The Issue There is little controversy as to the facts in this cause. The issue is essentially a legal issue and is stated as follows: When parties act in reliance and in conformity to a prior construction by an agency of a statute or rule, should the rights gained and positions taken by said parties be impaired by a different construction of said statute by the agency? Both parties submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders filed March 17 and 18, 1983. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based on the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Vanguard Investment Company, is a Florida corporation with its principal offices at 440 Northeast 92nd Street, Miami Shores, Florida 33138. On or about March 3, 1981, Vanguard purchased an aircraft described as a Turbo Commander, serial number N9RN, from Thunderbird Aviation, Inc., for a purchase price of $120,000 plus $4,800 in sales tax. The sale price plus the sales tax was paid by Vanguard to Thunderbird, which remitted the $4,800 in sales tax to the Department of Revenue (DOR) less a three percent discount as authorized by law. On February 27, 1981, Vanguard had executed a lease of said aircraft to General Development Corporation for a term of two years commencing on March 1, 1981, contingent upon Vanguard's purchase of said aircraft from Thunderbird. Prior to March 1, 1981, General Development had leased said aircraft from Thunderbird, and the least terminated on February 28, 1981. Vanguard purchased said aircraft for the sole purpose and in anticipation of continuing its lease to General Development. Vanguard never took possession or control of said aircraft, which remained in General Development's possession at Opa-locka Airport in Dade County, Florida. No controversy exists that all sales tax payable under General Development's lease of the aircraft, both with Thunderbird and subsequently with Vanguard, had been remitted to DOR with no break in continuity of the lease as a result of the change in ownership of the aircraft on or about March 1, 1981. At the time Vanguard purchased the aircraft from Thunderbird, Vanguard had not applied for or received a sales and use tax registration number pursuant to Rule 12A-1.38, Florida Administrative Code. Vanguard applied for said sales and use tax registration number on or about April 2, 1981, approximately 30 days after the purchase of said aircraft. The sales and use tax registration number was granted by DOR on or about April 23, 1981. Shortly thereafter, Vanguard inquired of DOR concerning a refund of the $4,800 in sales tax paid on the aircraft plus the three percent discount taken by Thunderbird. In lieu of Vanguard's providing Thunderbird a resale certificate and having Thunderbird apply for the sales tax refund, it was suggested that Vanguard obtain an assignment of rights from Thunderbird and apply directly for the refund because Thunderbird had been dissolved immediately after the sale of the aircraft to Vanguard. Acquisition of the assignment of rights from Thunderbird by Vanguard was delayed by the dissolution of Thunderbird and the death of Thunderbird's principal officer. Vanguard received the assignment of rights from Thunderbird on or about July 1, 1982, and immediately applied for a refund of the sales tax. Said application for refund was well within the three years permitted by Florida law to apply for a sales tax refund. On November 22, 1982, the Office of Comptroller (OOC) notified Vanguard of its intent to deny Vanguard's application for the sales tax refund because Vanguard had failed to obtain a sales and use tax registration number prior to purchasing the aircraft from Thunderbird. At the time of the purchase, it was the policy of DOR to permit individuals to apply late for a sales and use tax registration number and not to deny refunds on the basis that the applicant did not have the sales and use tax registration number at the time of the taxable purchase. On or about July 1, 1982, this policy of DOR was altered to conform with the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in State Department of Revenue v. Robert N. Anderson, 403 So.2d 297 (Fla. 1981). Vanguard was aware of the DOR policy at the time of the sale, relied on that policy, and conformed to that policy. It was clearly stated that had Vanguard applied for its refund even a month earlier, in June of 1982, the refund would have been approved under the then-existing policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the application of Vanguard Investment Company for refund of sales tax be approved, and that said refund be paid by the Office of Comptroller. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward S. Kaplan, Esquire 907 DuPont Plaza Center Miami, Florida 33131 William G. Capko, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 203 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas L. Barnhart, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Office of Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The Petitioner and Respondent have agreed by stipulation that the following four issues of law are to be determined by the Hearing Officer: Whether Red Lobster must pay four percent sales tax on ad valorem taxes paid directly to a governmental taxing unit on leases in which it is set forth that Red Lobster, the Lessee, will, in addition to the rental payments, be obligated to pay the ad valorem taxes. Whether certain waitress uniforms and denominators purchased from vendors outside the State of Florida by Red Lobster and shipped to Red Lobster Headquarters within the State of Florida for storage purposes and subsequently transshipped for use in Red Lobster locations outside the State of Florida are subject to Florida sales or use tax. Whether those automobiles purchased by Red Lobster's parent company, General Mills, Inc., outside the State of Florida and on which a sales tax was paid in the state in which purchased and then leased to Red Lobster for use in the State of Florida for periods in excess of twelve months are subject to a Florida sales or use tax on the rental payments. Whether Red Lobster is obligated to pay an amount of sales tax determined by the Bracket System as set forth in Florida Statutes or is obligated to pay all sales tax actually collected so long as the sales tax collected equals or exceeds 4 percent of gross sales.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Department of Revenue assessed certain sales and use tax against Petitioner Red Lobster Inns of America, Inc., for a three-year period commencing February 1, 1971 through January 31, 1974. The Petitioner filed a petition for hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, contesting the imposition of said sales and use taxes by Respondent. Each of the issues will be treated separately. ISSUE I Whether Petitioner must pay 4 percent sales tax on ad valorem taxes paid directly to a governmental unit on leases in which it is set forth that Red Lobster, the Lessee, will, in addition to the rental payments, be obligated to pay the ad valorem taxes. Two kinds of leases are involved here. One type (Exhibit "A") provides the payment of "all real estate taxes" shall be "as additional rent" and a second type (Exhibit "B") provides that "The lessee shall be responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes" without labeling such payments as additional rental. In both types of leases, the ad valorem tax payments on the leased real estate are the obligation of Red Lobster, Lessee. The Petitioner, Lessee, paid the sales tax on the amount it considered "rent" paid but did not pay the sales tax on the monies paid the Lessor for the payment of the ad valorem taxes on the leased property. The Respondent Department of Revenue contends: that all the monies paid by Petitioner as Lessee, including the amount paid for the payment of ad valorem taxes, constitute consideration for the lease and thus constitute rent for purposes of Chapter 212. Petitioners contend: that these payments for ad valorem taxes are not "total rent charges for such real property" under Section 212.031(c); that to require that sales and use tax be paid on ad valorem tax payments is double taxation; that the imposition of a sales and use tax on an existing ad valorem tax constitutes a pyramiding of taxation contrary to Section 212.031(2)(b). Petitioner further contends that the rule 12A-1.70(3) exceeds the statutory authority of Section 212.031, Florida Statutes, inasmuch as the statute states a tax is levied on the "rent charged" whereas the rule states that the tax shall be paid "on all considerations." The lease between the parties marked for identification as Exhibit "A" provides in pertinent part on page 1, Section 2, Demise of Premises: "In consideration of the rents and covenants herein stipulated to be paid and performed by Lessee, Lessor hereby demises and lets to Lessee . . . the parcel of land . . . together with all buildings, structures and other improvements constructed thereon . . ." On page 5, in Section 9, Taxes and Other Charges: "(a) Lessee also agrees . . . to pay and discharge as auditional rent, punctually as and when the same shall become due and payable without penalty, all real estate taxes, personal property taxes, business and occupation taxes, occupational license taxes . . . and all other governmental taxes which at any time during the term of the lease shall become due " Clearly, the payment of taxes was understood by both parties as being part of the rent in Exhibit "A" contracts. The lease between the parties marked for identification as Exhibit "B" does not specifically provide that the payment of taxes is part of the rent. However, it speaks to the issue on page 1 providing: "That for and in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained and in consideration of the rents herein reserved to be paid by lessee to lessors, the parties hereto do hereby mutually covenant and agree . . . ." to do certain things and includes the specific requirement on page 3: "9. The lessee shall be responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes, both city and county, assessed against the demised premises and shall pay the same before the taxes become delinquent." It is apparent that the payment of real estate taxes is a part of the "total rent charges for such real property" in Exhibit "B" contracts. Designation by the Lessor as to the method of distributing the gross sum of rent does not relieve the Lessee from his payments to the Lessor or change the fact that it is for rent due and for the "return . . . which the tenant makes to the landlord for the use of the demised premises." 