Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. (Lloyd) has requested that it be awarded $22,006.00 in attorney's fees and out-of-pocket expenses of $589.31 for a total of $22,595.31. All fees and expenses listed by Lloyd were incurred in its successful appeal of the adverse decision in its Section 120.57(1) F.S. proceeding challenging the Respondent agency's tax assessment. All fees and costs claimed were incurred during appeal after the recommended and final orders were entered against Lloyd in a formal tax assessment proceeding, Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, DOAH Case No. 92-2348. The formal tax assessment proceeding arose pursuant to Section 72.011 and Chapter 212 F.S. concerning the balance ($57,471.43) of a greater sales and use tax assessment levied against Lloyd for its alleged failure to pay sales tax on goods and services sold to customers of concession stands on Daytona Beach for an audit period before Lloyd owned and operated the stands. Because Lloyd was unable to provide records of predecessors in interest, the agency estimated tax on the basis of Lloyd's existing records after purchasing the stands. Also, Lloyd was assessed sales taxes (approximately $6,004.38 of the assessed tax liability) for all beach concession fees it had paid to Volusia County during the audit period of 11/1/85--12/31/90, pursuant to Section 212.031, F.S. [1989]. Lloyd's petition for formal hearing before DOAH was a letter previously utilized in the parties' informal negotiations. FDOR moved for a more definite statement and time to file an answer if Lloyd were required to file a more definite statement or a more definite petition. An order dated May 19, 1992 denied the agency's request for more definite statement and provided, in pertinent part, "...As Respondent's motion has observed, an answer in this type of proceeding is not mandatory. Respondent is, however, granted 10 days from the date of this order in which to file an answer should the agency elect to do so." The agency elected to stand on its prior notices of proposed assessment. Therefore, for purposes of this proceeding, the agency's "petition," as contemplated by Section 120.575(5) F.S. is the original tax assessment. The tax assessment proceeding went to formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S. without any motions to dismiss or for other summary relief filed by either party. The recommended order found in favor of the agency's assessment, with some minor arithmetical adjustments required. The final order adopted the recommended order in toto. Lloyd appealed the final order. In Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 651 So. 735 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), decided upon Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, DOAH Case No. 92-2348, (RO entered by the undersigned Hearing Officer on 4/01/93; FDOR's FO entered 5/24/93), Lloyd argued that Section 212.031, F.S. [1989], had been erroneously applied to the beach concession fees charged by Volusia County and that Section 212.10 [1989] was unconstitutional as applied to Lloyd in this case and that the "projection" method used by FDOR's auditors to determine the amount of taxes due was unauthorized, unreasonable, and arbitrary. FDOR argued that the transfer and annual fees charged by the County to beach concessionaires pursuant to its Unified Beach Code and Ordinance, (Volusia County Ordinance 88-32), constituted rent payments for the various beach locations. The Fifth District Court of Appeal partially agreed with Lloyd and reversed. The court did not reach Lloyd's argument that Section 212.10 F.S. is arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, unconstitutional but did agree with Lloyd that under the facts of this case and the statutory framework, the best estimate provisions of Section 212.12(5)(b), F.S. [1989], could not be invoked to impose liability upon Lloyd as a "successor" dealer. (615 So.2d 735 at 736). The appellate court ruled with regard to the first issue raised on appeal that, The hearing officer erred in deciding it was proper to impose a sales tax on the fees Volusia County charged Lloyd for the privilege of selling and renting goods and services to the public on public beaches and that these privileges constituted taxable events under Rule 12A-10.070 F.A.C. and Section 212.031 F.S.. It ruled further that, The hearing officer arrived at this ruling simply by deferring to the Department's interpretation of the rule and by noting there was no contrary case law. The hearing officer correctly pointed out that deference should be given to an agency's interpretation of its rules and the statutes it is charged to administer. However, the agency's interpretation is subject to review and is not conclusive. (651 So.2d 735 at 736). The court went on to say, We hold that, in exercising the duties imposed on it by the Unified Beach Code, the County did not enter into the business of renting, leasing, or licensing real property. Accordingly, the tax liability assessed on the basis of the concession- aire fees being a license or lease of land is reversed. (651 So.2d 735 at 737) The appellate court also stated that, At the time Lloyd purchased the concessions, neither Lloyd nor the sellers were aware of the duties imposed by Section 212.10 [1989] which imposed on a purchasing or successor dealer the sales tax liabilities of a selling dealer under certain circumstances, and Lloyd concedes it did not comply with the statute. (651 So.2d 735 at 738). The Fifth District Court of Appeal majority opinion criticized the agency for relying solely on Lloyd's own, adequate records for the more current years after Lloyd purchased the concessions which are records not listed in Section 212.12(5)(b) F.S. as usable even if that section were applicable. It further criticized the agency for making no effort to obtain or project--or estimate--sales tax liabilities of the prior concessionaires on the basis of their own records which would have been for the relevant taxable period. However, the appellate court's ultimate ruling on the second issue raised on appeal was that the agency was not entitled to invoke Section 212.12(5)(b) F.S. without showing that Lloyd was guilty of a default listed by the statute. The opinion relies on the fact that, because there was no statutory or regulatory mechanism in place by which Lloyd could have ascertained the prior owners' tax liability, Lloyd, the taxpayer, could not be in default. The court observed the longstanding and frequently reiterated precedent that, "tax laws should be construed strongly in favor of the taxpayer and against the government with all ambiguities or doubts resolved in the taxpayer's