Findings Of Fact Winn-Dixie. Winn-Dixie is a Florida corporation with its principal offices at 5050 Edgewood Court, Post Office Box B, Jacksonville, Florida. [Stipulation of Facts]. Winn-Dixie's taxpayer identification number is 59-0514290. The Department's audit number is 88-04203785035. Winn-Dixie's fiscal year ends on the last Wednesday of June. Winn-Dixie's Intangible Tax Returns. Winn-Dixie has filed a Florida intangible tax return for every year beginning with the calendar year 1972. For calendar years 1972 through and including 1988, Winn-Dixie reported the value of its intangible personal property based upon the value of its intangible personal property at the end of its previous fiscal year, the last Wednesday of June. For example, in its 1972 intangible tax return Winn-Dixie reported the value of its intangible personal property as of June 26, 1971. The decision to use the value of its intangible personal property as of the end of its fiscal year for Florida intangible tax was made by Winn-Dixie without any direction from, or communication with, the Department. When Winn- Dixie began using its fiscal year end as the date to value its intangible personal property for Florida intangible tax purposes, no representation concerning the appropriateness of this method was made by the Department. Winn- Dixie made no effort to obtain approval of its method of valuation from the Department. Winn-Dixie indicated on each of its intangible tax returns for 1972 through 1988, that it had determined the value of its intangible personal property based upon its value as of the end of Winn-Dixie's fiscal year. Winn-Dixie used the fiscal year end value of its intangible personal property as the value of those assets for Florida intangible tax purposes for administrative convenience. It was easier to use such data than it would have been to redetermine the value of its intangible personal property at the end of each calendar year. When Harry Francis began working for Winn-Dixie in 1978, Mr. Francis was aware that Florida law required that intangible personal property be valued as of the first day of the calendar year. Mr. Francis, who served as director of taxes for Winn-Dixie until 1989, was also aware that Winn-Dixie was using the incorrect valuation date to value its intangible personal property for Florida intangible tax purposes. When Leon Calvert became the director of taxes for Winn-Dixie in 1989, Mr. Calvert was aware that Florida law required that intangible personal property be valued as of the first day of the calendar year. Mr. Calvert was also aware that Winn-Dixie was using the incorrect valuation date to value its intangible personal property for Florida intangible tax purposes. The explanations Mr. Francis and Mr. Calvert gave for not changing Winn-Dixie's method of valuing its intangible personal property for Florida intangible tax purposes were not credible. Both Mr. Francis or Mr. Calvert indicated that the valuation practice of Winn-Dixie was followed, in part, because of the need for consistency in the field of accounting. Neither Mr. Francis or Mr. Calvert, however, cited any generally accepted accounting principle to support the use of an incorrect method of valuing assets for tax purposes when that method is clearly contrary to law. Winn-Dixie does not collect intangible tax as an agent for the State of Florida by separately stating and passing along said tax to its customers. [Stipulation of Facts]. Therefore, Winn-Dixie has not lost any right to pass the asserted additional intangible tax liability along to others. Subsequent to the audit involved in this case Winn-Dixie prepared an analysis of the difference in the value of its intangible personal property for 1972 through 1984 and the value of its intangible personal property for 1972 through 1984 if it had valued its intangible personal property as of January first of each year. Based upon this analysis, Winn-Dixie over reported the value of its intangible personal property by $78,390,211.00 for the period from 1972 through 1984. [See Stipulation of Facts]. This amounted to an overpayment of taxes of approximately $81,485.00. Winn-Dixie has not filed any claim for refund of any amount of intangible taxes it may have overpaid as a result of using the value of its intangible personal property as of the end of its fiscal year. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the value of Winn- Dixie's intangible personal property as of the end of its fiscal year for any year for which it has filed an intangible tax return was approximately the same as the "just value" of those assets as January first. 1972 and 1973 Intangible Tax Returns. Winn-Dixie's intangible tax returns for calendar years 1972 and 1973 were examined by the Department. [Stipulation of Facts]. Winn-Dixie's 1972 and 1973 returns clearly indicated that the value of the assets included in the returns was the value as of the last Wednesday of June as of the previous year, Winn-Dixie's fiscal year end. No changes to Winn-Dixie's valuation method were recommended by the Department to Winn-Dixie's 1972 or 1973 intangible tax returns. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that any Department employee made any statements as a result of the Department's audit of the 1972 and 1973 returns to Winn-Dixie concerning Winn-Dixie's use of the value of its intangible personal property as of the end of its fiscal year to determine its intangible tax liability. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that any representation was made to Winn-Dixie by a Department employee that it was okay to use the June value of Winn-Dixie's intangible personal property even if that value was not the same as the January first value of Winn-Dixie's intangible personal property. Therefore, it is possible that the Department made no adjustments to Winn-Dixie's 1972 and 1973 returns because of a determination that the value of Winn-Dixie's intangible personal property in January was not materially different from the June value of its intangible personal property as reported by Winn-Dixie. Such a conclusion is consistent with Harry Francis' belief that there was not much difference in the value of Winn-Dixie's intangible assets at any time during the year. [See Transcript of Formal Hearing, page 90, lines 9- 12]. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that any representation was made to Winn-Dixie as a result of the audit of the 1972 and 1973 returns by a Department employee concerning the filing of future year intangible tax returns. 1979, 1980 and 1981 Intangible Tax Returns. Winn-Dixie's intangible tax returns for calendar years 1979, 1980 and 1981 were examined by the Department. [Stipulation of Facts]. The auditor that performed the examination is now deceased. [Stipulation of Facts]. The director of taxes for Winn-Dixie at the time of the audit of the 1979, 1980 and 1981 returns described a conversation he had with the Department's auditor as follows: The gist of the conversation was why did we use the June year end instead of January 1st. And the answer was as I said before, it was a long-standing practice, it was a consistency method, it was not a question of cherry picking for a good date and it seemed to do no harm. The recollection I have is that he was hesitant to make a determination on his own as to whether he required an adjustment or required a recomputation using a different date and that he was checking with some unknown superior in the Department of Revenue and later the no-change audit resulted. I don't recall if he ever called me about his conversation with the superiors, but I do recall no adjustments of any kind were made to any of those tax returns. And I would have recalled. I was nervous about those because I had prepared them. And they were the first ones that had been audited since I had been there. So I was relieved that no adjustments were made. And that was the gist of my relationship with the auditor. [Transcript of Formal Hearing, page 94, lines 17-25, and page 95, lines 1-12]. No changes were recommended by the Department to Winn-Dixie's 1979, 1980 or 1981 intangible tax returns. [Stipulation of Facts]. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove why the Department made no changes. Winn-Dixie did not change its method of reporting its intangible personal property as a result of any representations from a Department employee. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that any Department employee made any statements to Winn-Dixie as a result of the Department's audit of the 1979, 1980 and 1981 returns concerning Winn-Dixie's use of the value of its intangible personal property as of the end of its fiscal year to determine its intangible tax liability. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that any representation was made to Winn-Dixie by a Department employee that it was okay to use the June value of Winn-Dixie's intangible personal property even if that value was not the same as the January first value of Winn-Dixie's intangible personal property. Therefore, it is possible that the Department made no adjustments to Winn-Dixie's 1979, 1980 and 1981 returns because of a determination that the value of Winn-Dixie's intangible assets in January was not materially different from the June value of its intangible personal property as reported by Winn- Dixie. Such a conclusion is consistent with Harry Francis' belief that there was not much difference in the value of Winn-Dixie's intangible assets at any time during the year. [See Transcript of Formal Hearing, page 90, lines 9-12]. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that any representation was made to Winn-Dixie as a result of the audit of the 1979, 1980 and 1981 returns by a Department employee concerning the filing of future year intangible tax returns. 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 Intangible Tax Returns. The Department performed an audit of Winn-Dixie's intangible tax returns for 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. For these tax years Winn-Dixie valued its intangible personal property as of the end of the fiscal year preceding the taxable year, consistent with prior years. As a result of the Department's audit of the 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 returns, the Department determined that Winn-Dixie had underpaid Florida intangible tax in the following amounts and issued an assessment for same: 1985 $(16,244.00) 1986 21,471.00 1987 93,980.00 1988 86,974.00 Total $186,181.00 The Department's auditor who performed the audit of Winn-Dixie's 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 tax returns determined the value of Winn-Dixie's intangible personal property based on the value of those assets as reasonably close to January first as provided to Winn-Dixie. The information provided by Winn-Dixie was reasonably close to the value of Winn-Dixie's intangible personal