52 CJS, Section 462, p. 344. Thus, there is no pyramiding or double taxation. Inasmuch as the payment of ad valorem taxes is a part of the rental agreement between the parties, sales tax would be due on the amount paid by Lessee for ad valorem taxes regardless of whether the Lessee or the Lessor performed the transmittal duties of paying the taxes. The acceptance by the Lessee of the onerous duties of timely paying the numerous taxes, charges, assessments and other impositions is a valuable consideration and a part of the rent charge itself. The statute supports the assessment of Respondent. The contention that the rule is invalid is not well taken inasmuch as the rule is presumed valid for the purpose of this hearing. Thus, the Hearing Officer determines that the Petitioner Red Lobster Inns of America must pay the 4 percent sales tax on the ad valorem taxes paid directly to a governmental taxing unit. ISSUE II Whether the waitresses' uniforms and denominators (a counting device) purchased from vendors outside the State of Florida by Petitioner and shipped to Petitioner's headquarters in Florida for storage purposes and thereafter shipped for use in Red Lobster Inn locations outside the State of Florida are subject to Florida sales or use tax. The Respondent Department of Revenue sought to impose a use tax upon the uniforms and denominators which were purchased outside the state, sent in and then sent out again. The Petitioner Red Lobster Inns does not contest the assessment of sales or use tax on the uniforms and denominators that were used and consumed in this state. However, it contests the assessment on the items that were bought outside the state, sent in to Florida and then sent out of state in the same condition. Red Lobster uses uniforms both within and without the state and also denominators both inside and outside the state. The Respondent Department of Revenue contends: that the sales and use tax is properly applied inasmuch as the uniforms and denominators came to rest in the State of Florida, were delivered and stored and therefore became part of the mass property in the state. It contends that they were used in that a right of ownership was exercised. The Petitioner Red Lobster Inns contends: that the tax is not due on the items that were brought in and transshipped out again; that the goods never actually came to rest because the storage time was very short and was in fact part of the shipment process; that the uniforms and denominators were reshipped without having been used or consumed in this state. Section 212.05, Sales, storage, use tax.-- provides: "It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent that every person is exercising a tangible privilege who engages in the business of selling tangible personal property at retail in this state, or who rents or furnishes any of the things or services taxable under this chapter, or who stores for use or consumption in this state any item or article of tangible personal property as defined herein and who leases or rents such property within the state . . . . * * * (2) At the rate of 4 percent of the cost price of each item or article of tangible personal property when the same is not sold but is used, consumed, distributed or stored for use or consumption in this state." Section 212.06(6), Sales, storage, use tax; collectible from dealers; dealers defined; dealers to collect from purchasers; legislative intent as to scope of tax, provides: "(6) It is however, the intention of this chapter to levy a tax on the sale at retail, the use, the consumption, the distribution, and the storage to be used or consumed in this state of tangible personal property after it has come to rest in this state and has become a part of the mass property of this state." The Petitioner was correct in paying the tax on the waitresses' uniforms and the denominators that were used and consumed in this state. Those uniforms and denominators that were temporarily stored in this state and sent outside the state in the same condition were not a part of the mass property of this state, had not come to rest in this state nor became a part of the mass property of this state. They were not used or consumed in this state. The use and consumption of the uniforms and denominators were subsequent to their shipment outside of the state and therefore no use tax is due on those items reshipped to other states. ISSUE III Whether those automobiles purchased by Red Lobster's parent company, General Mills, Inc., outside the State of Florida and on which a sales tax was paid in the state in which purchased and then leased to Red Lobster for use in the State of Florida for periods in excess of twelve months are subject to Florida sales or use tax on the rental payments. The Petitioner contends: that it is entitled to the exemption in Rule 12A-1.07(13)(b) because the purchase of the automobiles was made out of state and sales tax was paid out of state. The Respondent Department of Revenue contends: the exemption of the rule applies only when the sales tax was paid to the State of Florida. Section 212.21(2), Declaration of legislative intent.-- provides in pertinent part: "(2) It is hereby declared to be the specific legislative intent to tax each and every sale, admission, use, storage, consumption or rental levied and set forth in this chapter, except as to such sale, admission, use, storage, consumption or rental, as shall be specifically exempted therefrom by this chapter, subject to the conditions appertaining to such exemption." Section 212.07(9), Sales, storage, use tax; tax added to purchase price; dealer not to absorb liability of purchasers who cannot prove payment of the tax; penalties; general exemptions:-- provides in part: "(9) Any person who has . . . leased tangible personal property, . . . and cannot prove that the tax levied by this chapter has been paid to his vendor or lessor shall be directly liable to the state for any tax, interest, or penalty due on any such taxable transactions." Rule 12A-1.07(13)(b) provides: "When the term of a lease or rental to one lessee or rentee is for a period of 12 or more months, the lessor-owner may pay the tax on the acquisition of the vehicle. In such cases, the rental to the initial lessee and the renewals thereof to the same lessee are not subject to the rental tax. Rentals of the same vehicle to subsequent lessees by the owner are taxable." Clearly, it appears from the foregoing that the rule made pursuant to the authority of the legislature does in fact state that the tax may be paid "on the acquisition of the vehicle" and that the lessee is then not subject to the rental tax. The rule is presumed to be valid. Thus, in answer to the question in Issue III, the answer is that the rental cars are not subject to the Florida sales or use tax on the rental payments having been specifically exempted. ISSUE IV Whether Red Lobster is obligated to pay an amount of sales tax determined by the Bracket System set forth in Florida Statutes or is obligated to pay all sales tax actually collected so long as the sales tax collected equals or exceeds 4 percent of gross sales. The Respondent Department of Revenue contends: that the Petitioner must collect and pay the tax according to the Bracket Method provided in the statutes. The Petitioner contends: that it does not have to be governed by the Bracket Method as long as Petitioner pays 4 percent of its gross sales to the State of Florida and that the Bracket System is merely a convenience method. Section 212.12(1), Dealer's credit for collecting tax; penalties for noncompliance; powers of Department of Revenue in dealing with delinquents; brackets applicable to taxable transactions; records required, providing for the Bracket System.-- clearly states in pertinent part: "(10) . . . Notwithstanding the rate of taxes imposed upon the privilege of sales, admissions and rentals, and communication services, the following brackets shall be applicable to all 4 percent taxable transactions: On single sales of less than 10 cents no tax shall be added. On single sales in amounts from 10 cents to 25 cents, both inclusive, 1 cent shall be added for taxes. On sales in amounts from 26 cents to 50 cents, both inclusive, 2 cents shall be added for taxes. On sales in amounts from 51 cents to 75 cents, both inclusive, 3 cents shall be added for taxes. On sales in amounts from 76 cents to $1, both inclusive, 4 cents shall be added for taxes. On sales in amounts of more than $1, 4 percent shall be charged upon each dollar of price, plus the above bracket charges upon any fractional part of a dollar." It is self-evident that the foregoing statute does in fact require the Bracket Method to be used inasmuch as it dictates that is shall be applicable to all 4 percent taxable transactions. The tax is increased when the Bracket Method is used. In summary, the findings of the Hearing Officer are: On Issue I, Petitioner Red Lobster Inns of America must pay ad valorem tax on the full amount of the consideration as set forth in its various leases. On Issue II, the waitresses' uniforms and denominators which were reshipped in the same condition outside the state were not subject to Florida sales and use tax. On Issue III, the automobiles on which a sales tax was paid to the state in which they were purchased and then leased to Red Lobster for use in this state for periods in excess of twelve months are not subject to the Florida sales and use tax on rental payments. On Issue IV, Petitioner Red Lobster Inns of America is obligated to pay an amount of sales tax determined by the Bracket System as set forth in Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Affirm the position of the Respondent Department of Revenue on Issue I. Affirm the position of the Petitioner Red Lobster Inns of America on Issue II. Affirm the position of the Petitioner Red Lobster Inns of America on Issue III. Affirm the position of the Respondent Department of Revenue on Issue IV. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell Griffin, Esquire 515 Pan American Building 250 North Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Charles E. DeMarco, Esquire Staff Attorney Red Lobster Inns of America, Inc. Post Office Box 13330 Orlando, Florida 32801 Caroline C. Mueller, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 =================================================================
The Issue Is Petitioner Haas Publishing Company liable for the taxes and interest assessed under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, specifically the sales and use tax and related surtaxes, pursuant to Section 212.031, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.070, for the audit period June 1, 1995 through May 31, 2000, and if so, to what extent?
