letter within thirty (30) days of the date of that Order. The responses were not timely made. Order No. 20762 was issued on February 17, 1989, requiring the Utility to show cause in writing on or before March 13, 1989 why it should not be fined up to $5,000.00 per day, in accordance with the Commission's penalty authority, for failure to comply with the provisions of Order No. 20409, regarding the necessity for written responses to the Commission's specified questions and the submission of a written request to implement the CIAC gross-up charges referenced above. The first item in the Commission's July 29, 1988 letter to the Utility had requested the Utility to seek approval, including submission of proposed rate tariff sheets for authorization to implement the CIAC tax impact charge referenced above. That item was responded to on September 5, 1989, more than eight months after the deadline set by Order No. 20409. The second item in the Commission's July 29, 1988 letter to the Utility had requested the Utility to provide the names and addresses of financial institutions in which gross-up charge funds were being retained. That item was responded to as requested. The third item in the Commission's July 29, 1988 letter to the Utility had requested the Utility to provide a listing of all gross-up monies received from each contributor. No response was ever provided by the Respondent. The significance of the information requested by the Commission is that it would provide identity of the individuals who were entitled to a refund of the unauthorized CIAC gross-up charges collected by the Utility, as provided in Order No. 20762. The fourth item in the Commission's July 29, 1988 letter to the Utility had requested the Utility to provide a copy of all current developer agreements. That item was responded to within the deadline set by Order No. 20409. The fifth item in the Commission's July 29, 1988 letter to the Utility had requested the Utility to file revised tariff sheets indicating the actual legal description of the Utility's certificated service territory. No response was ever provided. Order No. 20762 was ultimately issued on February 17, 1989 imposing a $5,000.00 fine on the Utility for serving outside of its authorized service area. Order No. 20409 requested the Utility to indicate to the Commission whether, with regard to the developer agreement between the Respondent and Fruit Cove Limited, the charges listed in the various paragraphs of that agreement would, upon completion of the real estate development involved, be adjusted to reflect actual utility service costs incurred. No response to that request was ever provided by the Utility. Additionally, in that Order, the Commission requested information concerning a so- called "step tank", which was referenced in paragraphs 12C and 13D of the developer agreement with Fruit Cove Limited. That request, in Order No. 20409, was never responded to. A certain fee was charged for installation of the step tank by the Utility to Fruit Cove Limited, and no response was given to the Commission's inquiry as to why that fee was omitted from the Utility's approved tariff on file with the Commission. The significance of the requested information was that the omission of the step tank installation fee from the Utility's tariff of rates and charges could cause the developer agreement to constitute a "special service availability agreement", which can only be approved in advance by the Commission. It is not a matter, approval of which has been delegated by the Commission to its staff members. The Order referenced last above also requested an explanation for why a meter installation fee, referred to in that same developer agreement, does not include a "curb stop" or a meter box. This information is significant because it is necessary in order for the Commission to determine whether the charge involved is reasonable. A cost breakdown for the meter installation, including the various hardware components and other charges, was necessary and was not provided by the Utility. Additional information concerning the area of service availability, required to be provided to the commission by Order No. 20409, included the requirement that approval be obtained from the Commission for the CIAC gross-up charge in the developer agreement with Fruit Cove Limited. As stated above, that approval was not requested in writing, as required by the Order, for more than eight months after the deadline set by that Order. By Order No. 20762, St. Johns was fined $5,000.00 for three separate violations of the statutes and rules, and the Orders enumerating them, for a total of $15,000.00. The Utility was fined for serving outside of its authorized service territory, for collecting unauthorized CIAC gross- up charges, and for failing to file its developer agreements with the Commission as required by law. The developer agreements were only submitted after repeated efforts by the Commission's staff which culminated in Order No. 20409 and which were either unresponded to or not properly responded to by the Utility. Additionally, by Order No. 21559, issued on July 17, 1989, St. Johns was fined $5,000.00 for failure to file an application for an extension of its territory as required by Order No. 20409. In the meantime, by Order No. 22342, issued on December 26, 1989, the Commission approved a transfer of the Utility's assets from St. Johns to Jacksonville Suburban Utilities Corporation ("Jacksonville Suburban"). That Order did not authorize transfer of the liabilities of the Respondent to Jacksonville Suburban. The Order specifies that St. Johns, and not Jacksonville Suburban, will remain liable for the previously imposed refund obligations and fines. Only in the event that there remained sales proceeds in excess of the certain debt of St. Johns owed to its institutional lender would funds from the Jacksonville Suburban sale be applied toward payment of the refund and fines found to be due and owing by the above-cited Orders, by way of escrow or otherwise. Any excess proceeds, absent Order No. 22342, were to be paid to St. Johns. Order No. 22342 does not make Jacksonville Suburban liable for the refund and fines at issue. It is speculative whether there will be any sales proceeds available from the sale, after payment of the debt, to be applied toward the refund and fines. The sales price was made dependent upon establishment of the Utility's "rate base" amount, to be established in that transfer proceeding at a point in time after entry of Order No. 22342. That Order, however, specifically preserves the liability of St. Johns for the refund and fines and does not provide for the extinguishment of such liability in the event that the sales proceeds prove to be insufficient to pay them.