favor." The opinion stops short of finding the statute unconstitutional as written or as applied to Lloyd. The foregoing rulings by the appellate court are res judicata for purposes of determining whether or not there was any justiciable issue of law or fact raised by the agency's initial tax assessment. The recommended and final orders appealed from did not reserve jurisdiction to determine entitlement to any fees or costs. The Petitioner made no request for fees and costs to the appellate court and none were awarded. There is no order of the appellate court requiring FDOR or DOAH to award fees or costs. Petitioner makes its claim herein only pursuant to Sections 57.111 and 120.575(5), F.S. The agency has never entered a final order on remand in accord with the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, but clearly, Lloyd ultimately prevailed at the appellate level. Petitioner filed its original fees and costs petition with DOAH within 60 days of the appellate court's mandate. That petition was dismissed by an order herein dated June 28, 1995. The second paragraph of the June 28, 1995 order read, "Petitioner shall have 15 days from date of this order to amend its motion (sic=petition)." The fifteenth day was July 13, 1995. The Amended Petition was served and filed with DOAH on July 14, 1995. Respondent set forth no showing of prejudice by the one day's delay.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the "Administrative Complaint for Revocation of Certificate of Registration" (Administrative Complaint) filed with DOAH on April 20, 2009, and, if so, the action that should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for administering the revenue laws of the State of Florida, including the imposition and collection of the state's sales and use taxes pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Respondent is an active for-profit corporation with its principal address at 8461 Lake Worth Road, #189, Lake Worth, Florida. Respondent is a "dealer" as that term is defined by section 212.06(2), and holds certificate of registration number 16-8014804285-5. Respondent operates a restaurant in Broward County, Florida. Respondent's Registered Agent is Michael Letts, whose address is 1166 North State Road #7, Lauderhill, Florida 33313. WARRANT 1000000100712 Petitioner audited Respondent for payment of sales and use taxes for the period June 1, 2004 through May 31, 2007. Petitioner assigned the number 200031264 to that audit. As a result of audit number 200031264, Petitioner issued to Respondent a Notice of Proposed Assessment on May 28, 2008, that assessed Respondent $50,326.67 in tax; $7,549.01 in penalty; and $13,540.49 in interest as of May 28, 2008, for a total of $71,416.17. The assessment became final on July 28, 2008. Petitioner issued tax warrant numbered 1000000100712, and recorded the warrant in the public records of Broward County, Florida, on November 24, 2008. The total of the warrant, which included an updated interest amount and a $20.00 filing fee, was $73,483.72. Interest continues to accrue until the tax is paid in full. As of February 15, 2011, the total sum of $80,634.81 remained unpaid as a result of the assessment, the continued accrual of interest thereon, and the cost of the filing fee.1 RETURNS WITHOUT REMITTANCES Respondent filed with Petitioner sales and use tax returns without remitting the taxes due with the returns for the months of August - December 2008 and January - February 2009. Respondent failed to remit to Petitioner $6,953.36 in sales and use taxes for those months. For that failure, Petitioner assessed Respondent with taxes in the amount of $6,953.36; a penalty in the amount of $505.98; interest as of March 17, 2009, in the amount of $169.45, and a collection fee in the amount of $80.00. That assessment, which totaled $7,708.79, remained unpaid at the time of the formal hearing. Interest continues to accrue until the tax is paid in full. PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE Petitioner made efforts to negotiate a Compliance Agreement with Respondent and met with a representative of the Respondent. Those efforts were unsuccessful. Respondent has failed to remit payment for the tax, penalty, interest, and fees due and owing to Petitioner pursuant to chapter 212. Petitioner established that it complied with all applicable procedural requirements prior to filing the Administrative Complaint with DOAH.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order that revokes Respondent's certificate of registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2011.
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 18-4475RX, whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.044(5)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in violation of section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.1/ As to DOAH Case No. 18-4992RU, whether the Department of Revenue's ("Department") Standard Audit Plan, Vending and Amusement Machines--Industry Specific, section 1.1.3.3 ("SAP") is an unadopted rule in violation of sections 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Audit Period GBR is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. Gilda Rosenberg is the owner of GBR and a related entity, Gilly Vending, Inc. ("Gilly"). GBR and Gilly are in the vending machine business. At all times material hereto, Amit Biegun served as the chief financial officer of the two entities. The Department is the state agency responsible for administering Florida's sales tax laws pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes. This case concerns the audit period of January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014. GBR's Provision of Vending Machine Services Prior to the audit period, the school boards of Broward and Palm Beach County issued written solicitations through invitations to bid ("ITB"), seeking vendors to furnish, install, stock, and maintain vending machines on school property. The bids required a "full turn-key operation." The stated objectives were to obtain the best vending service and percentage commission rates that will be most advantageous to the school boards, and to provide a contract that will be most profitable to the awarded vendor. The stated goal was that student choices from beverage and snack vending machines closely align with federal dietary guidelines. GBR operates approximately 700 snack and beverage vending machines situated at 65 schools in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade Counties. Of these 65 schools, 43 are in Broward County, 21 are in Palm Beach County, and one is in Miami-Dade County. The snack vending machines are all owned by GBR. Beverage vending machines are owned by