Findings Of Fact Haas is a Delaware corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida. It is a subsidiary of Primedia, Inc. Haas publishes free consumer guides to apartments and homes and is paid by the apartment owners, realtors, and homeowners who advertise in the publications. One of Haas' divisions, Distributech, distributes the guides to retail stores. Haas negotiates with retailers for an appropriate site for its display of publications at each retail location. Nationwide, Haas distributes its publications from approximately 42,000 locations. Nationwide, Haas paid for the exclusive right to distribute, under contracts, in approximately 20,000 locations. Otherwise, it distributes in "free" locations. As required by Section 72.011(1)(b), Florida Statutes, Haas has complied with all applicable registration requirements with respect to the taxes at issue herein. DOR is the agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of Florida's tax laws, including sales and use tax and various local surtaxes. DOR conducted an audit of Haas for the period of June 1, 1995 through May 31, 2000. The audit resulted in an assessment of sales and use tax and associated surtaxes, interest, and penalties (Assessment). After protest and petition for reconsideration, DOR issued its Notice of Reconsideration (NOR) to Haas on May 16, 2003, wherein DOR sustained the Assessment in full, but offered to waive all penalties, without prejudicing Haas' right to challenge the remainder of the Assessment in full. Haas accepted the Department's offer to waive all penalties in their entirety, making a payment on the Assessment at the time the Petition herein was filed. In other words, Haas paid certain uncontested amounts in order to pursue the instant challenge to the remainder of the Assessment of all taxes and all interest, and in order to take advantage of an unrelated "extended amnesty" provided by DOR. This formal proceeding followed. The auditor who actually performed the work of the audit did not testify at the disputed-fact hearing. DOR's only witness, Ms. Gifford, did not participate in the original audit. However, Ms. Gifford reviewed the audit documents in detail and professionally consulted with the auditor and other reviewers to review the auditor's methods against the paperwork of the audit. She also reviewed the audit with input from Haas and its representative in the course of the Technical Assistance and Dispute Resolution (TADR) process, and throughout the informal challenges preceding this formal proceeding. She also reviewed all of the de novo material presented at the deposition of Haas' principal, Mr. Sullender, for purposes of her testimony. She is an expert capable of assisting the trier of fact, in that she is a Florida-licensed certified public accountant (CPA), and the undersigned is satisfied with the accuracy of her explanation of DOR's policies and procedures and of her predecessor's methodology and calculations. Also, her interpretations of rules and statutes are entitled to great weight where they purport to be the interpretation of the agency, but they do not constitute "factual" testimony and are not binding in this de novo proceeding. Ms. Gifford's analysis of case law is not entitled to that same deference. At the disputed-fact hearing, Haas challenged both the timeliness of the audit and the methodology of the audit. It is axiomatic that the amount assessed depends upon the methodology employed by the auditor, but DOR contended herein that because Haas protested only that an assessment had been made and because Haas had accepted all available offers of mitigation, Haas could not protest, at hearing, the amount calculated for the Assessment, whether the audit's calculations were correct, or whether the audit had been conducted in a timely manner. The following allegations of the Petition herein are relevant to these issues: No payment made by Haas to a retailer in Florida constituted payment for a lease of real property; No payment made by Haas to a retailer in Florida constituted payment for a license to use real property; The payments made by Haas to retailers were for distribution rights and/or intrinsically valuable personal property rights; The payments made by Haas to retailers were not subject to Florida sales and use taxes and other surtaxes; Alternatively, the payments made by Haas to retailers should have been apportioned by DOR, pursuant to Section 212.031, Florida Statutes; Some or all of the taxes that the Department claims that Haas owes have been paid by the retailers with whom Haas had agreements; The Department was without statutory authority to impose the Assessment for taxes and interest as set forth in Exhibit A; and The Assessment that is the subject of this proceeding is unlawful and violates the provisions of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes; Petitioner is entitled to relief under Sections 72.011 and Section 120.80, Florida Statutes. Section 212.031, Florida Statutes, dictates that the payments made by Haas to Florida retailers were not subject to Florida tax and therefore requires that the Assessment by DOR be stricken or modified. The auditor sent Form DR-840, the Notice of Intent to Audit (NOI), to Haas on May 30, 2000. This item informed the Taxpayer that the period of the audit would be June 1, 1995 through May 30, 2000, and that the audit would commence before July 29, 2000 (within 60 days) unless an attached waiver was signed and returned. The audit file does not reflect a signed waiver within 60 days. Ms. Gifford, on behalf of DOR, testified that the purpose of this NOI was to warn the Taxpayer that the audit would begin within 60 days unless the Taxpayer waived the timeline and that with a waiver, the audit would begin within 120 days. Ms. Gifford further testified that DOR considers itself limited to going back only five years from the date the auditor begins to review a taxpayer's records and that the Agency interprets Section 213.335, Florida Statutes, to require completion of the audit within one year of the initial letter. Ms. Gifford asserted that with a waiver, DOR would interpret the several applicable statutes and rules to provide the auditor with 120 days to begin an audit to encompass the whole of June 1, 1995 to May 30, 2000. However, if an audit is not begun within 120 days, DOR understands that the statutory audit period is not tolled and DOR usually removes the delay period from the front end (i.e., DOR starts the audit period the delayed number of days after June 1, 1995) and adds it to the back end (ends the audit period the delayed number of days after May 30, 2000) so that a five-year period of audit occurs, but the audit period starts some date later than June 1, 1995, and ends some date later than May 30, 2000. DOR considers the start of the audit to be when the auditor begins looking at records of the taxpayer. Haas provided pertinent, but incomplete, records on August 29, 2000, which was more than 60 days and less than 90 days after the May 30, 2000, NOI. Haas requested several extensions to review work papers received from the auditor. All were honored by DOR. A lot of correspondence ensued between the auditor and Haas and between DOR and Haas' designated representative(s)/accountants, but DOR's auditor did not record any time spent on the audit file until he met with Haas or its representative on October 23, 2000, more than 120 days after May 30, 2000. On the basis of the auditor's work record/timesheet, Haas contends that October 23, 2000, which was more than 120 days after the May 30, 2000 NOI, is when the audit actually began. Exchanges of records, work papers, and information continued, and on or about May 29, 2001, a vice-president of Haas signed and FAXED to DOR's auditor a consent to extend the statute of limitations for sales and use tax assessments through March 29, 2002. However, he did not affix the corporate seal in the designated part of the consent form. The consent form had been prepared by the auditor and mailed to Haas on or about March 25, 2001. It only listed "sales and use tax" as a reference. It did not identify any other tax, which ultimately made up the Assessment, including Charter Transit System Tax, Local Government Infrastructure Tax, Indigent Care Tax, or School Capital Outlay Tax, which, although related to sales and use tax, have separate designations. These surtax audits are based on the same facts, circumstances, and records as the sales and use tax audit herein but DOR lists and computes them separately from the sales and use tax on some of its forms. (See Finding of Fact 19.) The validity and timeliness, vel non, of the foregoing consent to extension was not raised by Petitioner until the disputed-fact hearing. A Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (also called an NOI) was dated September 21, 2001. The Notice of Proposed Assessment (NOPA) was issued December 5, 2001. DOR considers this document to be the completion of the audit. After the audit was completed, it was submitted to DOR's TADR, a dispute resolution process. A Notice of Decision (NOD) was entered July 30, 2002. Haas petitioned for reconsideration, alleging additional facts. By a May 16, 2003, Notice of Reconsideration (NOR), the audit was upheld. The NOR and NOIA lump all Chapter 212, Florida Statutes' taxes together. The NOPA lists each surtax separately. The compromise of amounts and this formal proceeding followed, as described above in Findings of Fact 5-6. Many contracts and other records were not provided by Haas to DOR until TADR, until the informal proceedings, or until after the Petition for this formal proceeding had been filed. Among other things, DOR had upheld the auditor's initial decision with regard to calculating Haas' 1997 tax. The auditor had not tested or sampled Haas' records for the full of the audit period in order to arrive at a tax figure for 1997. Because Haas had not provided certain records (RDAs) for 1997, Haas' figures for December 1996 were "extrapolated" by the auditor to the first six months of 1997, while the figures for January 1998 