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 St. Johns be assessed a penalty of $5,000.00 for knowingly and willfully failing to comply with Order No. 20409. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings 1990. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 14th day of June, APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-24. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. (Respondent filed no proposed Findings of Fact) Copies furnished to: David Schwartz, Esq. Florida Public Service Commission Legal Division 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Joseph E. Warren, Esq. 1930 San Marco Boulevard Suite 200 Jacksonville, FL 32207 Mr. Steve Tribble Director of Records and Recording Florida Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Mr. David Swafford Executive Director Florida Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street, Room 116 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Susan Clark, Esq. General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street, Room 212 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850
The Issue Whether Respondents violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Orders, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondents are gas station/convenience stores located in South Florida. Northlake was created by Nazma Akter on May 6, 2014. MB was created by Ms. Akter on March 23, 2010. Congress Valero was created by Muhammad Saadat on July 21, 2011. Hena was created by Ms. Akter and Abu Ahsan on December 14, 2011. Hayma was created by Ms. Akter on December 14, 2011. Blue Heron was created by Ms. Akter on August 4, 2009. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents were duly-licensed to conduct business in the state of Florida. On February 2, 2015, the Department's Compliance Investigator Robert Feehrer, began a workers' compensation compliance investigation of Gardenia, LLC. Investigator Feehrer called the number listed for Gardenia, LLC, and was provided with a corporate office address. On February 10, 2015, upon arrival at Gardenia, LLC's, corporate office located at 165 US Highway 1, North Palm Beach, Florida, 33408, Investigator Feehrer spoke with Operations Manager Mohammad Hossain. Mr. Hossain stated that Gardenia, LLC, was a paper corporation and existed only for the purpose of paying unemployment taxes on the "six stores." Mr. Hossain went on to provide Investigator Feehrer with a list of Respondents and names of the employees that worked at each store. As an employee of Gardenia, LLC, and Respondents, Mr. Hossain's statements are party opponent admissions and bind Respondents. Lee v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 698 So. 2d 1194, 1200 (Fla. 1997). With Mr. Hossain's statements and the list of Respondents' employees, Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, and confirmed that Respondents were current, active Florida companies. Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") for proof of workers' compensation coverage and exemptions associated with Respondents. Investigator Feehrer's CCAS search revealed that Respondents had no workers' compensation policies and no exemptions. On February 24, 2015, Investigator Feehrer conducted site visits at each of the six stores. Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain accompanied Investigator Feehrer during these site visits. At all times material hereto, Ms. Akter was a corporate officer or managing member of each of the six Respondents. Muhammed Saadat and Abu Ahsan were corporate officers or managing members of Congress Valero, Hena, and Blue Heron. Kazi Ahamed was a corporate officer or managing member of Congress Valero and Hayma. Kazi Haider and Mohammed Haque were managing members of Hayma. All received compensation from the companies with which they were involved. Although Investigator Feehrer only personally observed one employee working at each location during his site visits, the payroll records revealed that at least four employees (including corporate officers or managing members without exemptions) received compensation for work at each location during the relevant period. Investigator Feehrer required additional information to determine compliance, and with Respondents' permission, contacted Respondents' accountant. Investigator Feehrer met with the accountant at least two times to obtain relevant information prior to March 30, 2015. Upon Ms. Akter's authorization, the accountant provided tax returns and payroll information for Respondents' employees. Information from Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain also confirmed the specific employees at each of the six stores during the period of March 30, 2013, through March 30, 2015. On March 30, 2015, based on his findings, Investigator Feehrer served six Stop-Work Orders and Orders of Penalty Assessment. The