bottling companies, such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Of the 700 vending machines, approximately 60 percent of the machines are for beverages and the remaining 40 percent are for snacks. GBR has written vending agreements with some schools. In these agreements, GBR is designated as a licensee, the school is designated as the licensor, and GBR is granted a license to install vending machines on school property in exchange for a commission. Furthermore, GBR is solely responsible to pay all federal, state, and local taxes in connection with the operation of the vending machines. Ownership of the vending machines does not transfer to the schools. However, in some cases the schools have keys to the machines. In addition, designated school board employees have access to the inside of the machines in order to review the meter, monitor all transactions, and reconcile the revenue from the machines. GBR places the vending machines on school property. However, the schools control the locations of the vending machines. The schools also require timers on the machines so that the schools can control the times during the day when the machines are operational and accessible to students. The schools also control the types of products to be placed in the machines to ensure that the products closely align with the federal dietary guidelines. The schools also control pricing strategies. GBR stocks, maintains, and services the vending machines. However, Coca-Cola and Pepsi may repair the beverage machines they own. GBR is solely responsible for repairing the machines it owns. The schools require that any vendor service workers seeking access to the vending machines during school hours pass background checks. GBR route drivers collect the revenue from all of the vending machines and the revenues are deposited into GBR's bank accounts. In exchange for GBR's services, the schools receive from GBR, as a commission, a percentage of the gross receipts. However, neither GBR nor the schools are guaranteed any revenue unless sales occur from the machines. On its federal income tax returns, GBR reports all sales revenue from the vending machines. For the tax year 2012, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $5,952,270. Of this amount, GBR paid the schools $1,363,207, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. For the tax year 2013, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $6,535,362. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $1,122,211, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. For the tax year 2014, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $6,076,255. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $1,279,682, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. Thus, for the audit period, and according to the federal tax returns and general ledgers, GBR's gross receipts or sales were $18,563,887. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $3,765,100, as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. The Department's Audit and Assessment On January 27, 2015, the Department, through its tax auditor, Mary Gray, sent written notice to GBR of its intent to conduct the audit. This was Ms. Gray's first audit involving vending machines at schools. Thereafter, GBR provided Ms. Gray with its general ledger, federal returns, and bid documents. On October 28, 2015, Ms. Gray issued a draft assessment to GBR. The email transmittal by Ms. Gray to GBR's representative states that "[t]he case is being forwarded for supervisory review." In the draft, Ms. Gray determined that GBR owed additional tax in the amount of $28,589.65, but there was no mention of any purported tax on the monies paid by GBR to the schools as a license fee to use real property. However, very close to the end of the audit, within one week after issuing the draft, and after Ms. Gray did further research and conferred with her supervisor, Ms. Gray's supervisor advised her to issue the B03 assessment pursuant to section 212.031 and rule 12A-1.044, and tax the monies paid by GBR to the schools as a license fee to use real property. Thus, according to the Department, GBR was now responsible for tax in the amount of $246,230.93, plus applicable interest. Of this alleged amount, $1,218.48 was for additional sales tax (A01); $4,181.41 was for purchase expenses (B02); $13,790 was for untaxed rent (B02); and $227.041.04 was for the purported license to use real property (B03). Ms. Gray then prepared a Standard Audit Report detailing her position of the audit and forwarded the report to the Department's dispute resolution division. On January 19, 2016, the Department issued the Notice of Proposed Assessment ("NOPA") against GBR for additional tax and interest due of $288,993.31. The Department does not seek a penalty against GBR. At hearing, Ms. Gray testified that the Department's SAP is an audit planning tool or checklist which she used in conducting GBR's audit. Employees of the Department are not bound to follow the SAP, and the SAP can be modified by the auditors on a word document. The SAP was utilized by Ms. Gray during the audit, but it was not relied on in the NOD.4/
The Issue Whether this cause should be dismissed for Petitioner's failure to comply with Section 120.80(14)(b)3., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is contesting an assessment of taxes, pursuant to an audit conducted by Respondent Department of Revenue. The total amount of the assessment was $32,312.24. Following the audit, in a letter to the Department's auditor dated April 17, 2006, Petitioner's counsel stated that taxes "in the amount of $5,744.80 is something [Petitioner] would be obligated to pay under the laws of the State of Florida, and as such, they are willing to do so. They would be willing to pay interest due on this money."1/ This statement constitutes a clear admission that Petitioner owes the stated amount of the tax, $5,744.80, plus interest that accrues daily. Petitioner's Memorandum makes the un-sworn statement that: At the time the parties met to discuss the assessment with the representative of the Department of Revenue, Martha Watkins, they offered to pay $5,744.80 of the taxes but were informed it was part of the $32,312.24, and they could either pay it all or contest it. At all times material hereto the petitioners have stood ready to pay the $5,744.80. On April 17, 2006, we wrote a letter to Martha Watkins making this offer for the second time. On August 17, 2006, we again wrote to the Department of Revenue attaching our letter of April 17, 2006, again making this offer. At no time was a response received to either letter. The August 17, 2006, letter alluded to in Petitioner's Memorandum is not of