were "extrapolated" back to the last six months of 1997. Ms. Gifford felt this method constituted a legitimate estimate of the taxes due where a taxpayer had failed to provide adequate records. For the audit period, Haas published and distributed, free of charge to the public, apartment and home guides. The distribution was accomplished through contracts, on a regional and national level, with major retail store chains such as K-Mart, Blockbuster, Eckerd's, and Winn-Dixie Stores. The tax-assessment problems herein are compounded by Haas' choice not to use uniform contractual arrangements with all retailers; by its failure to designate within its contracts and/or accounting records what, if any, intangible uses it believed it was paying for; and its failure to allocate within its contracts and/or accounting records the amounts it believed it was paying for each alleged intangible use. Some of the contracts state that there is no corporate relation between Haas and the retailer. Haas has one major and several smaller competitors who distribute their own publications at retail store chains. Haas' contracts with the retail store chains guarantee to Haas the exclusive right to distribute apartment and home guides from the retail stores' locations and usually include the right to use the retail chains' respective logos and trademarks in Haas' promotional/sales materials and publications. One exception is Seven-Eleven, which limits to a greater degree use of its trademark and logo than do some of the other retailers. Not every contract contains a reference to a retailer's trademark or logo. Haas used its exclusive rights to distribute with certain retail store chains as an inducement to sell advertising to the apartment owners, realtors, and others who advertise in its publications. It was valuable to Haas to be able to tell potential print advertisers that its apartment/home guide was the only one allowed to be distributed from the particular retail chains. It was valuable to Haas to be able to show potential print advertisers the logo of retailers in Haas' promotional materials and publications. In most places, the exclusive right to distribute from the specified retail locations distinguished Haas from its competitors and allowed it to charge more for its advertising than they did. Mr. Sullender, Haas' principal, is credible that in each instance where Haas' contracts do not mention the use of trademarks and logos, each retail chain otherwise gave permission or provided Haas with its logo and trademark materials to use, as a result of the contracts. However, Haas provided nothing to DOR prior to instituting this formal case, by which DOR could have determined that such permission had been provided outside the contracts. Haas' right to place the retailers' logo or trademark on Haas' publication racks was a valuable right and every Haas rack displayed logos. Yet, the contracts do not obligate Haas to use the retailers' logos or trademarks, and Haas can still distribute from the racks without a logo. The contracts made no specific allocation of payments by Haas to the retailers for use of the retailers' logos and trademarks. The issue of whether payment for use of a logo or trademark should have been separately allocated from Haas' payment to the retailer in its contracts was not taken into consideration by DOR because this issue, in those terms, was not raised during the audit or subsequent informal protest/review procedures. However, the issue of allocation based on fair rental value of the space utilized in connection with prior audits of some of the respective retailers was raised. This is largely an issue of semantics. (See Findings of Fact 55-56.) All except one of the contracts at issue guarantee Haas the exclusive right to distribute its publications from the particular retail chains' locations. Exclusivity of the rights accruing to Haas is singularly important to Haas' business. However, Haas has been known to charge its competitors for space on its racks. Haas also is free to enter into partnerships with its competitors. In order to secure the exclusive right to distribute its publications from the retail locations and the right to use the retailers' trademarks and logos, Haas pays fees to the retail store chains under the contracts. Typically, Haas has to "outbid" at least one other competitor to obtain the foregoing exclusive rights. The payments under the contracts were typically made "per store," per month, and did not vary depending on the location of the store within the State. Part of Haas' negotiating strategy and ultimate success in securing exclusive use of most of its locations is the judicious use of "signing bonuses." Signing bonuses are specifically allocated in some, but not all, of Haas' contracts. In some contracts, they are directly linked to the right of exclusivity. They can be substantial amounts. However, according to Ms. Gifford, signing bonuses have never been part of DOR's Assessment in this case. (TR-62-63) Because the exclusive right to distribute its print materials was so valuable to Haas, it paid up to $375 per month per store under one contract. When Haas did not secure the exclusive right to distribute from a retail chain, it would not pay for the right to distribute, but distributed its publications from "free" locations. Nationwide, this compares at 20,000 paid to 22,000 unpaid locations. (See Finding of Fact 1.) The amount Haas paid a retail chain did not vary by particular store location within the chain nor by the size of the rack that Haas placed in a particular store. Haas' racks take up from two to four-feet worth of floor space. Haas supplied the racks, but, in general, the retail chains had control over the size, type, and color of the racks placed in its stores and limited Haas' access to the racks. Haas was solely responsible for set-up, replenishing, and maintenance of its racks on the retailer's property. Haas purchases liability insurance. Haas is always assigned covered space by the retailer. Haas considers space near an entrance/exit of the retailer's covered premises to be premium space. Retailers consider this same space to be "dead space," beyond its cash registers, which is essentially useless for display or sale of their retail goods. However, some retailers park carts or post notices in these areas. Haas does not sell or distribute any goods of, or for, the retailer. It merely stocks its own publications in its own racks in the retailer's space. Haas has no other contact with the retailers' business. Under the contracts, retailers have no obligation to market Haas' publications. They do not buy or sell them or pay to advertise in them. Retailers pay nothing to Haas. If Haas uses a retailer's logo and/or trademark in Haas' own advertising or in its publications per their negotiated arrangement, it is for the purpose of promoting Haas' publications. Use of the retailers' logos and trademarks has a benefit to the retailer, but a purely incidental one, since the retail customer who picks up a Haas publication from the Haas rack has already made the decision to enter the retail store in the first place. None of the retail chains ever attempted to charge sales or use taxes to Haas based on the payments made under the contracts. There is no evidence that Haas or any retailer, on Haas' behalf, tendered sales or use taxes to the State on the contracts at issue herein. Although some contracts acknowledge that a retailer is a franchisee of a third party, none of the contracts refer to the relationship between Haas and the retailer as a "franchise" or acknowledge Haas as a franchisee. Ms. Gifford did not equate Haas' use of a retailer's logo or trademark to market Haas' publications, not the retailer's goods, with all the accoutrements of a franchise, as she understood those accoutrements. DOR issued to a different taxpayer (not Haas) Technical Assistance Advisement No. 03A-002 (the TAA), concerning real property lease agreements. Although this advisory letter from a DOR attorney is not binding, except between DOR and the party to whom it is addressed, and although it is limited to the specific facts discussed within it, the legal conclusions therein are instructive, if not conclusive, of DOR's official interpretation of the statutes and rules it administers and of its agency policy with regard to when allocations are appropriate between intangible rights and real property rights. TAA 03A-002 cites, with approval, paragraphs 56 through 59 of the Final Order in Airport Limousine Service of Orlando, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, DOAH Case No. 94-1790, et seq., (March 23, 1995)1/ and State ex rel. N/S Associates v. Board of Review of the Village of Greendale, 473 N.W. 2d 554 (Wisc. App. 1991), and states, "The test for isolating intangible business value is as simple as asking whether the disputed value is appended to the property, and thus transferable with the property, or is it independent of the property so that it either stays with the seller or dissipates upon sale." This TAA also states that DOR will view the reasonableness of allocations of payments made pursuant to a lease agreement on a case-by-case basis in reference to whether the allocation is made in good faith or lacks any basis. It further cites with approval Bystrom v. Union Land Investment, Inc., 477 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985) ("Good faith for property tax valuation purposes will mean 'real, actual, and of a genuine nature as opposed to a sham or deception.'") The TAA anticipates that DOR would require that the taxpayer make reasonable allocations, within the taxpayer's own records, of lease payments to rent and other items not subject to tax, and that the taxpayer would also be required to otherwise maintain records adequate to establish how the taxpayer determined that each allocation was reasonable, and further, that if DOR auditors were satisfied with the taxpayer's records, an appraisal would not be required by DOR. The TAA does not foreclose the requirement of an appraisal to test the taxpayer's