Stop-Work Orders were personally served on Ms. Akter. Mr. Hossain was present as well and confirmed the lists of employees for each of the six stores were accurate. In April 2015, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Christopher Richardson to calculate the six penalties assessed against Respondents. Respondent provided tax returns for the audit period and payroll transaction details were provided, as well as general ledgers/breakdowns, noting the employees for each Respondent company. Based on Investigator Feehrer's observations of the six stores on February 24, 2015, Auditor Richardson used the classification code 8061 listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). Classification code 8061 applies to employees of gasoline stations with convenience stores. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. In the penalty assessment, Auditor Richardson applied the corresponding approved manual rate for classification code 8061 for the related periods of non-compliance. The corresponding approved manual rate was correctly utilized using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027 to determine the final penalties. The Department correctly determined Respondents' gross payroll pursuant to the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(d) and rule 69L-6.027. On January 14, 2016, the Department served the six Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment on Respondents, assessing penalties of $1,367.06 for Northlake, $9,687.00 for MB, $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, $18,508.88 for Hena, $7,257.48 for Hayma, and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents were engaged in the gasoline station, self-service/convenience store industry in Florida during the periods of noncompliance; that Respondents failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees, as required by Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and that the Department correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a consolidated final order upholding the Stop-Work Orders and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment in the amounts of $1,367.06 for Northlake Mobile Enterprises, Inc.; $9,687.00 for MB Food and Beverage, Inc.; $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, Inc.; $18,508.88 for Hena Enterprises, Inc.; $7,257.48 for Hayma Enterprises, Inc.; and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron BP, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 16th day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should refund sales taxes collected from February, 1988, through June 1, 1995, on monthly rental payments for a boat slip.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the governmental agency responsible for approving or rejecting claims for refunds of sales tax in accordance with Section 215.26, Florida Statutes.1 Petitioner is a resident of the state and is subject to the sales tax imposed in Chapter 212. Petitioner owns a houseboat moored at Orange Cove Marina, Cocoa Beach, Florida (the "Marina"). Petitioner purchased the houseboat on March 20, 1980, and has lived on the houseboat as his primary place of residence since 1980. The houseboat contains a galley, a head, and sleeping accommodations for up to six people. The houseboat can be moved. In the past, Petitioner took the boat out of the Marina for cruises between three and four times a year. For the past five years, Petitioner has not taken the houseboat out of the Marina. Petitioner pays a boat slip fee to the Marina each month. Petitioner has paid the monthly fee since 1980. The monthly boat slip fee includes a charge for rental, a live-aboard fee, and a variable fee for electricity. The Marina collects a six percent sales tax on the total monthly boat slip fee. Petitioner does not contest the sales tax collected on the variable fee the Marina charges for electricity. Petitioner and the Marina do not have a written lease agreement for longer than six months. Petitioner and the Marina do have a written agreement in which Petitioner agrees to abide by the rules of the Marina. Petitioner has resided in Florida continuously since October, 1979. Petitioner does not own any real property at the Marina, including the boat slip. Petitioner does not pay any property taxes on real estate at the Marina, including his houseboat. On June 1, 1995, Petitioner filed a claim for refund of sales tax collected on his monthly boat slip rental fee from February, 1988, through June 1, 1995. Respondent denied the claim for refund on August 21, 1995. Petitioner filed a written protest on October 18, 1995. Respondent issued a Notice of Decision ("NOD") on January 5, 1996.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and thereinDENY Petitioner's request for a refund of sales tax. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 17th day of January, 1997.