record and neither a copy of that letter, nor an affidavit of its contents, has been submitted by either party. At no time has Petitioner asserted that any amount of tax money was unequivocally tendered to Respondent. No affidavit to that effect has been filed in this case. The Second Affidavit of Martha Watkins, submitted with the Department of Revenue's timely Memorandum states, in pertinent part: I conducted the audit of C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., from which arose the challenged assessment and this controversy. During the course of the audit, and subsequent communication with C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., regarding the audit and assessment of taxes and interest, C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., made at least one settlement offer, that was unacceptable, and was rejected by the Department as such. At no time did C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., unequivocally tender to me, or unequivocally offer to tender to me, the uncontested tax and applicable interest, and at no time did I refuse to accept any payment of taxes. On September 21, 2006, a Request for Administrative Hearing was filed with the Department of Revenue. On September 28, 2006, the Executive Director of the Department of Revenue entered an Order Dismissing the Petition with Leave to Amend. That Order reads, in pertinent part: On September 21, 2006, the Florida Department of Revenue received a "Request for Administrative Hearing" from Petitioner, C & C Mechanical Contractors. While the document clearly is a request for hearing, the petition does not state what the Petitioner is disputing. A record search shows that at least one Notice of Proposed Assessment was issued by the Department on June 15, 2006 to this Petitioner. It is impossible to determine from the petition whether this proposed assessment is being challenged. However, because this request was sent within the applicable time frame to dispute the Notice of Proposed Assessment, the Department will treat it as such. As required by law, the notice stated that a formal protest for an administrative hearing had to be received in the Office of the General Counsel within sixty days after the assessment became final and had to be in compliance with chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The petition fails to meet the requirements contained in chapter 120, Florida Statutes and Uniform Rule 28- 106.201, Florida Administrative Code, the appropriate rule for use in filing a petition requesting a hearing involving disputed issues of material fact. A copy of the appropriate rule is provided with this order. Specifically, the petition does not contain: (1) a statement of when and how the Petitioner received notice of the agency decision; (2) all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; (3) a concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts the Petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; (4) a statement of the specific rules or statutes the Petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action, and (5) a statement of the relief sought by the Petitioner, stating precisely the action the petitioner wishes the agency to take with respect to the agency's proposed action. Because of these deficiencies, Petitioner's documentation must be dismissed. IT IS ORDERED: The petition for hearing filed by Petitioner is DISMISSED. Such dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner to amend the petition to provide the information listed above. . . . On October 11, 2006, the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing was filed with the Department of Revenue. That Amended Petition stated, in pertinent part: 1. The Petitioner received a certified letter dated June 15, 2006, stating taxes were due and owing in the amount of $32,312.24. This amount included $5,774.80 in fabrication cost taxes which the Petitioner does not object too [sic]. The balance of the $32,312.24 was for taxes on items sold to non-taxable entities. The Petitioner would object to these taxes and gives as grounds the following: Items sold to non-taxable entities are not subject to the Florida Tax Code. The department made a determination the items sold to the non-taxable entities were taxable stating the contractor, in this case the Petitioner, was the end user. Florida Tax Code states in part ". . . a determination whether a particular transaction is properly characterized as an exempt sale to a government entity or a taxable sale to a contractor shall be based on the substance of the transaction rather than the form in which the transaction is cast." The department "shall adopt rules that give special consideration to factors that govern the status of the tangible personal property before its affixation to real property." The Department of Revenue has adopted a rule which is in violation of the incident [sic] of legislature and contrary to Florida Statute 212.08.2/ (Emphasis supplied). The Amended Petition constitutes a clear admission that the $5,744.80 portion of the taxes due under the audit were both uncontested and owed, as of October 11, 2006. The first Affidavit of Martha Watkins, filed November 28, 2006, in support of the pending Motion to Dismiss, states, in pertinent part: I am a [sic] sui juris and otherwise competent to testify in this matter. I am employed by the Florida Department of Revenue in the position of Tax Auditor III. I am familiar with the accounts, accounting methods, and maintenance of records at the Florida Department of Revenue for sales tax, interest, and penalties. I am authorized by the Department of Revenue to make affidavit regarding the payment status of sales taxes, interest and penalties relative to registered Florida dealers. I have reviewed, and have personal knowledge of the accounts of the Florida Department of Revenue regarding tax payment of C&C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., a Florida corporation that has in the past been issued a Certificate of Registration by the Department of Revenue. According to the records of the Department of Revenue, as of November 27, 2006, C&C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., has not paid any sums to the Department of Revenue against the assessed outstanding balance of sales tax, interest or penalties, since prior to April 16, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Revenue enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 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 27th day of February, 2007.