records. Synopsized, the TAA opines that separate payments by a tenant to a landlord for trademark, service mark, or logo rights of the landlord are subject to the tax on real property rentals unless the allocation of payments made by the taxpayer is reasonable, and further, that the allocation is not reasonable where no substantial, competent, and persuasive evidence is provided to establish the value of the trademark, service mark, or logo rights of the landlord received by the tenant and a legitimate business purpose for the tenant to acquire those rights is not demonstrated. Herein, Haas had not allocated rent and intangibles within its own contracts/records. It was Ms. Gifford's view that if the Taxpayer herein had not allocated the value of the trademarks, etc. and the real property value of its contracts, it was not up to DOR to do so in the course of an audit. Nonetheless, during the protest period, DOR had considered allocating the payments made by Haas under its contracts, into taxable and non-taxable payments, by reviewing the market rate rental for the space occupied and obtaining a valuation of the identifiable intangible property. Ultimately, DOR did not use this method on the basis that Haas had not submitted sufficient records. At hearing, Haas attempted to present evidence of the fair market value of the real estate involved and of the so- called intangible rights through an intangible property appraiser and a Florida-certified real estate appraiser. Lee Waronker is a Florida-certified real estate appraiser who was accepted as an expert in real estate appraisal. Mr. Waronker prepared a report which made a comparison of Haas' contracts with allegedly comparable rental properties, but he only used three "comparables," none of which included racks owned by similar advertising businesses. He did not consider what Petitioner's real competitors paid for similar space. Thus, when he arrives at an average fair rental value of Haas' space in all the retailers' locations as $25-50 per square foot, his base figures are suspect. Therefore, when he concluded that since Haas was paying an average of $355 per square foot and all the remainder of the contract payments should be allocated to intangible rights, such as trademarks and exclusivity, he was not credible or persuasive. His figures also apply only to the date of his appraisal in 2003, and admittedly would not be representative of the value of the rental property during the audit period. Therefore, his analysis that only 11.3 percent, plus or minus, of the contract prices constituted rent or a license to use is discounted and not accepted. Petitioner also presented the testimony and report of James N. Volkman, an intangible property appraiser who was accepted as an expert in that field. Mr. Volkman obtained all of his data from either the Securities and Exchange Commission filings of eighty-three percent of the retailers involved, from Haas, or from information compiled by DOR. These are legitimate appraisal sources. He performed his appraisal within the professional standards of the Financial Accounting Standards Board. He concluded that Haas' contracts could best be described as "distribution agreements," "because they are the means by which Haas distributes its publications" and because anyone familiar with the operations of a publisher would understand a line item on a balance sheet of a "distribution agreement" and not everyone would understand the term "license to use real property." It is noted that "distribution agreements" are not listed in the statute, but this, by itself, is not a fatal flaw. He maintained that the Haas contracts could not reasonably be characterized as a license to use real property, because the amount paid was well in excess of the fair rental value of the space. However, as part of his analysis, Mr. Volkman did not rely on Mr. Waronker's independent real estate appraisal, but conducted his own analysis as to the amount a retailer would likely charge a party seeking to utilize the floor space taken up by the approximate size of a single Haas rack. In doing so, Mr. Volkman was admittedly outside his realm of expertise. Mr. Volkman allocated the amounts Haas was paying as twelve percent to the "right to use real property"; twenty-four percent to "non-compete rights" (his term for exclusivity); fourteen percent to "trademark rights"; thirty-five percent to "distribution cost savings" (a term which seems to describe Haas not having to identify and mail its publications to interested persons or use a retailer's magazine rack);2/ and fifteen percent to "market penetration premium."3/ The last two calculations are not credible and undermine the entire allocations summary he presented. The distribution cost savings figure contains too many assumptions not fully documented. Mr. Volkman also arrived at his calculation of the "market penetration premium" merely by selecting the residual percentage sufficient to make up the difference, so that his other figures added up to 100 percent of the total fee paid by Haas to retailers. His reason for doing this is not plausible. He assumed that just because the growth rate of Haas' business far exceeded the growth rate in multi- family units, it must be that Haas substantially increased its market share during the audit period due to exclusivity. Ultimately, he could not explain the fifteen percent calculation for "market penetration" by the documents he relied on for calculating the other three categories. More damaging to the weight and credibility of his report is that Mr. Volkman did not consider Haas' signing bonuses as having anything to do with the exclusivity rights accruing to Haas. He considered the signing bonuses not to be an intangible right but only "compensation to retailers for negotiating these agreements." However, signing bonus rights seem to be the only intangible rights allocated in any of the contracts and were inherently recognized as such by DOR when it chose not to address them in the Assessment. There are also a number of other questionable portions of his report and opinion which cause it to be discounted and not accepted here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order finding the Assessment factually and legally correct and sustaining the Assessment plus interest to date. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ______ ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 18th day of June, 2004.
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner is a Florida corporation wholly owned by Mr. Thomas C. Birkhead, president. Petitioner owns and operates the Satellite Motel in Cocoa Beach, Florida. The Audit Respondent conducted a sales and use tax audit of Petitioner's business records for the period September 1, 1985, through August 31, 1990. Respondent determined a deficiency and assessed Petitioner for $15,373.62, including tax, penalty, and interest through May 13, 1991. The assessment is for $1,922.42 in sales tax, $7,646.25 in use tax, $2,392.20 in delinquent penalty, and $3,412.75 in interest through May 13, 1991. Interest accrues daily in the amount of $3.15. Respondent made a prima facie showing of the factual and legal basis for the assessment. Petitioner failed to produce credible and persuasive evidence to overcome the prima facie showing. The audit and assessment are procedurally correct. Tax, interest, and penalty are correctly computed. Sampling Petitioner failed to maintain adequate records of its sales and purchases. Respondent properly conducted an audit by sampling Petitioner's available books and records in accordance with Section 212.12(6)(b), Florida Statutes. Although Petitioner's records of sales and purchases were inadequate, Petitioner produced some books and records for the entire audit period. Respondent properly limited the applicable penalty to a delinquent penalty. Audit Period Respondent is authorized to audit Petitioner for the period September 1, 1985, through August 31, 1990. Effective July 1, 1987, the period for which taxpayers are subject to audit was extended from three to five years. 1/ When Respondent conducted the audit, Respondent was authorized to conduct an audit within five years of the date tax was due. 2/ Tax owed by Petitioner for the period beginning September 1, 1985, was not due until the 20th day of the month following its collection. 3/ Therefore, Respondent was authorized to audit Petitioner's records anytime before October 20, 1990. 4/ On September 13, 1990, Respondent issued a Notice Of Intent To Audit Books And Records of the Petitioner (the "Notice Of Intent"). The Notice Of Intent tolled the running of the five year audit period for up to two years. 5/ Respondent completed its audit and issued its Notice Of Intent To Make Sales And Use Tax Audit Changes on May 13, 1991. 2. Sales Tax Petitioner sells snacks and beverages over the counter at the Satellite Motel. The sale of such tangible personal property is subject to sales tax. As a dealer, Petitioner must collect the applicable sales tax and remit it to Respondent. During the audit period, Petitioner failed to collect and remit applicable sales tax. As a dealer, Petitioner is liable for the uncollected sales tax. Respondent properly assessed Petitioner for $1,922.42 in uncollected sales tax. 3. Use Tax Petitioner rents televisions and linens and purchases business forms from Florida vendors. The rental and sale of such tangible personal property is subject to sales tax. During the audit period, Petitioner failed to pay sales tax to Florida vendors and used the televisions, linens, and business forms in its business at the Satellite Motel. Petitioner is liable for use tax on the use of those items during the audit period. Respondent properly assessed Petitioner for use tax in the amount of $7,646.25.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order upholding the assessment of tax, penalty, and interest through the date of payment. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of October, 1994. DANIEL MANRY 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 25th day of October, 1994.