The Issue Whether Petitioner failed to secure worker’s compensation coverage for seven employees who worked from February 28, 2006, to March 3, 2006, in violation of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and whether, as a result, Petitioner should be assessed a penalty in the amount of $1,115.52.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation ("the Division"), is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers provide workers' compensation coverage for their employees. Subsection 440.107, Florida Statutes (2006). Petitioner, Boudreau Concrete, Inc. (BCI), was, at all relevant times, an employer and engaged in concrete construction work in Florida. John Cipyak is a vice president with Builders Plus, a Boynton Beach Company hired to work on a Westview Office Building Site, in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Builders Plus subcontracted with BCI to perform pre-concrete form carpentry work at the site, including construction of the foundation and panels into which the concrete slab would be poured. Near the end of February 2006, Mr. Cipyak told Mr. Boudreau that the Westview project was falling behind schedule and that BCI needed more laborers on the job. Mr. Cipyak testified that Mr. Boudreau specifically agreed that his company, BCI, would hire sufficient additional manpower and would not use subcontractors. That agreement was not reduced to writing. In response to the need for additional laborers, the Division claims that BCI violated the applicable statutes and the insurance code by hiring seven carpenters, who worked at the Westview site from February 27, 2006, through March 3, 2006, as employees of BCI without providing workers' compensation insurance coverage for them. The seven carpenters are Dimas Zelaya, Francisco Figueroa, Gerardo Nava, Hector Sevilla, Jeremias Martinez, Carlos Quevedo and Jesse Hernandez. BCI claims that the seven carpenters were employees of a subcontractor, J. A. J. Construction Company, owned by Jose Alfredo Jiminez, and that Mr. Jiminez, BCI believed, carried the required workers' compensation insurance. The arrangements to have the additional workers on the project were made during a telephone call between Mr. Boudreau, Mr. Jiminez and Mr. Zelaya, who got the other six men to come with him and once they reported to the job, served as a translator for them. On March 2, 2006, Lynn Cornelius, a manager with Woodland Construction Company, Inc. (“Woodland”), sent an e-mail to Thomas Puglis, of the Division, listing the names of seven former employees of Woodland who had left Woodland’s employment, on February 24, 2006, to work for a subcontractor on another project. He named the same seven people who started work on the Westview site on the following Monday, February 27, 2006. On March 3, 2006, Mr. Puglis and Lieutenant Vance Akins, both investigators for the Division, visited the construction site where the seven former Woodland employees were working. With the assistance of an interpreter over the telephone, because no Spanish speaker was available for the site visit, the investigators instructed the seven workers to fill out Spanish language questionnaires for public works contractor licensing, provided by St. Lucie County. The investigators also tape recorded a statement from the only one of the seven men who spoke some English, Dimas Zelaya, during which, at best, he could be understood to have recognized and identified a picture of Mr. Boudreau. Lieutenant Akins telephoned another Division investigator Robert Barnes from the work site. Mr. Barnes testified that he telephoned someone who identified himself as Todd Freeman, a BCI employee, from whom he got the name of William Yocum of First Financial Employee Leasing, Inc., as the leasing company that provided workers' compensation coverage for BCI. Although he had no personal knowledge about where the seven carpenters were working from February 27 through March 3, 2006, Mr. Yocum noted that they were not covered on the policy for BCI and that the failure of BCI to report the names of all of its employees to the leasing company would violate the agreement between those two companies. Mr. Boudreau, on behalf of BCI, wrote a check dated March 10, 2006, to J. A. J. Construction Services, Inc., for $3860.00, with the notation "7 men - 2/27-3/3." BCI had no evidence of a written agreement with J. A. J. and the compensation to J. A. J. was solely for the wages earned by the carpenters. The Division's case is