Findings Of Fact During the discovery phase of this proceeding, the Department ascertained from Echo Artz that $4,070 (the "Uncontested Amount") of the assessed tax was not contested. That is, Echo Artz agreed that it owed at least that amount of the total tax assessment of $67,757.46 set forth in the Notice. Of the total amount set forth in the Notice, $54,626.25 was the tax portion and the remainder was interest. No penalties were imposed as of the date of the Notice of Proposed Assessment. The Uncontested Amount was approximately 7.5 percent of the tax portion and approximately 5.9 percent of the total assessment. At the final hearing, during discussion of the Department's Motion to Dismiss, Echo Artz stated that the Uncontested Amount was erroneous. Instead, it stated that $23,135 of the total tax assessment was actually uncontested. The total tax portion of the assessment should be, according to Echo Artz, $57,730. The revised uncontested amount was approximately 40 percent of the total tax portion. Echo Artz did not pay any of the Uncontested Amount or any of the revised uncontested amount pursuant to its own calculations. The Department asserts that inasmuch as Echo Artz failed to pay the Uncontested Amount prior to filing its request for formal hearing, the case must be dismissed as required by law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Revenue, enter a final order of dismissal. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2012.
The Issue The issues in this bid protest are, first, whether, as Petitioner alleges, Intervenor's failure to attach copies of "occupational licenses" to its proposal was a deviation from the requirements of the Request for Proposal; second, whether any such deviation was material; and third, whether Respondent's preliminary decision to award Intervenor the contract at issue was clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact On September 18, 2009, Respondent Department of Transportation ("Department") issued Request for Proposal No. RFP-DOT-09/10-4007FS (the "RFP"). Through the RFP, which is entitled, "Treasure Coast Road Ranger Service Patrol," the Department solicited written proposals from qualified providers who would be willing and able to perform towing and emergency roadside services on Interstate 95 in Martin County, St. Lucie County, and Indian River County. The Department intended to award a three-year contract to the "responsive and responsible Proposer whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Department." The Department anticipated that the contract would have a term beginning on December 1, 2009, and ending on November 31, 2012. The annual contract price was not to exceed $1.59 million. Proposals were due on October 13, 2009. Four firms timely submitted proposals in response to the RFP, including Petitioner Sunshine Towing @ Broward, Inc. ("Sunshine") and Intervenor Anchor Towing and Marine of Broward, Inc. ("Anchor"). An evaluation ensued, pursuant to a process described in the RFP, during which the Department rejected two of the four proposals for failing to meet minimum requirements relating to technical aspects of the project. As a result, Sunshine and Anchor emerged as the only competitors eligible for the award. Sunshine offered to perform the contractual services for an annual price of $1,531,548. This sum was less than the price that Anchor proposed by $46,980 per year. Despite Sunshine's lower cost, Anchor nevertheless edged Sunshine in the final score, receiving 92.86 points (out of 100) from the Department's evaluators, to Sunshine's 87.75. On November 30, 2009, the Department duly notified the public of its intent to award the contract to Anchor. Sunshine promptly initiated the instant protest, whereby Sunshine seeks to have Anchor's proposal disqualified as nonresponsive, in hopes that the Department will then award the contract to Sunshine as the highest-ranked (indeed the sole) responsive proposer. Sunshine alleges that Anchor's proposal failed to conform strictly to the specifications of the RFP, principally because Anchor did not attach copies of its "occupational licenses" to the proposal. Anchor insists that its proposal was responsive but argues, alternatively, that if its proposal deviated from the specifications, the deviation was merely a minor irregularity which the Department could waive. Anchor further contends that Sunshine's proposal contains material deviations for which it should be deemed nonresponsive. The Department takes the position that Anchor's failure to attach "occupational licenses" was a minor irregularity that could be (and was) waived.1 The RFP includes a "Special Conditions" section wherein the specifications at the heart of this dispute are located. Of particular interest is Special Condition No. 8, which specifies the qualifications a provider must have to be considered qualified to perform the services called for under the contract to be awarded. Special Condition No. 8 provides as follows: QUALIFICATIONS General The Department will determine whether the Proposer is qualified to perform the services being contracted based upon their proposal demonstrating satisfactory experience and capability in the work area. The Proposer shall identify necessary experienced personnel and facilities to support the activities associated with this proposal. Qualifications of Key Personnel Those individuals who will be directly involved in the project should have demonstrated experience in the areas delineated in the scope of work. Individuals whose qualifications are presented will be committed to the project for its duration unless otherwise excepted by the Department's Project Manager. Where State of Florida registration or certification is deemed appropriate, a copy of the registration or certificate should be included in the proposal package. Authorized To Do Business in the State of Florida In accordance with sections 607.1501, 608.501, and 620.169, Florida Statutes, foreign corporations, foreign limited liability companies, and foreign limited partnerships must be authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Such authorization should be obtained by the proposal due date and time, but in any case, must be obtained prior to the posting of the intended award of the contact. For authorization, [contact the Florida Department of State].