The Issue Whether the contested and unpaid portions of the tax, penalty and interest assessment issued against Petitioners as a result of Audit No. 9317210175 should be withdrawn as Petitioners have requested?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Shuckers is an oceanfront restaurant and lounge located at 9800 South Ocean Drive in Jensen Beach, Florida. In November of 1992, Petitioner Mesa's brother, Robert Woods, Jr., telephoned Mesa and asked her if she wanted a job as Shuckers' bookkeeper. Woods had been the owner of Shuckers since 1986 through his ownership and control of the corporate entities (initially Shuckers Oyster Bar Too of Jensen Beach, Florida, Inc., and then NAT, Inc.) that owned the business. Mesa needed a job. She therefore accepted her brother's offer of employment, notwithstanding that she had no previous experience or training as a bookkeeper. When Mesa reported for her first day of work on November 19, 1992, she learned that Woods expected her to be not only the bookkeeper, but the general manager of the business as well. Mesa agreed to perform these additional responsibilities. She managed the day-to-day activities of the business under the general direction and supervision of Woods. After a couple of weeks, Woods told Mesa that it would be best if she discharged her managerial responsibilities through an incorporated management company. Woods had his accountant draft the documents necessary to form such a corporation. Among these documents were the corporation's Articles of Incorporation. Mesa executed the Articles of Incorporation and, on December 3, 1992, filed them with the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, thereby creating Petitioner TAN, Inc. TAN, Inc.'s Articles of Incorporation provided as follows: The undersigned subscribers to these Articles of Incorporation, natural persons competent to contract, hereby form a corporation under the laws of the State of Florida. ARTICLE I- CORPORATE NAME The name of the corporation is: TAN, INC. ARTICLE II- DURATION This corporation shall exist perpetually unless dissolved according to Florida law. ARTICLE III- PURPOSE The corporation is organized for the purpose of engaging in any activities or business permitted under the laws of the United States and the State of Florida. ARTICLE IV- CAPITAL STOCK The corporation is authorized to issue One Thousand (1000) shares of One Dollar ($1.00) par value Common Stock, which shall be designated "Common Shares." Article V- INITIAL REGISTERED OFFICE AND AGENT The principal office, if known, or the mailing address of this corporation is: TAN, INC. 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 The name and address of the Initial Registered Agent of the Corporation is: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 ARTICLE VI- INITIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS This corporation shall have one (1) director initially. The number of directors may be either increased or diminished from time to time by the By-laws, but shall never be less than one (1). The names and addresses of the initial directors of the corporation are as follows: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 ARTICLE VII- INCORPORATORS The names and addresses of the incorporators signing these Articles of Incorporation are as follows: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 On the same day it was incorporated, December 3, 1992, TAN, Inc., entered into the following lease agreement with the trust (of which Woods was the sole beneficiary) that owned the premises where Shuckers was located: I, Michael Blake, Trustee, hereby lease to Tan, Inc. the premises known as C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, 9800 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, Florida for the sum of $3,000.00 per month. This is a month to month lease with Illinois Land Trust and Michael Blake, Trustee. Mesa signed the agreement in her capacity as TAN, Inc.'s President. She did so at Woods' direction and on his behalf. No lease payments were ever made under the agreement. 3/ The execution of the lease agreement had no impact upon Shuckers. Woods remained its owner and the person who maintained ultimate control over its operations. At no time did he relinquish any part of his ownership interest in the business to either Mesa or her management company, TAN, Inc. Mesa worked approximately 70 to 80 hours a week for her brother at Shuckers doing what he told her to do, in return for which she received a modest paycheck. Woods frequently subjected his sister to verbal abuse, but Mesa nonetheless continued working for him and following his directions because she needed the income the job provided. As part of her duties, Mesa maintained the business' financial records and paid its bills. She was also required to fill out, sign and submit to Respondent the business' monthly sales and use tax returns (hereinafter referred to as "DR- 15s"). She performed this task to the best of her ability without any intention to defraud or deceive Respondent regarding the business' tax liability. The DR-15s she prepared during the audit period bore NAT, Inc.'s Florida sales and use tax registration number. On the DR-15 for the month of December, 1992, Mesa signed her name on both the "dealer" and "preparer" signature lines. Other DR-15s were co-signed by Mesa and Woods. In April of 1993, Woods told Mesa that she needed to obtain a Florida sales and use tax registration number for TAN, Inc., to use instead of NAT, Inc.'s registration number on Shuckers' DR-15s. In accordance with her brother's desires, Mesa, on or about May 14, 1993, filed an application for a Florida sales and use tax registration number for TAN, Inc., which was subsequently granted. On the application form, Mesa indicated that TAN, Inc. was the "owner" of Shuckers and that the application was being filed because of a "change of ownership" of the business. In fact, TAN, Inc. was not the "owner" of the business and there had been no such "change of ownership." By letter dated June 22, 1993, addressed to "TAN INC d/b/a Shuckers," Respondent gave notice of its intention to audit the "books and records" of the business to determine if there had been any underpayment of sales and use taxes during the five year period commencing June 1, 1988, and ending May 31, 1993. The audit period was subsequently extended to cover the six year period from June 1, 1987 to May 31, 1993. Relying in part on estimates because of the business' inadequate records, auditors discovered that there had been a substantial underpayment of sales and use taxes during the audit period. The auditors were provided with complete cash register tapes for only the following months of the audit period: June, July, August and December of 1992, and January, February, March, April and May of 1993. A comparison of these tapes with the DR-15s submitted for June, July, August and December of 1992, and January, February, March, April and May of 1993 revealed that there had been an underreporting of sales for these months. Using the information that they had obtained regarding the three pre- December, 1992, months of the audit period for which they had complete cash register tapes (June, July and August of 1992), the auditors arrived at an estimate of the amount of sales that had been underreported for the pre- December, 1992, months of the audit period for which they did not have complete cash register tapes. The auditors also determined that Shuckers' tee-shirt and souvenir sales, 4/ Sunday brunch sales, cigarette vending sales, vending/amusement machine location rentals 5/ and tiki bar sales that should have been included in the sales reported on the DR-15s submitted during the audit period were not included in these figures nor were these sales reflected on the cash register tapes that were examined. According of the "Statement of Fact" prepared by the auditors, the amount of these unreported sales were determined as follows: TEE-SHIRT SALES: Sales were determined by estimate. This was determined to be $2,000/ month. No records were available and no tax remitted through May, 1993. SUNDAY BRUNCH SALES: Sales were determined by estimate. This was determined to be 100 customers per brunch per month (4.333 weeks). No audit trail to the sales journal was found and no records were available. CIGARETTE VENDING SALES: The estimate is based on a review of a sample of purchases for the 11 available weeks. The eleven weeks were averaged to determine monthly sales at $3/pack. VENDING MACHINE LOCATION RENTAL REVENUE: The revenue estimate is based on a review of a one month sample. TIKI BAR SALES: The sales estimate is based on a review of infrequent cash register tapes of February, 1993. The daily sales was determined by an average of the sample. The number of days of operation per month was determined by estimate. In addition, the auditors determined that TAN, Inc. had not paid any tax on the lease payments it was obligated to make under its lease agreement with Illinois Land Trust and Michael Blake, Trustee, nor had any tax been paid on any of the pre-December, 1992, lease payments that had been made in connection with the business during the audit period. According to the "Statement of Fact" prepared by the auditors, the amount of these lease payments were determined as follows: The estimate is based on 1990 1120 Corporate return deduction claimed. This return is on file in the Florida CIT computer database. The 1990 amount was extended through the 6/87 - 11/92 period. For the period 12/92 - 5/93 audit period, TAN's current lease agreement of $3,000/month was the basis. No documentation was produced during the audit supporting any the sales tax exemptions that the business had claimed during the audit period on its DR-15s. 6/ Accordingly, the auditors concluded that the sales reported as exempt on the business' DR-15s were in fact taxable. Using records of sales made on a date selected at random (February 1, 1993), the auditors calculated effective tax rates for the audit period. They then used these effective tax rates to determine the total amount of tax due. An initial determination was made that a total of $201,971.71 in taxes (not including penalties and interest) was due. The amount was subsequently lowered to $200,882.28. On or about December 22, 1993, TAN, Inc., entered into the following Termination of Lease Agreement with Ocean Enterprises, Inc.: TAN, Inc., a Florida corporation, hereby consents to termination of that certain lease of the premises known as C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 of ISLAND BEACH CLUB, located at 9800 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, Florida, dated December 3, 1992, acknowledges a landlord's lien on all assets for unpaid rent; and transfers and sets over and assigns possession of the aforesaid units and all of its right, title and interest in and to all inventory, equipment, stock and supplies located on said premises 7/ in full satisfaction of said unpaid rent; all of the foregoing effective as of this 22nd day of December, 1993. FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing termin- ation of lease, OCEAN ENTERPRISES, Inc., a Florida corporation, hereby agrees to pay Linda Mesa, each month all of the net revenues of the operation of the bar and restaurant located on said premises, up to the sum of $15,000.00, for sales tax liability asserted against TAN, Inc. or Linda A. W. Mesa based upon possession or ownership of said premises or any of the assets located thereon, plus attorney's fees incurred in connection with defending or negotiating settlement of any such liability. Net revenue shall mean gross revenue, less operating expenses, includ- ing, but not limited to, rent, up to the amount of $5,000.00 per month, costs of goods sold, utilities, payroll and payroll expense and insurance. OCEAN ENTERPRISES, Inc. represents that it has entered into a lease of said premises for a term of five years commencing on or about December 22, 1993, pursuant to the terms and conditions of which OCEANFRONT [sic] ENTERPRISES, Inc. was granted the right to operate a restaurant and bar business on said premises. Ocean Enterprises, Inc., leases the property from Island Beach Enterprises, which obtained the property through foreclosure. TAN, Inc., has been administratively dissolved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order withdrawing the contested and unpaid portions of the assessment issued as a result of Audit No. 9317210175, as it relates to TAN, Inc., and Linda A. W. Mesa. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of June, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 27th day of June, 1995.