property as of January first. Winn-Dixie filed a Petition for Reconsideration dated August 24, 1990. By letter dated October 17, 1990, the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration. [Stipulation of Facts]. Other Receivables. Winn-Dixie has taken the position that it overpaid intangible taxes for 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 because it incorrectly treated certain accounts as intangible personal property. The parties agreed that the amount of tax paid on these accounts for the years at issue was as follows: 1985 $ 8,614.00 1986 9,823.00 1987 11,120.00 1988 13,562.00 Total $43,119.00 The parties agreed that the amount of intangible tax paid on the accounts at issue should be refunded to Winn-Dixie if it is determined that Winn-Dixie improperly paid intangible tax on the accounts. The following are the accounts which Winn-Dixie has argued it should not have treated as intangible personal property: Account Number 123-2, perishable vendors- billed outside sales warehouse invoices. Account Number 123-3, vendors debit balances/billed advertising coupons, vendor freight claims, promotion allowances, billings, return merchandise, charges and other debit memo billings. Account Number 123-4, claims insurance and freight/insurance and freight claims against carriers. Account Numbers 123-2, 123-3 and 123-4 are listed as "receivables" on Winn-Dixie's federal income tax return balance sheet as of its fiscal year end, Winn-Dixie's accounts receivable trial balances and on Winn-Dixie's SEC public disclosure forms 10-K. Account Numbers 123-2 and 123-3 are essentially identical except for the type of vendor involved. Account Number 123-2 involves vendors of perishable products and Account Number 123-3 involves vendors of nonperishable products. Winn-Dixie strives to pay for merchandise it receives within seven to ten days from the date it receives an invoice for the merchandise in order to receive discounts and the best merchandise available. Winn-Dixie earns trade discounts, promotional allowances and volume discounts on some of the merchandise it handles. When Winn-Dixie pays an invoice on merchandise for which it may receive such reductions in costs, Winn- Dixie may not know the exact amount of the discount. Therefore, it pays the entire amount invoiced. As a result of the quick payment of invoices and the inability to calculate the exact amount of discounts or other reductions in the amount owed, Winn-Dixie pays more on some invoices than it ultimately may owe on the invoice. The amount of any estimated overpayments is reflected in Account Numbers 123-2 and 123-3. Winn-Dixie also receives coupons from customers on certain merchandise. The coupons received by Winn-Dixie entitle it to reimbursement on the product sold from the vendor. The amount which Winn-Dixie will ultimately receive for the coupons is also recorded in Account Numbers 123-2 and 123-3. The coupons are ultimately turned over to a coupon handling firm which pays Winn-Dixie for the coupons. Account Number 123-4 involves claims insurance and freight. It is similar to the other two accounts at issue except that it relates primarily to claims against railroads for misdelivery or damaged merchandise which Winn-Dixie is entitled to. As is true of other merchandise, Winn-Dixie strives to pay for merchandise shipped to it by rail within seven to ten days to be entitled to the discounts for quick payment. Therefore, Winn-Dixie is not always able to estimate the amount of damaged or missing merchandise it may be entitled to a reduction for. The amount of such reductions are reflected in Account Number 123-4. When the amounts owed to Winn-Dixie, which are reflected in Account Numbers 123-2, 123-3 and 123-4, are finally determined, Account Number 123-2, 123-3 or 123-4 is debited and the amount received is recorded in another account. The amounts recorded in Account Numbers 123-2, 123-3 and 123-4 are valued, recorded and returned for tax purposes as accounts receivable. Account Numbers 123-2, 123-3 and 123-4 are "accounts receivable" under generally accepted accounting principles. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that all of the amounts recorded in Account Numbers 123-2, 123-3 and 123-4 during the years in question were not due at the time they were entered in the accounts. Therefore, the weight of the evidence failed to prove what portion of Account Numbers 123-2, 123-3 or 123-4 are contingent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department issue a Final Order assessing $186,181.44 in additional intangible tax, plus interest, against Winn-Dixie for 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988, and dismissing Winn-Dixie's Petition for Administrative Proceedings. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 8th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-8021 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Winn-Dixie's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 2-4 and 6. 2 6. 3 15 and 17. 16. See 18-20 and 30. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 21 and 23. The last sentence is not relevant. See 22. The last sentence is not relevant. Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 9 12. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 12. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is not relevant. 14 32-33, 35 and 40. 15 34. Not relevant. See 36 and 41. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Winn- Dixie was "required to pay" its vendors within seven to ten days. 37-38. The weight of the evidence failed to prove the last sentence. 19 40-41. 20 42. 21 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 and 3. 2 and 4. 3 5. 4 7. 5 15 and 21. 6 28. 7 4. 8-9 29. 10-11 11. 12 22. 13 22 and 25-27. 14 24. 15 22. 16 18-20 and 25-27. 17 5. 18 21. 19 12. 20 13. 21 14. Not relevant. See 45. 24 35 and 40. 25 37-38 and 43. 26 39. 27 Not relevant. 28 32. 29 See 44. 30 34. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas K. Purcell, Esquire Suite 1235, One Enterprise Center 225 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Leonard F. Binder Kevin O'Donnell Assistant Attorneys General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Thomas Herndon, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Allstate Enterprises, Inc. is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Allstate Financial Corporation, ("Financial"), a wholly- owned subsidiary of Enterprises, is a Delaware corporation that is not qualified to do business in Florida. Financial was formed to provide funding for the financial service activities performed by Enterprises as hereinafter described. The principal offices of both corporations are located outside the State of Florida. Enterprises has two operating divisions, one of which is not involved in this case and the other one of which is in the business of lending money to individuals. The loans enable the borrowers to purchase automobiles and recreation vehicles from unrelated third parties. In exchange for cash, Enterprises receives from each borrower an installment note secured by a lien on the automobile or recreational vehicle which the borrower purchased with the borrowed cash. Respondent's standard form security agreement provides that the debtor shall not ". . . change the principal location of the property from [Florida]. . . without Allstate's written consent . . ." Enterprises sells the installment notes, on a discounted basis, to Financial pursuant to a written agreement. Debtors are not advised that their obligations have been sold, and they continue to make all of their payments directly to Enterprises. The sale from Enterprises to Financial of each takes place as soon as the loan is made to the individual and the note is obtained from him. Enterprises sells all of its rights and interests in all of the installment notes to Financial. The notes are sold to Financial without recourse, and Enterprises cannot use the sold notes as collateral since it retains no right, title, or interest in them. The sold notes are physically transferred to Financial and are maintained by Financial in the State of Delaware, where it maintains all of its financial records. All installment note files that are maintained by Enterprises are marked with the words "Sold to Allstate Financial Corporation." The activities performed by Enterprises for Financial are as authorized in an agreement between the parties, a copy of which was received into evidence as Exhibit No. 5. In this connection, Enterprises: (1) makes collections on the notes and remits proceeds from those collections to Financial; (2) keeps sufficient records to enable Financial to determine the status of outstanding notes; (3) repurchases notes from Financial in the event of default by the debtor, and conducts any repossession or foreclosure proceedings in its own behalf. The agreement between Enterprises and Financial specifically provides that, in performing its responsibilities under the contract, Enterprises is acting as the "agent" of Financial. At the time of sale of the installment notes, Financial remits to Enterprises 99.5 percent of the selling price and retains 0.5 percent as a reserve. The purpose of the reserve is to give Financial security for bad debts. Then, when Enterprises collects, on behalf of Financial, the payments due on the notes, Enterprises takes a credit for the 0.5 percent held in the reserve (to the extent not needed for bad debts), and remits to Financial the remaining 99.5 percent. Since Enterprises continually sells new installment notes to Financial and continuously makes collection on notes previously sold, for administrative convenience in the transfer of funds, the selling price of the due notes is netted against the collection of the open notes. However, the sale of the new notes is totally independent of the collections on the old notes. Enterprises is contractually obligated to remit all of the proceeds to Financial regardless of whether new notes are sold. Enterprises is not now, nor has it ever been, involved in the sale, leasing, or servicing of automobiles or recreational vehicles. Except for limited repossession activities, Enterprises does not now have, nor has it ever had, ownership or control of the vehicles which secured the notes. The Florida Department of Revenue has assessed Enterprises for Florida Intangible Tax for the years 1975, 1976, and 1977 in the amounts of $27,521.14, $23,016.94 and $24,103.78, respectively, plus interest and penalty. The assessments were based on the amount of the installment notes receivable for Florida residents as of December 30, 1975, 1976 and 1977, respectively. The amounts assessed were based upon figures furnished by Respondent, and the accuracy as to these assessments has not been questioned. It is clear, however, that these notes were all sold to Financial prior to the applicable dates for assessment of the tax.