[2] Licensed to Conduct Business in the State of Florida If the business being provided requires that individuals be licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, such licenses should be obtained by the proposal due date and time, but in any case, must be obtained prior to the posting of the intended award of the contract. For licensing, [contact the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation]. References and experience must entail a minimum of three (3) years of experience in the towing industry in Florida. NOTE: Copies of occupational licenses must also be attached to the back of Form 'F'. (Boldface in original.) Special Condition No. 19, which defines the term "responsive proposal," provides as follows: RESPONSIVENESS OF PROPOSALS Responsiveness of Proposals Proposals will not be considered if not received by the Department on or before the date and time specified as the due date for submission. All proposals must be typed or printed in ink. A responsive proposal is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Request for Proposal in accordance with all the requirements of this Request for Proposal and receiving fifty (50) points or more on the Technical Proposal.[3] Proposals found to be non-responsive shall not be considered. Proposals may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A proposal may be found to be irregular or non-responsive by reasons that include, but are not limited to, failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, conditional proposals, incomplete proposals, indefinite or ambiguous proposals, and improper and/or undated signatures. (Emphasis and boldface in original.) In the "General Instructions to Respondents" section of the RFP there appears the following reservation of rights: 16. Minor Irregularities/Right to Reject. The Buyer reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids, or separable portions thereof, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if the Buyer determines that doing so will serve the State's best interests. The Buyer may reject any response not submitted in the manner specified by the solicitation documents. Anchor did not attach copies of any "occupational licenses" to the back of Form 'F' in its proposal. Anchor contends that it did not need to attach such licenses because none exists. This position is based on two undisputed facts: (1) The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("DBPR") does not regulate the business of providing towing and emergency roadside assistance; therefore, neither Anchor nor Sunshine held (or could hold) a state-issued license to operate, and neither company fell under DBPR's regulatory jurisdiction. (2) The instrument formerly known as an "occupational license," which local governments had issued for decades, not for regulatory purposes but as a means of raising revenue, is presently called (at least formally) a "business tax receipt," after the Florida Legislature, in 2006, amended Chapter 205 of the Florida Statutes, changing the name of that law from the "Local Occupational License Tax Act" to the "Local Business Tax Act." See 2006 Fla. Laws ch. 152. Sunshine asserts that the terms "occupational license" and "business tax receipt" are synonymous and interchangeable, and that the RFP required each offeror to attach copies of its occupational licenses/business tax receipts to the proposal. Sunshine insists that Anchor's failure to do so constituted a material deviation from the specifications because, without such documentation, the Department could not be sure whether an offeror was authorized to do business in any given locality. Sunshine presses this argument a step further based on some additional undisputed facts. As it happened, at the time the proposals were opened, Anchor held a local business tax receipt from the City of Pembroke Pines, which is the municipality in which Anchor maintains its principal place of business. Anchor had not, however, paid local business taxes to Broward County when they became due, respectively, on July 1, 2008, and July 1, 2009. Anchor corrected this problem on December 14, 2009, which was about two weeks after the Department had posted notice of its intent to award Anchor the contract, paying Broward County a grand total of $248.45 in back taxes, collection costs, and late penalties. As of this writing, all of Anchor's local business tax obligations are paid in full. Sunshine contends, however, that during the period of time that Anchor's Broward County business taxes were delinquent, Anchor was not authorized to do business in Broward County and hence was not a "responsible" proposer eligible for award of the contract. In support of this proposition, Sunshine relies upon Section 20-15 of the Broward County, Florida, Code of Ordinances ("Broward Code"), which states: Pursuant to the authority granted by Chapter 205, Florida Statutes, no person shall engage in or manage any business, profession or occupation, as the same are contemplated by Chapter 205, Florida Statutes, unless such person first obtains a business tax receipt as required by this article, unless other exempt from this requirement . . . . On this latter point regarding Anchor's authority to operate in Broward County, Sunshine appears to be correct, at least in a narrow legal sense. It is abundantly clear, however, and the undersigned finds, that, as a matter of fact, Anchor was never in any danger of being shut down by the county. Indeed, even under the strict letter of the local law, Anchor was entitled to continue operating in Broward County unless and until the county took steps to compel the payment of the delinquent taxes. Broward Code Section 20-22, which deals with the enforcement of the business tax provisions, provides: Whenever any person who is subject to the payment of a business tax or privilege tax provided by this article shall fail to pay the same when due, the tax collector, within three (3) years from the due date of the tax, may issue a warrant directed to the Broward County Sheriff, commanding him/her to levy upon and sell any real or personal property of such person liable for said tax for the amount thereof and the cost of executing the warrant and to return such warrant to the tax collector and to pay him/her the money collected by virtue thereof within sixty (60) days from the date of the warrant. . . . The tax collector may file a copy of the warrant with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Broward County[, which shall be recorded in the public records and thereby] become a lien for seven (7) years from the due date of the tax. . . . Any person subject to, and who fails to pay, a business tax or privilege tax required by this article, shall, on petition of the tax collector, be enjoined by the Circuit Court from engaging in the business for which he/she has failed to pay said business tax, until such time as he/she shall pay the same with costs of such action. There is no evidence suggesting that the county ever sought to enjoin, or that a court ever issued an injunction prohibiting, Anchor from engaging in business, nor does it appear, based on the evidence, that a tax warrant ever was issued, filed, or executed to force Anchor to pay its back taxes. Given