Findings Of Fact In 1971, the Okaloosa Island Authority, a governmental agency, leased certain real property on Santa Rosa Island in Okaloosa County to the Okaloosa Development Corporation for a term of 99 years. Certain ultimate sub-lessees under the Okaloosa Island Authority lease mortgaged their leaseholds as security for the payment of promissory notes held by petitioner First National Bank of Birmingham. Two such notes are involved, both of which were executed and recorded in Florida during 1974. Petitioner is the payee on both notes, and kept them both at its headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama. The maker of the larger note is U.R.S., Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation. The U.R.S. note is in the face amount of $2,500,000.00, although only $347,867.91 of the principal obligation was still outstanding on January 1, 1975; the note was paid in full on January 27, 1975. The makers of the second note were Phillip F. Zeidman and his wife, Nancy L. Zeidman. The Zeidman note is in the face amount of $45,000.00. On January 1, 1975, $44,000.00 of the principal obligation remained outstanding; and on January 1, 1976, $29,286.83 of the principal obligation was still outstanding. No intangible personal property tax was paid when the U.R.S. and Zeidman notes, together with the mortgages which secured their Payment, were recorded by the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County. Statement Required By Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) Petitioner's proposed fact findings have been adopted, in substance, except as to what the First National Bank of Birmingham relied on, as to which no evidence was adduced. Respondent's proposed fact findings have been adopted, in substance, except that the face amount of the U.R.S. note was $2,500,000.00, not $500,000.00; and the real property leased by the Okaloosa Island Authority is situated in Okaloosa, not Escambia County.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's substantive tax liability for 1975 and 1976 be set, with respect to the Zeidman note, at seventy-three and twenty-nine hundredths dollars ($73.29 = 44.00 + 29.29). That petitioner's substantive tax liability for 1975 and 1976 be set, with respect to the U.R.S. note, at three hundred forty-seven and eighty-seven hundredths dollars ($347.87 = 347.87 + 0.00). DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Wilson Crump, II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William Guy Davis, Jr., Esquire Beggs and Lane 700 Brent Building Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Out Island Charters, Inc., Miami, Florida is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of selling, leasing, repairing and chartering yachts in South Florida. Robert H. Anderson is president of the firm. During the tax period in question, i.e., December 1, 1973 to November 30, 1976, Petitioner sold various sailing vessels and made repairs thereon. The purchasers individually entered into a "Yacht Charter Management Agreement" with Petitioner under which the latter agreed to act as the owners' agent to obtain charters of the boats from third parties, and to maintain, repair, and dock the vessels at the owners expense. The agreement provided that Petitioner would receive a percentage of the gross bareboat charter fee. It also contained a provision that the owner could use his vessel at any time without cost provided that no charters had been booked for the particular time period. Although this was a standard provision in all of the contracts, some of the owners deleted it prior to execution of the agreement. In most cases, the owners used their vessels occasionally for the purpose of testing equipment and performing routine maintenance and repairs. At such times, some of them were accompanied by their wives, mechanics, or friends who assisted in handling the vessels or performing the routine maintenance functions. They did not use the vessels for purely personal pleasure trips. When the vessels were purchased, sales tax under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, was neither collected from the buyers by the Petitioner nor otherwise paid to the state. Sales tax was not paid on various equipment purchases, repair parts, dockage, or other expenses incident to the management and maintenance of the vessels. However, sales tax was collected by Petitioner from the third parties who rented the vessels except for a few inadvertent omissions. At the time Petitioner sold the vessels, none of the purchasers had applied for nor received from Respondent a certificate of registration to engage in or conduct business as a "dealer" in yacht chartering under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, nor had they provided Petitioner with a certificate of resale. Anderson believed the transactions to be exempt from sales tax because the vessels were purchased for rental purposes, and he was unaware that registration as a dealer and submission of a resale certificate were required to establish such an exemption. (Exhibits 5-7, 9, Testimony of Wolin, Witmer, Gay, Harrill, Krapf, Purdy, Anderson, McLean (Exhibit 1), Bennett (Exhibit 2)) Pursuant to an audit of Petitioner's business by Respondent's tax examiner, a proposed assessment of sales tax, penalties, and interest was issued to Petitioner in the total amount of $28,790.76. The parties met at an informal conference on March 29, 1977, and, as a result of adjustments at that time, a revised Notice of Proposed Assessment was issued on May 19, 1977, showing a total sum due of $26,646.91. Petitioner thereafter requested an administrative hearing in the matter. (Exhibit 3) In March, 1977, Petitioner's counsel advised the various purchasers of the pending tax audit and requested that they either pay the sales tax if they had used the boats for personal business, or, if the boats had been exclusively used for chartering purposes, that they execute affidavits to that effect, together with applications for certificate of registration as dealers and blanket certificates of resale. Most of the purchasers returned the executed documents and were later registered with the Respondent as dealers in the chartering business. (Testimony of Anderson, Gay, Wolin, Witmer, Harrill, Krapf, Purdy, McLean, Bennett, Exhibits 1 - 2, 4 - 14) In one particular transaction wherein James Morgan purchased a vessel from Petitioner, Anderson testified that the vessel was removed from Florida to Tennessee where Morgan lived on the day after full payment had been made under the contract. Anderson, however, did not know if Morgan provided him with an affidavit for exemption of the boat by removal from the state, and no documentary evidence concerning the transaction was presented by Petitioner at the hearing. (Testimony of Anderson, Exhibit 15) In another transaction, Anderson purchased a vessel in 1973 from Coastal Sailing Services, Inc., of Tallahassee, Florida, and paid sales tax in the amount of $1,027.40. Later, Anderson believed that he was exempt from the payment of tax because he had purchased the vessel solely for rental purposes. He communicated with Respondent's sales tax bureau through his accountant for information concerning refund procedures. Remus O. Cook, Jr., an examiner in the state sales tax bureau, advised in a letter of August 14, 1974, that a refund from Coastal Sailing Service could be secured if the vessel had been purchased solely for rental purposes, and that such request to the seller should be accompanied by a certificate of sales tax exemption utilizing a form enclosed with the letter. Although the vessel had been purchased by Anderson, the letter made reference to Out Island Charters, Inc. as the buyer and cited its sales tax registration number. Cook testified that it was departmental policy to grant an exemption if tangible personal property was purchased exclusively for rental purposes, even if the purchaser was not registered as a dealer at the time of sale. However, Henry Coe, Jr., Respondent's Executive Director, testified that registration at or a few days after the time of sale was a prerequisite to exemption in such cases. Anderson proceeded to request the refund from the seller, but the exemption form was executed in the name of Out Island Charters, Inc. He received the refund in 1975. Respondent's tax examiner assessed this sale in the current proposed tax assessment because he found no documentary evidence that Anderson intended to use the boat for charter purposes when he purchased it, and there was no evidence that Anderson was registered as a dealer at that time or furnished a resale certificate to the seller when it was purchased. No evidence was presented that Anderson had used the boat for personal purposes and he testified that he purchased it solely for rental, but conceded that he had no dealer's registration number at the time of purchase. (Testimony of Anderson, Lloyd, Exhibit 18, Depositions of Cook, Coe (Exhibits 19, 20)) Petitioner conceded at the hearing that the tax computations were correct, but contested liability therefor except for the several instances where sales tax had not been collected on boat rentals. (Testimony of Anderson)
Recommendation That the proposed tax assessment be enforced against Petitioner herein. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia S. Turner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Howard Hochman, Esquire 2121 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 201 Miami, Florida 33137 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Petitioner collected and remitted to the Florida Department of Revenue the correct amount of sales tax on Petitioner's retail sales; and Whether Petitioner remitted to the Florida Department of Revenue the proper amount of sales tax on Petitioner's general and fixed assets purchases and on its commercial lease.