The Issue Whether the Elizabeth Puhn Irrevocable Trust is entitled to a refund of intangible personal property taxes paid to the State of Florida for the tax years 1993, 1994, and 1995.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to the affidavits submitted into evidence in this case and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Revenue ("Department") is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the collection of the intangible personal property tax in Florida. Section 199.202, Florida Statutes (1997). Shy Lurie is a co-trustee of the Elizabeth Irene Puhn Irrevocable Trust dated December 16, 1981 (hereinafter the "Trust"). Nicholas M. Daniels was a co-trustee of the Trust for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 tax years. Shy Lurie was a resident of North Carolina for the tax years in question. Nicholas M. Daniels was a resident of Miami, Florida, for the tax years in question. Trustees and Domicile The settlor of the Trust is Elizabeth B. Lurie. The co-trustees of the Trust at the inception of the Trust were Shy Lurie and Nicholas M. Daniels. The settlor, the co-trustees, and the beneficiary, Elizabeth Irene Puhn, were all residents of Miami, Florida, at the inception of the Trust. Nicholas M. Daniels was and continues to be an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida for the tax years in question and thereafter. On December 20, 1996, Mr. Daniels resigned as a co-trustee effective as of such date, and Mr. Michael Smith, a resident of North Carolina, was appointed as a co-trustee effective as of December 20, 1996. Terms of the Trust The Trust provides for the income to be accumulated until the beneficiary, Elizabeth Irene Puhn, attains the age of thirty and during that period the income may be disbursed to the beneficiary in the co-trustees' discretion for certain specified expenses of the beneficiary. After the beneficiary attains the age of thirty, she is entitled to all net income from the Trust. The Trust shall terminate when the beneficiary reaches the age of forty, at which time the Trust's assets will be distributed to Elizabeth Irene Puhn or, if she is then deceased, then pursuant to the alternate dispositive provisions set forth in the Trust. The beneficiary currently resides in Durham, North Carolina. The beneficiary has been a resident of Durham, North Carolina, for approximately five (5) years, which included the tax years in question. Article VI of the Trust instrument provides that the trustees are granted the power and authority to do any of the enumerated powers specified in the Trust in the trustee's unrestricted judgment and discretion which the trustees deem advisable for the better management and preservation of the trust estate. Books, Records, and Custody of Assets All Trust books and records for the tax years in question were located at and all business was transacted at Shy Lurie's office in North Carolina. For the tax years in question, neither the Trust assets nor the Trust's books and records were located in the State of Florida. On February 5, 1985, Shy Lurie and Nicholas M. Daniels entered into an investment management agreement with Montag & Caldwell, Inc., an Atlanta, Georgia, management company. Such agreement provided that supervision and management of the marketable securities portion of the trust estate is vested with Montag & Caldwell, Inc., and that the agreement may be terminated upon thirty (30) days notice by either party. The balance of the trust estate consists of stock in a closely held family business which has been under the sole control and custody of Shy Lurie for the taxable years in question. On January 17, 1985, Shy Lurie and Nicholas M. Daniels, as co-trustees, entered into a Custodial Agreement (hereinafter "Custodial Agreement") with the National Bank of Georgia (hereinafter the "Bank"), a national bank with its office and principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. In April 1986, the Custodial Agreement was taken over by NationsBank of Asheville, North Carolina. Such Custodial Agreement provides, in pertinent part, that the operation of the said account will involve instructions directed to or from time to time by Montag & Caldwell, Inc. The Custodial Agreement provides in paragraph 14, section 4, that the Bank is authorized to furnish the State of Georgia intangible tax section with a statement of the securities. The Custodial Agreement in paragraph 7 provides that where permissible all securities shall be registered in the name of the Bank's nominee and the custodian has the authority to make information returns and otherwise to furnish any information regarding this account to any local, state, or federal governmental authority upon the valid demand therefor. The Custodial Agreement cannot be assigned without the unanimous consent of the co-trustees and the investment advisor, Montag & Caldwell, Inc. Payment of Intangible Tax Shy Lurie, as a co-trustee, paid the State of Florida intangible tax in the amount of $12,457.00 for the 1993 tax year. Shy Lurie, as a co-trustee, paid the State of Florida intangible tax in the amount of $14,404.00 for the 1994 tax year. Shy Lurie, as a co-trustee, paid the State of Florida intangible tax in the amount $16,128.00 for the 1995 tax year. Shy Lurie, as a co-trustee, filed an Application for Refund from the State of Florida Department of Revenue (form DR-26) on or about February 29, 1996. On April 18, 1996, the Florida Department of Revenue responded