essentially based on the inference, without corroborating evidence, that Mr. Boudreau fabricated the subcontractor relationship and furthered that deception by writing the check after he knew BCI was being investigated for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance. The Division based its assertion on the fact that Mr. Boudreau could not name the subcontractor during his first interviews by Mr. Barnes, saying that he was dealing with the subcontractor through Mr. Zelaya. The Division also presented evidence to demonstrate that the nature of the working relationship between BCI and the seven men was that of employer and employee, not independent contractors. That evidence was inconclusive. Although Mr. Boudreau kept their time sheets and personally supervised the work at the job site everyday from Monday through Thursday, with the assistance of Mr. Zelaya, as a translator, the carpenters brought their own tools and used materials and supplies provided by Builders Plus. The argument that J. A. J.'s role was administrative in nature is not convincing, since the same can be said of the leasing company, with which the Division asserted BCI should have obtained coverage. Mr. Barnes testified that he reviewed records of J. A. J., that someone from his office questioned Mr. Jiminez, and that they determined that the seven carpenters were not covered by J. A. J.'s workers' compensation policy during the time that they were working for Mr. Boudreau, based on some sworn statement made by Mr. Jiminez to the investigators. Mr. Jiminez did not appear as a witness in this case. The Division's investigator conceded that the Division did not determine whether or not the seven workers should have been on the J. A. J. policy. Mr. Zelaya testified that he spoke to Mr. Jiminez about getting more pay and understood that he would ". . . work with the license and insurance of Jose Jiminez. Mr. Boudreau was going to pay Jose and Jose was to pay me." Further, he stated that "Jose gets the workers, Jose makes a dollar off of the pay that we make. Mr. Boudreau was to give Jose a check, and Jose was to pay us, but Jose never paid us." Before he paid Mr. Jiminez, Mr. Boudreau requested and received from J. A. J. a workers' compensation policy, but that certificate of insurance was dated March 6, 2006, and did not appear to cover BCI for the prior week. At the same time, Mr. Boudreau added some of the workers to his own lease company policy, in an apparent attempt to continue the job, but was unable to do so after the stop work order was issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order rescinding the Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 8th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Mary Morris, Esquire Morris & Morris, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 300 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act.
Findings Of Fact The underlying proceeding, DOAH Case No. 94-3605, involved Petitioners' challenge to notices of final assessments for fuel taxes. The assessments had been issued by the Department against Nana's Petroleum, Inc.; Emilio Perez d/b/a Nana's Stations; Emilio Perez as Vice President of Nana's Petroleum, Inc.; Edilia Perez as Secretary of Nana's Petroleum, Inc.; Sun Petroleum, Inc.; and Emilio Perez as President and Manager of Sun Petroleum, Inc. At the commencement of the final hearing, Sun Petroleum, Inc., and Emilio Perez as President and Manager of Sun Petroleum, Inc., withdrew their challenge to the assessments against them, and those assessments became final. Five assessments thereafter remained for determination in the underlying proceeding: one against Edilia Perez as secretary of Nana's; one against Emilio Perez as vice president of Nana's; one against Emilio Perez d/b/a Nana's Stations; and two against Nana's Petroleum, Inc. In the Recommended Order and in the Final Order entered in the underlying proceeding, only a portion of one of the assessments against Nana's Petroleum, Inc., was upheld. The Department was substantially justified in issuing its assessments against Petitioners and in initiating this proceeding. Further, an award of attorney's fees and costs for the underlying proceeding would be unjust.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner City of Opa Locka is responsible for reimbursing the Department of Transportation for the cost of relocating water and sewer lines owned and maintained by Petitioner within the State Road 916 right-of-way.