the relatively small amount of tax due, the likelihood of such enforcement actions being taken must reasonably be reckoned as slim to none. While paying taxes when due is certainly the obligation of a good corporate citizen, it would not be reasonable, based on the facts established in this case, to infer that Anchor is a scofflaw for failing to timely pay a local tax amounting to about $80 per year. Anchor, in short, was a responsible proposer. Sunshine's other argument has more going for it. The RFP clearly and unambiguously mandated that "occupational licenses" be attached to a proposal. If, as Sunshine maintains, the terms "occupational license" and "business tax receipt" are clearly synonymous, then Anchor's proposal was noncompliant. For reasons that will be explained below, however, the undersigned has concluded, as a matter of law, that the term "occupational license" does not unambiguously denote a "business tax receipt"——at least not in the context of Special Condition No. 8. The specification, in other words, is ambiguous. No one protested the specification or otherwise sought clarification of the Department's intent. The evidence shows, and the undersigned finds, that the Department understood and intended the term "occupational license" to mean the instrument now known as a "business tax receipt." The Department simply used the outdated name, as many others probably still do, owing to that facet of human nature captured by the expression, "old habits die hard." The Department's interpretation of the ambiguous specification is not clearly erroneous and therefore should not be disturbed in this proceeding. Based on the Department's interpretation of Special Condition No. 8, the undersigned finds that Anchor's failure to attach copies of its occupational licenses was a deviation from the requirements of the RFP. That is not the end of the matter, however, for a deviation is not necessarily disqualifying unless it is found to be material. The letting authority may, in the exercise of discretion, choose to waive a minor irregularity if doing so will not compromise the integrity and fairness of the competition. There is no persuasive direct evidence in the record that the Department made a conscious decision to waive the irregularity in Anchor's proposal. Documents in the Department's procurement file show, however, that the Department knew that Anchor's proposal lacked copies of occupational licenses, and in any event this was a patent defect, inasmuch as nothing was attached to the back of Anchor's Form 'F'. It is therefore reasonable to infer that the Department elected to waive the irregularity, and the undersigned so finds. Necessarily implicit in the Department's action (waiving the deficiency) is an agency determination that that the irregularity was a minor one. The question of whether or not Anchor's noncompliance with Special Condition No. 8 was material is fairly debatable. Ultimately, however, the undersigned is unable to find, for reasons more fully developed below, that the Department's determination in this regard was clearly erroneous. Because the Department's determination was not clearly erroneous, the undersigned accepts that Anchor's failure to submit occupational licenses was a minor irregularity, which the Department could waive. The Department's decision to waive the minor irregularity is entitled to great deference and should be upheld unless it was arbitrary or capricious. The undersigned cannot say that waiving the deficiency in question was illogical, despotic, thoughtless, or otherwise an abuse of discretion; to the contrary, once it has been concluded that the irregularity is minor and immaterial, as the Department not incorrectly did here, waiver seems the reasonable and logical course of action. The upshot is that the proposed award to Anchor should be allowed to stand. The foregoing determination renders moot the disputed issues of fact arising from Anchor's allegation that Sunshine's proposal was nonresponsive. It is unnecessary, therefore, for the undersigned to make additional findings on that subject.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order consistent with its preliminary decision to award Anchor the contract at issue. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 April, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue properly denied Petitioner's March 10, 2000, Application For Refund of Sales and Use Tax, Petitioner having asserted that the Department of Revenue obtained the Closing Agreement through misrepresentation and intimidation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Tuskawilla Learning Center, is a Florida corporation which operates a private Montessori School in Oviedo, Seminole County, Florida. Petitioner has elected to be an "S" corporation for federal income tax reporting purposes. Tuskawilla Learning Center is owned by its shareholders, Thomas E. Phillips; his wife, Lois; his daughter, Terry Lynn DeLong; and his son-in-law, Daniel F. DeLong. At all times material to this matter, a partnership comprised of the above-named owners of the Tuskawilla Learning Center also owned the real property upon which the Tuskawilla Learning Center operated. In early July 1997, Respondent audited Petitioner's corporate transactions for the period from July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1997, for compliance with sales and use tax and the local government infrastructure surtax. During the audit Petitioner was requested to provide all information and documents which Petitioner felt supported its business activities. Respondent issued a Notice Of Intent To Make Audit Changes on September 25, 1997, which advised Petitioner that the audit revealed that Petitioner had failed to pay use tax on purchases Petitioner made from out-of-state vendors, which Petitioner acknowledged and paid. The audit also revealed that Petitioner failed to pay sales tax on the monthly rental charges that Petitioner paid to the property owner on which the Tuskawilla Learning Center operated. Petitioner did not agree with Respondent's position on the sales tax on monthly rental charges. On October 28, 1997, an audit conference was held in Orlando, Florida, where the tax assessment on the monthly rental charges was discussed. The parties were unable to resolve the issue, and Petitioner requested that the issue be referred to Tallahassee for further review. The review in Tallahassee essentially confirmed the original audit findings, and a Notice of Proposed Assessment was issued on January 26, 1998. Petitioner filed a protest and requested a further review of the Notice of Proposed Assessment. As a result, the entire audit was reviewed, and Petitioner was allowed to