with a Notice of Intent (form DR-1200R) indicating a proposed denial for all three claims. After additional information was submitted to the Department, the refund claims were granted in part and denied in part. On or about May 13, 1996, the Department notified Shy Lurie and the other co-trustee that a partial refund of fifty percent (50%) was granted for each tax year. Shy Lurie, through his attorney, on or about June 18, 1996, submitted a Memorandum of Law and additional documents to the Department. On or about July 19, 1996, after reviewing the Memorandum of Law and accompanying documents the Department issued a Notice of the Proposed Denial of Refund for the following tax years and for the following amounts: For tax year 1993 (DTA Number 9601056A and Source Number 96064010) in the amount of $6,228.50; For tax year 1994 (DTA Number 9601056B and source Number 96064011) in the amount of $7,202.00; and For tax year 1995 (DTA Number 9601056C and Source Number 96064012) in amount of $8,064.00. Shy Lurie, through his attorney, contested the denial of the refund and on or about August 5, 1996, Shy Lurie, through his attorney, filed a written protest with both the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals and the Bureau of Audit Standards. On December 16, 1996, Mr. Nicholas M. Daniels, attorney for the Trust, attended an informal conference with members of the Department, in an effort to settle this matter. The Department issued a Notice of Decision of Refund Denial for all three claims by a letter inadvertently dated January 7, 1996 (the year should have been 1997). Shy Lurie, through his attorney, filed a Petition for Formal Hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, on or about February 24, 1997.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Formal Hearing filed by the Petitioners in this case and denying all relief requested by the Petitioners therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1998.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Integra Corporation, had a dispute with the Florida Department of Revenue with respect to sales or use tax allegedly due in the amount of $605,305.70 on lease payments made on its rental of hotels from their owners. An assessment for taxes due was processed in the normal manner by the Department of Revenue. Integra Corporation filed a Protest of the assessment, and after the Department's Notice of Decision denied the Protest, Integra filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration. Ultimately the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration which rejected the arguments of Integra Corporation. Integra Corporation agrees that the Notice of Reconsideration was transmitted on April 24, 1990, for it alleges that fact in paragraph 3 of its Petition. The Department's final rejection of the arguments made by Integra Corporation against the assessment of sales and use tax made in the Notice of Reconsideration dated April 24, 1990, prompted Integra Corporation to mail by certified mail, return receipt #P796 304 819, to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 21, 1990, an original Petition challenging the Department's tax assessment. That petition was captioned Integra Corporation, Petitioner v. Department of Revenue, Respondent, and was filed by the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 25, 1990. No copy of the original Petition was served on the Department of Revenue, or its counsel. The opening paragraph states that Integra Corporation "hereby petitions the Department of Revenue for administrative proceedings. . ." The Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings realized that the Petition should not have been addressed to or filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings, and on that same day forwarded the Petition to the appropriate agency, the Department of Revenue, which received the Petition on June 27, 1990.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the petition filed by Integra Corporation be dismissed as untimely. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 10th day of September, 1990.
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.
Findings Of Fact American Beryllium Company, Inc. is a subsidiary of Loral Corporation. On March 16, 1981, American Beryllium Company, Inc. filed a separate company form DR-601-C for Florida Intangible Tax Return reflecting a tax liability of 52,483.00 and paid this amount accordingly upon this date. The above form and check were processed by the Department of Revenue on April 9, 1981. On April 29, 1981, the Loral Corporation filed a separate company 1981 form DR-601-C reflecting a tax liability of $45.70 and paid this amount accordingly upon this date. The above form and check were processed by the Department of Revenue on May 4, 1981. On April 27, 1984, Loral Corporation and American Beryllium Company, Inc., filed a consolidated and amended 1981 form DR-601-C reflecting a tax liability of $35.07. Also, on April 27, 1984, Loral Corporation and American Beryllium Company, Inc., filed a 1981 form DR-26 refund claim exclusive of interest and penalties in the amount of $2,443.63, which is $85.07 less than the $2,528.70 total amount of taxes reported and paid in 1981. The above refund claim was received by the Department of Revenue on May 1, 1984. The Office of the Comptroller denied Petitioner's refund request in the amount of $2,443.63. The Office of the Comptroller authorized and paid a refund in the amount of $45.70 to the Loral Corporation which it paid as taxes owed on April 29, 1981. This leaves a remaining balance of $2,397.93 paid by American Beryllium Company, Inc. as tax it paid on March 16, 1981.