Findings Of Fact Opa Locka Boulevard and N. W. 135 Street in Dade County, Florida, are paired one-way streets between I-95 and N. W. 27 Avenue. They are located within the city limits of the City of Opa Locka and have been designated as State Road 916. Public records reveal that the portions of Opa Locka Boulevard and N. W. 135 Street which were involved in the Department’s road construction project and the right-of-way attendant to those streets were dedicated to perpetual public use by private landowners platting subdivisions between 1928 and 1956. In 1959 the City of Opa Locka transferred those roadways and rights-of-way to Dade County, Florida, so that the County would be responsible for maintaining them. In 1979 Dade County transferred its interests to the Department. The State Road 916 designation was subsequently made. The Department determined the need to improve those streets by widening them and making other improvements such as installing drainage and lighting. As the Department prepared to begin that project, it conducted a utility pre-design meeting on May 26, 1992. Such a meeting involves the Department’s employees who will be supervising portions of a road improvement project and representatives of the owners of utilities located within the area of anticipated construction. The owners of utilities are advised as to the details and extent of the anticipated construction, and they mark maps as to the location of their utilities. As the road design process proceeds, agreements are made and relocation schedules are prepared. If practical, the Department will design the road around utilities which conflict with the location of the roadway. If designing around the utility is not practical, the owner is required to relocate any utility which conflicts with the Department’s roadway or which interferes with the construction project. If the utility owner intends to relocate its own utilities, a Utility Relocation Schedule is agreed upon by the owner and the Department. If the owner requests that the Department do the relocation work and agrees to pay the costs in advance, a Joint Participation Agreement is entered into, and the Department’s contractor performs the work. The City’s consulting engineer attended the May 1992 utility pre-design meeting and attended many subsequent meetings. Subsequent meetings were also attended by the City’s public works director and the City’s project engineer. During the pre-design and design stages of the road project, the Department was able to design around all utilities or obtain voluntarily removal or relocation by all utility owners except the City. The City maintained that it could not afford to remove or relocate its water and sewer lines. Both the City and the Department were very concerned about the location of the City’s lines and about the lines themselves. The lines were made of cement asbestos and were old. Cement asbestos lines cannot withstand nearby construction and will break. Neither the Department nor the City wanted the lines to break during construction, and the Department did not want to build new roads and have the lines underneath breaking afterward, requiring re-construction. As feared, the City’s sewer line ruptured while another utility owner was relocating its utilities in the area of the City’s sewer line prior to the Department’s construction work. Further, as a result of that other utility owner’s relocation work, it was discovered that the City’s water and sewer lines within the project limits were not in fact located where the City’s maps of the lines reflected. Therefore, the City’s utilities posed a danger to the construction project, and the Department could not allow the lines to remain wherever they were. Due to the City’s position that it could not afford to remove or relocate its water and sewer lines and due to the Department’s need to proceed with the construction project, the Department and the City’s representatives agreed that the Department would issue to the City a 30-day notice to remove or relocate, but the City would not do so. The Department would then do the work for the City, and the City would reimburse the Department for its costs under a reimbursement plan yet to be negotiated. That meeting was attended by the City’s consulting engineer, the City’s former public works director, and the City’s current public works director. Everyone attending agreed that the lines needed to be replaced with newer, stronger lines. The Department agreed to issue the 30-day notice, do the work, and then seek reimbursement from the City since doing so was the only solution to the problem which would allow the road project to proceed without substantial damages and increased costs due to delay. Based upon that agreement and the City’s inability to pay the costs of relocating its water and sewer lines, no Utility Relocation Schedule or Joint Participation Agreement was entered into by the City and the Department. The City’s consulting engineer drew preliminary plans for the relocation of the City’s utilities, and the Department submitted those plans to its contractor to obtain bids for the City’s relocation work. The contractor priced the work and obtained three bids. The subcontract was awarded, the prime contractor added its overhead costs, and that became the anticipated cost. The Department kept the City advised as to additional costs as they were incurred. On July 7, 1993, the Department issued its 30-day notice to the City, expecting the City to respond in the agreed non-adversarial manner. Instead, the City requested this administrative proceeding. As the work was actually performed, the City expressed no disagreement with the materials used or the construction techniques. The City’s representatives were frequent visitors to the construction site since the actual work disclosed more problems. Not only were the City’s utilities not located where the City indicated they were but also the construction crews encountered lines which the City did not know existed. These problems caused additional delays in the project and thereby caused additional expenses to the Department. The reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the Department to remove and relocate the City’s utilities within the project limits total $791,751.07
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a Final Order be entered finding Petitioner City of Opa Locka responsible for reimbursing the Department of Transportation in the amount of $791,751.07 for the costs incurred in relocating and replacing the City's water and sewer utilities. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia C. Ellis, City Attorney City of Opa Locka 777 Sharazad Boulevard Opa Locka, Florida 33054 Francine M. Ffolkes Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation c/o Diedre Grubbs Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is liable for tax, interest, and penalty, as claimed in the proposed assessment.