provide additional documentation to support its position. On August 4, 1998, Respondent issued a Notice of Decision which essentially confirmed the findings of the original audit. At this point, Petitioner had certain rights of appeal which had to be exercised within specific time limits, or Petitioner could elect to pay the taxes and interest as set forth in a Closing Agreement in which Respondent waived the penalties which had accrued for failure to pay the tax. The various time deadlines passed without Petitioner electing one of the avenues of appeal nor did Petitioner execute the Closing Agreement. After all deadlines for appeal had passed, Petitioner contacted Respondent through an attorney seeking relief. Respondent found no basis for relief but renewed the opportunity for Petitioner to sign the Closing Agreement. On February 5, 1999, Petitioner executed the Closing Agreement and paid $71,693.87 (a $285.31 overpayment). The Closing Agreement clearly states: The taxpayer waives any and all rights to institute any judicial or administrative proceedings, including the remedies provided by ss. 213.21(2)(a) and 72.011(1), F.S., to recover, compromise, or avoid any tax, penalty or interest paid or payable pursuant to this agreement. This agreement is for the sole purpose of compromising and settling taxpayer's liability to the State of Florida . . . This agreement is final and conclusive with respect to the audit assessment or specific transaction/assessment and period described . . . and no additional assessment may be made by the Department against the taxpayer for the specific liability referenced above, except upon showing of fraud or misrepresentation of material fact . . . . On March 10, 2001, Petitioner filed an Application for Refund of the taxes and interest paid with the Closing Agreement. Attached to the Application for Refund was Petitioner's four-page "position paper," which outlined facts and arguments related to the sales tax issue. Petitioner's Application for Refund states that "the State has misled us." The Application for Refund went through the review process. On May 5, 2000, Respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Denial for the refund claim. Petitioner sought an informal review of the proposed refund denial. After an informal review of the proposed refund denial, on June 16, 2000, Respondent issued a Notice of Decision denying Petitioner's Application for Refund. On August 12, 2000, Petitioner forwarded a letter to Respondent, which was interpreted as a request for an administrative hearing to review the decision to deny the Application for Refund which resulted in the instant administrative hearing. Thomas E. Phillips has a Ph.D. in accounting from the University of Nebraska, is a Certified Public Accountant, and had taught accounting at the University of Central Florida for 23 years prior to his retirement. He and his family founded the Tuskawilla Learning Center. On behalf of Petitioner, Dr. Phillips maintains that the tax audit and subsequent review process were "intimidating" and that Respondent "misled" Petitioner. Notwithstanding Dr. Phillips' assertion that the audit and review process were "intimidating," he testified that he found the auditor and her supervisor "not intimidating, but were very pleasant." Dr. Phillips testified about several aspects of the audit and review process and activities that occurred during the audit and review process that he found objectionable. For example, Dr. Phillips testified that Respondent failed to respond to his inquiries in an appropriate way and that Respondent had misinterpreted certain case law that he felt applicable. Nothing offered by Dr. Phillips suggests any impropriety or misrepresentation by Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's Application for Refund. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph C. Mellichamp, III, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 John Mika, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Thomas E. Phillips 1625 Montessori Point Oviedo, Florida 36527 Linda Lettera, 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 During the period covered by the tax audit, Petitioner published and distributed free of charge two Jacksonville area editions of a weekly magazine entitled TV Facts. This magazine contains substantial advertising which provides all revenues. In addition to the advertising, television schedules and feature stories are included to interest the general public in the publication. Petitioner obtained a second class postal permit for the magazine, but has never used the mails for distribution. During the period at issue, the magazine was prepared in a three step process. The rough layout without television schedules was prepared by Petitioner and forwarded to Composition Compound, Inc., a Miami company. This company obtained the television schedules and prepared the final layout. Composition Compound then photographed this layout and sent the negatives to Sun 'N' Fun Printing, a Clearwater company. Sun 'N' Fun then printed the magazine and delivered it to Petitioner. Petitioner paid Composition Compound for all services provided by that company and Sun 'N' Fun. Thus, there was no direct business relationship between Petitioner and Sun 'N' Fun. Petitioner believed it qualified for the newspaper exemption and was neither charged nor paid any sales taxes until it learned through Respondent's audit of Composition Compound that such taxes were due. Respondent seeks to assess Petitioner sales taxes in the amount of $5,830.56 with penalty of $1,457.64 plus 12 percent interest to the date of payment for the audit period December 1, 1977, through November 30, 1980. Petitioner does not contest these computations, but believes the tax due, if any, should be reduced by the amounts it paid to Composition Compound to cover the sales tax billed by Sun 'N' Fun. Petitioner submitted Sun 'N' Fun invoice (Exhibit 7) to demonstrate that Composition Compound was billed for about $2,700.00 in sales taxes by Sun 'N' Fun for printing Petitioner's magazine between December 29, 1978, and December 29, 1979. Composition Compound separately computed its costs and profits which it billed to Petitioner (Exhibit 6). However, there was no separate brochure of the sales tax shown on the Composition Compound invoices, nor was any additional tax charged on the value added by that company.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order holding Petitioner liable for $5,830.56 in taxes assessed on December 11, 1980, and for interest computed at the rate of 1 percent per month thereafter until said tax is paid to Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 9th day of November, 1981.