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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund of nearly $500 thousand on an alleged overpayment of the stamp tax, where Petitioner paid the tax based on the entire undifferentiated consideration it had received, as a lump-sum payment, from the sale of an operating hotel business comprising real estate, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property.
Findings Of Fact On February 23, 2015, Petitioner 1701 Collins (Miami) Owner, LLC ("Taxpayer"), a Delaware limited liability company, entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Agreement") to sell a going concern, namely a hotel and conference center doing business in Miami Beach, Florida, as the SLS Hotel South Beach (the "Hotel Business"), to 1701 Miami (Owner), LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Purchaser"). Purchaser paid Taxpayer $125 million for the Hotel Business. The Hotel Business comprised two categories of property, i.e., real estate ("RE") and personal property ("PP"). The PP, in turn, consisted of two subcategories of property, tangible personal property ("TPP") and intangible personal property ("ITPP"). It is undisputed that the property transferred pursuant to the Agreement included RE, TPP, and ITPP. The sale closed on June 5, 2015, and a special warranty deed was recorded on June 8, 2015, which showed nominal consideration of $10. Pursuant to the Agreement, Taxpayer was responsible for remitting the documentary stamp tax and the discretionary surtax (collectively, "stamp tax"). Stamp tax is due on instruments transferring RE; the amount of the tax, payable per instrument recorded, is based upon the consideration paid for RE. Stamp tax is not assessed on consideration given in exchange for PP. The Agreement contains a provision obligating the parties to agree, before closing, upon a reasonable allocation of the lump-sum purchase price between the three types of property comprising the Hotel Business. For reasons unknown, this allocation, which was to be made "for federal, state and local tax purposes," never occurred. The failure of the parties to agree upon an allocation, if indeed they even attempted to negotiate this point, did not prevent the sale from occurring. Neither party declared the other to be in breach of the Agreement as a result of their nonallocation of the consideration. The upshot is that, as between Taxpayer and the Purchaser, the $125 million purchase price was treated as undifferentiated consideration for the whole enterprise. Taxpayer paid stamp tax in the amount of approximately $1.3 million based on the full $125 million of undifferentiated consideration. Taxpayer paid the correct amount of stamp tax if the entire consideration were given in exchange for the RE transferred to Purchaser pursuant the Agreement——if, in other words, the Purchaser paid nothing for the elements of the Hotel Business consisting of PP. On February 6, 2018, Taxpayer timely filed an Application for Refund with Respondent Department of Revenue (the "Department"), which is the agency responsible for the administration of the state's tax laws. Relying on a report dated February 1, 2018 (the "Deal Pricing Analysis" or "DPA"), which had been prepared for Taxpayer by Bernice T. Dowell of Cynsur, LLC, Taxpayer sought a refund in the amount of $495,013.05. As grounds therefor, Taxpayer stated that it had "paid Documentary Stamp Tax on personal property in addition to real property." Taxpayer's position, at the time of the refund application and throughout this proceeding, is that its stamp tax liability should be based, not on the total undifferentiated consideration of $125 million given in the exchange for the Hotel Business, but on $77.8 million, which, according to the DPA, is the "implied value" of——i.e., the pro-rata share of the lump-sum purchase price that may be fairly allocated exclusively to——the RE transferred pursuant to the Agreement. Taxpayer claims that, to the extent it paid stamp tax on the "implied values" (as determined in the DPA) of the TPP ($7 million) and ITPP ($40.2 million) included in the transfer of the Hotel Business, it mistakenly overpaid the tax.1/ On February 23, 2018, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Make Refund Claim Changes, which informed Taxpayer that the Department planned to "change" the refund amount requested, from roughly $500 thousand, to $0——to deny the refund, in other words. In explanation for this proposed decision, the Department wrote: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the [special warranty deed] was recorded. Please provide supporting information regarding allocation of purchase price on or around the time of the sale." This was followed, on April 2, 2018, by the Department's issuance of a Notice of Proposed Refund Denial, whose title tells its purpose. The grounds were the same as before: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the document was recorded." Taxpayer timely filed a protest to challenge the proposed refund denial, on May 31, 2018. Taxpayer argued that the $125 million consideration, which Purchaser paid for the Hotel Business operation, necessarily bought the RE, TPP, and ITPP constituting the going