Findings Of Fact Gary J. Bell (Mr. Bell) and his father Sidney Bell formed Petitioner in 1992. Until Mr. Sidney Bell left the company in his son's sole control in 2001, they were the sole shareholders and officers of the company, which had two other employees. Mr. Bell and his father estimated and checked jobs. Not fabricating fences itself, Petitioner obtained finished fences from suppliers and installed them, primarily at private residences. The audit period in this case extends from May 1, 1995, through November 30, 1999 (Audit Period). By 1995, Petitioner had four employees: one in the office and three laborers. The nature of Petitioner's business had changed from entirely residential to about half commercial, mostly consisting of sales to the State of Florida. The size and nature of Petitioner's business did not change significantly during the remainder of the audit period, although the percentage of sales to the State of Florida increased somewhat. Without referring to any records, Mr. Bell estimates that Petitioner's gross sales during the 55-month audit period totaled $1.2 to $1.4 million. Jose Rouco, a tax auditor of Respondent, sent a notice in May 2000 to Mr. Bell informing him of Respondent's intention to examine Petitioner's records. Due to a change of address, Mr. Rouco sent the form a second time. When he received no response to the form, in September 2000, Mr. Rouco visited the address that he had found for the company. Speaking to someone at a nearby business, Mr. Rouco learned that the fencing business had recently moved from the second address. On November 22, 2000, Mr. Rouco spoke to Mr. Bell on the telephone and learned that the records required for the audit were at Petitioner's present business address. Mr. Rouco directed Mr. Bell to send him copies of these records. When Mr. Bell failed to do so, Mr. Rouco sent a demand letter on December 12, 2000, warning that the failure to provide the requested records by December 27 would result in the issuance of a Formal Notice of Demand to Produce Certain Records. On December 28, 2000, after Mr. Bell had failed to respond by the deadline stated in the December 12 letter, Mr. Rouco issued a Formal Notice of Demand to Produce Certain Records for the Audit Period by 10:00 a.m. on January 9, 2001. The form warns: "Failure to produce [the records] may result in the immediate issuance of a distress warrant or a jeopardy assessment in the amount of an estimated assessment of all taxes, interest, and penalties due and payable to the State of Florida." When Mr. Bell failed to produce the records by January 9, 2001, Mr. Rouco proceeded to estimate taxes that Petitioner owed. A couple of weeks later, he received as unclaimed the December 12 letter and December 28 notice, which he had sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to Petitioner's correct address. The record does not disclose why Mr. Bell never took delivery of this mail. Based on Mr. Rouco's work, Respondent issued on April 30, 2001, a Notice of Proposed Assessment, which claimed, for the Audit Period, taxes of $227,610, a penalty of $113,805, and interest of $98,583.19 through April 30, 2001, and $74.83 daily after April 30, for a total of $439,998.19. The notice warns that the proposed assessment would become a final assessment if Petitioner did not file an informal protest by June 29, 2001, and that Petitioner must commence a judicial action or administrative proceeding by August 28, 2001. By letter dated August 10, 2001, Willie Barnett, a certified public accountant, informed Respondent that he was Petitioner's accountant, and he was responding to Respondent's tax notice dated July 25, 2001. The record does not contain any documents from Respondent dated July 25, 2001. However, Mr. Barnett's letter states that Petitioner "is in the business of installing fences, not retail sale. In those instances where the company purchases the fencing materials, the sales taxes are paid at the point of purchase." The letter concludes that Petitioner is therefore not liable for sales taxes. Mr. Bell asserts that Petitioner has paid all taxes lawfully due, but that Petitioner is not required to collect any tax on its sales to consumers because these are sales pursuant to real property contracts. Respondent's file already contained the information that Mr. Barnett supplied. By Audit Assignment Request received January 11, 1999, by Respondent's Case Selection Division, L. David Mills, evidently an employee of Respondent, wrote: "Taxpayer sells and installs real property. Potential for recovery on purchases and fabrication labor and overhead. Taxpayer does not appear to be registered." By a file memorandum dated October 25, 2000, Joan C. Rietze, also evidently an employee of Respondent, wrote: "Talked to Gary Bell. . . . He also stated that he pays tax on all of the purchases he makes. He requested that his tax number be cancelled in December of last year. The sales tax number was cancelled in October, 2000." In estimating Petitioner's tax liability in January 2001, Mr. Rouco identified four areas: taxable sales, taxable purchases, taxable acquisition of fixed assets, and taxable rent. Mr. Rouco's estimates were $207,900 for uncollected taxes on sales, $6270 for unpaid taxes on purchases of items other than fixed assets, $6840 for unpaid taxes on fixed assets, and $6600 for unpaid taxes on warehouse rent. Without much explanation, Mr. Rouco selected a "small construction company" as the source of gross monthly sales of $63,000, as well as other relevant business activity. However, this choice produces $3.465 million of gross sales during the Audit Period, which is almost three times Mr. Bell's estimate. Factually, the record offers scant support for Mr. Rouco's selection of the "small construction company" as a comparable to Petitioner's business. Petitioner's business was not construction; it purchased already-fabricated fences and installed them. Coupled with the problem with the comparable, the record does not support Mr. Rouco's estimate of Petitioner's tax due on purchase amounts of fixed assets, and Petitioner has proved that it does not owe additional taxes on such purchases. Petitioner's labor-intensive services, coupled with its itinerant nature during the Audit Period, suggest strongly few, if any, such purchases. Coupled with the problem with the comparable, the record does not support Mr. Rouco's estimate of Petitioner's tax due on warehouse rent, and Petitioner has proved that it does not owe additional taxes on such rent payments. The estimate concerning unpaid warehouse rent sales tax requires the presumption that Petitioner's several lessor's found some reason not to collect and remit sales tax based on the lease payments. Any dealer-like activities by Petitioner involving sales for resales would not impact its liability to pay this tax, so misuse of a dealer registration is unlikely here. Nor has Respondent suggested such widespread noncompliance with this component of the sales tax as to justify a presumption of noncompliance among Petitioner's lessors, even assuming that Mr. Rouco generated a gross rent that is factually supported by the record. Notwithstanding the problem with the comparable, the factual record supports Mr. Rouco's estimate of Petitioner's tax due on purchases of items other than fixed assets, and Petitioner has failed to prove that it does not owe additional taxes on such purchases. For much, if not all, of the Audit Period, Petitioner appears to have been a registered dealer. Mr. Bell's unprofessional handling of this matter while Mr. Rouco attempted to perform a routine audit inspires little confidence that Mr. Bell would not misuse a dealer registration and resale certificate. Thus, although the use of the "small construction company" as a comparable is questionable, there is factual support for the assessment of $6270 in unpaid taxes on these purchases over the Audit Period. As noted below, the main problem with Mr. Rouco's estimate of Petitioner's tax due on sales to consumers is legal, not factual. As for the main factual aspect of this issue, the record offers no support that Petitioner sold to consumers using a retail sale plus installation contract, as opposed to a simple lump sum contract. Nothing in Petitioner's operation, as reflected on this record, suggests that it would be more inclined to use the more sophisticated contract.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Department enter a final order adjusting the assessment against Petitioner to reflect unpaid sales tax of $6270, a penalty of $3135, and interest at the lawful rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 26th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Bruce Hoffman, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Gary J. Bell, Qualified Representative Bell & Son Fence Company, Inc. 6600 Northwest 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147 John Mica, Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