Findings Of Fact Petitioning Taxpayer, Surface Preparation Group, Inc., is a "C" corporation, incorporated in the State of Texas. The Taxpayer's product or service is the sale, service, and rental of surface preparation equipment. The Taxpayer has been registered with the Department since October 7, 1999. By letter dated January 12, 2005, the Department notified the Taxpayer of its intent to audit the Taxpayer's books and records to verify the Taxpayer's compliance with Florida's sales and use tax statutes. The audit period in this case is from December 1, 2001, through November 30, 2004. When the audit started, the Taxpayer had a presence in LeGrange, Georgia. During the course of the audit and negotiations, the Taxpayer removed itself back to its Texas headquarters. Specific records were requested to be made available for the Department's auditor to review. Four subject areas were developed in the audit plan: (1) sales; (2) fixed expense; (3) general expense; and (4) commercial rent. Although the Taxpayer provided some sales data, the information contained therein did not correlate with other information the Department had concerning the Taxpayer's Florida sales. For instance, auditors had traced through general ledgers to Petitioner’s federal tax return and compared the return with the company’s Florida sales and use tax return, and the figures did not correlate. Despite repeated requests by the Department's auditor, the Taxpayer provided no information explaining the reasons for this discrepancy, nor was any information provided regarding the Taxpayer’s general purchases, fixed asset purchases, or its commercial lease expenses. Therefore, in order to complete the audit process, the Department had to use the best information available to estimate the additional tax due on fixed assets, general purchases, and commercial rent. That information in this case consisted of materials provided by the Taxpayer and industry averages and past audit assessments of businesses in similar industries. Because total sales reported by the Taxpayer on its DR-15 monthly sales returns were different than the amounts the Taxpayer reported in response to the audit request, there was no assurance that the reported taxable sales and exempt sales were correct. Accordingly, the Department's auditor disallowed all exempt sales as reported by the Taxpayer. Because the Taxpayer had a location in Polk County, Florida, during part of the audit period, it must have had fixed assets there. This meant that a use tax was due for all the Taxpayer’s purchases in Florida, without credit for sales tax paid to vendors who in many cases were located in Georgia. No information was provided by the Taxpayer for general expenses or rental expenses. Without any information from the Taxpayer for general expenses or rental location, the Department had to proceed differently than it would have normally proceeded. In anticipation of submitting more documents to be analyzed by the Department as part of the audit, Mr. Hillebrand, tax manager for Petitioner, signed, on October 24, 2005, a consent to extend the statute of limitations and time for completing the audit to July 31, 2006. (Exhibit R-2, page 000030). On March 15, 2006, Mr. Schnaible, one of the Taxpayer’s Controllers, signed a consent to extend until December 31, 2006. (Exhibit R-2, page 000029). On September 26, 2006, after analyzing all that had been received from the Taxpayer up to that date, the Department mailed a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (NOI) to Petitioner, along with the work papers supporting the changes, and a letter from the auditor explaining the findings. The amount of tax assessed totaled $197,714.38, and comprised: Schedule A01: Disallowed Exempt Sales $169,994.38; Schedule B01: Estimated Fixed Asset Purchases $10,080.00; Estimated General Expenses: $5,040.00; and Estimated Commercial Rental $12,600.00. Interest accrued through September 26, 2006, totaled $57,353.50. The penalty at that date totaled $49,428.09, bringing the total assessment amount to $304,496.47. The Department’s September 26, 2006, letter offered the Taxpayer another opportunity to provide records if it disputed the auditor's findings, and another option to continue the audit process. (Exhibit R-2, pages 000044 through 000045). On October 25, 2006, Mr. Spomer, Taxpayer’s Controller who eventually signed the Petition and Amended Petition herein, wrote a letter (Exhibit R-2, page 000042) to the auditor stating that he requested to extend the audit and that he would mail back the signed, correct form. Normally, a DR-872e form to extend the statute and audit period must be signed within 30 days of the NOI. In this case, it was signed two months later. Apparently, one such form signed by Mr. Spomer was inadvertently filled-in by the Department with the extension date of "June 30, 2006," (copy attached to Amended Petition). Therefore, a second form was executed by Mr. Spomer on November 1, 2006. This form bears the correct extension date of June 30, 2007. (Exhibit R-2, page 000028). No additional information was provided by the Taxpayer which would change any of the tax amounts identified in the NOI. Therefore, on January 31, 2007, the Department issued it Notice of Proposed Assessment (NOPA). Therein, the amount of tax due remained unchanged. The amount of accrued interest through January 31, 2007, increased to $65,023.73, and the penalty was reduced to zero. The Department currently seeks $262,738.11, with interest accruing on the unpaid tax liability at the statutory rate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining the Notice of Proposed Assessment dated January 31, 2007. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 6th day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Lisa Echeverri, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 John Mika, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capital - Revenue Litigation Bureau Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dale Spomer International Surface Preparation Group (Texas), Inc. 6330 West Loop South, Suite 900 Houston, Texas 77401
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent properly conducted a sales and use tax audit of Petitioner's books and records; and, if so, whether Petitioner is liable for tax and interest on its purchases of materials used for improvements to real property.
Findings Of Fact During the audit period, Petitioner was a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located at 7820 Professional Place, Suite 2, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner's Florida sales tax number was 39-00-154675-58, and Petitioner's federal employer identification number was 59-3089046. After the audit period, the Florida Department of State administratively dissolved Petitioner for failure to file statutorily required annual reports and filing fees. Petitioner engaged in the business of providing engineering services and fabricating control panels. Petitioner fabricated control panels in a shop Petitioner maintained on its business premises. Petitioner sold some of the control panels in over-the- counter sales. Petitioner properly collected and remitted sales tax on the control panels that Petitioner sold over-the-counter. Petitioner used other control panels in the performance of real property contracts by installing the panels as improvements to real property (contested panels). Petitioner was the ultimate consumer of the materials that Petitioner purchased and used to fabricate the contested panels. At the time that Petitioner installed the contested panels into real property, the contested panels became improvements to the real property. Petitioner failed to pay sales tax at the time Petitioner purchased materials used to fabricate the contested panels. Petitioner provided vendors with Petitioner's resale certificate, in lieu of paying sales tax, when Petitioner purchased the materials used to fabricate the contested panels. None of the purchase transactions for materials used to fabricate the contested panels were tax exempt. The audit is procedurally correct. The amount of the assessment is accurate. On October 23, 2000, Respondent issued a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records (form DR-840), for audit number A0027213470, for the period of October 1, 1995, through September 30, 2000. During an opening interview, the parties discussed the audit procedures and sampling method to be employed and the records to be examined. Based upon the opening interview, Respondent prepared an Audit Agreement and presented it to an officer and owner of the taxpayer. Respondent began the audit of Petitioner's books and records on January 22, 2001. On March 9, 2001, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (original Notice of Intent). At Petitioner's request, Respondent conducted an audit conference with Petitioner. At the audit conference, Petitioner provided documentation that the assessed transactions involved improvements to real property. At Petitioner's request, Respondent conducted a second audit conference with Petitioner's former legal counsel. Petitioner authorized its former legal counsel to act on its behalf during the audit. At the second audit conference, the parties discussed audit procedures and sampling methods, Florida use tax, fabricated items, and fabrication costs. Respondent revised the audit findings based upon additional information from Petitioner that the assessed transactions involved fabricated items of tangible personal property that became improvements to real property. Respondent assessed use tax on the materials used to fabricate control panels in those instances where Petitioner failed to document that Petitioner paid sales tax at the time of the purchase. Respondent also assessed use tax on fabrication costs including the direct labor and the overhead costs associated with the fabrication process, for the period of October 1, 1995, through June 30, 1999. Respondent eliminated use tax assessed on cleaning services in the original Notice of Intent because the amount of tax was de minimis. On August 29, 2001, Respondent issued a Revised Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (Revised Notice of Intent). On September 18, 2001, Petitioner executed a Consent to Extend the Time to Issue an Assessment to File a Claim for Refund until January 25, 2002. On October 18, 2001, Petitioner executed a second Consent to Extend the Time to Issue an Assessment to File a Claim for Refund until April 25, 2002. On February 6, 2002, Respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment for additional sales and use tax, in the amount of $21,822.27; interest through February 6, 2002, in the amount of $10,774.64; penalty in the amount of $10,831.12; and additional interest that accrues at $6.97 per diem. Petitioner exhausted the informal remedies available from Respondent. On April 29, 2002, Petitioner filed a formal written protest that, in substantial part, objected to the audit procedures and sampling method employed in the audit. Respondent issued a Notice of Decision sustaining the assessment of tax, penalty, and interest. Respondent correctly determined that the audit procedures and sampling method employed in the audit were appropriate and consistent with Respondent's statutes and regulations. Respondent concluded that the assessment was correct based upon the best available information and that Petitioner failed to provide any documentation to refute the audit findings. Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration that did not provide any additional facts, arguments, or records to support its position. On May 16, 2003, Respondent issued a Notice of Reconsideration sustaining the assessment of tax and interest in full, but compromising all penalties based upon reasonable cause.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for relief and sustaining Respondent's assessment of taxes and interest in full. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 10th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Revenue Litigation Section The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Michael E. Ferguson Control Design Engineering, Inc. 809 East Bloomingdale Avenue, PMB 433 Brandon, Florida 33511 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact In 1962, the Corporation decided to relocate its corporate offices from Newark, New Jersey, to the State of Florida. Implementing this decision, the Corporation secured a twenty year leasehold interest of an entire floor in the Universal Marion Building in Jacksonville, Florida, under which it was obligated to pay an annual rental of $52,000.00. Within a few months during the year 1962, the decision to relocate was rescinded. During the tax year in question, the Corporation retained a part-time employee in Florida for the sole purpose of attempting to either locate a purchaser of the leasehold interest or to avoid further obligations under the lease by negotiations and settlement with the landlord. This part-time employee received his directions from the corporate offices in Newark, New Jersey. Other than these efforts to relieve the burden of the unused leased premises, the Corporation conducted no commercial activities in the State of Florida during the tax year 1973. Although the Corporation's headquarters were ultimately moved to Jacksonville, in January 1976, the Corporation has never occupied the leased premises in question. In fact, in 1974, the Corporation entered into a sublease with the State of Florida for the duration of the lease. Pursuant to audit, DOR assessed the Corporation an additional $12,616.89 in income tax for the year ended December 31, 1973, using the three-factor formula method of apportionment.