concern; and, therefore, because stamp tax is due only on the consideration exchanged for RE, and because there is no requirement under Florida law that the undifferentiated consideration exchanged for a going concern be allocated, at any specific time, to the categories or subcategories of property transferred in the sale, Taxpayer, having paid stamp tax on consideration given for TPP and ITPP, is owed a refund. The Department's tax conferee determined that the proposed denial of Taxpayer's refund request should be upheld because, as he explained in a memorandum prepared on or around December 27, 2018, "[t]he taxpayer [had failed to] establish that an allocation of consideration between Florida real property, tangible personal property, and intangible property was made prior to the transfer of the property such that tax would be based only on the consideration allocated to the real property." The Department issued its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial on January 9, 2019. In the "Law & Discussion" section of the decision, the Department wrote: When real and personal property are sold together, and there is no itemization of the personal property, then the sales price is deemed to be the consideration paid for the real property. [2] Likewise, when the personal property is itemized, then only the amount of the sales price allocated for the real property is consideration for the real property and subject to the documentary stamp tax. The first of these propositions will be referred to as the "Default Allocation Presumption." The second will be called "Consensual-Allocation Deference." The Department cited no law in support of either principle. In its intended decision, the Department found, as a matter of fact, that Taxpayer and Purchaser had not "established an allocation between all properties prior to the transfer" of the Hotel Business. Thus, the Department concluded that Taxpayer was not entitled to Consensual-Allocation Deference, but rather was subject to the Default Allocation Presumption, pursuant to which the full undifferentiated consideration of $125 million would be "deemed to be the consideration paid for the" RE. Taxpayer timely requested an administrative hearing to determine its substantial interests with regard to the refund request that the Department proposes to deny. After initiating the instant proceeding, Taxpayer filed a Petition to Determine Invalidity of Agency Statement, which was docketed under DOAH Case No. 19-3639RU (the "Rule Challenge"). In its section 120.56(4) petition, Taxpayer alleges that the Department has taken a position of disputed scope or effect ("PDSE"), which meets the definition of a "rule" under section 120.52(16) and has not been adopted pursuant to the rulemaking procedure prescribed in section 120.54. The Department's alleged PDSE, as described in Taxpayer's petition, is as follows: In the administration of documentary stamp tax and surtax, tax is due on the total consideration paid for real property, tangible property and intangible property, unless an allocation of consideration paid for each type of property sold has been made by the taxpayer on or before the date the transfer of the property or recording of the deed. If the alleged PDSE is an unadopted rule, as Taxpayer further alleges, then the Department is in violation of section 120.54(1)(a). Although the Rule Challenge will be decided in a separate Final Order, the questions of whether the alleged agency PDSE exists, and, if so, whether the PDSE is an unadopted rule, are relevant here, as well, because neither the Department nor the undersigned may "base agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule." § 120.57(1)(e)1., Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the Rule Challenge was consolidated with this case for hearing. The Department, in fact, has taken a PDSE, which is substantially the same as Taxpayer described it. The undersigned rephrases and refines the agency's PDSE, to conform to the evidence presented at hearing, as follows: In determining the amount stamp tax due on an instrument arising from the lump-sum purchase of assets comprising both RE and PP, then, absent an agreement by the contracting parties to apportion the consideration between the categories or subcategories of property conveyed, made not later than the date of recordation (the "Deadline"), it is conclusively presumed that 100% of the undifferentiated consideration paid for the RE and PP combined is attributable to the RE alone. According to the PDSE, the parties to a lump-sum purchase of different classes of property (a "Lump—Sum Mixed Sale" or "LSMS") possess the power to control the amount of stamp tax by agreeing upon a distribution of the consideration between RE and PP, or not, before the Deadline.2/ If they timely make such an agreement, then, in accordance with Consensual-Allocation Deference, which is absolute, the stamp tax will be based upon whatever amount the parties attribute to the RE. If they do not, then, under the Default Allocation Presumption, which is irrebuttable, the stamp tax will be based upon the undifferentiated consideration. Simultaneously with the issuance of this Recommended Order, the undersigned is rendering a Final Order in the Rule Challenge, which determines that the PDSE at issue is an unadopted rule. This determination precludes the undersigned, and the Department, from applying the PDSE as an authoritative rule of decision in determining Taxpayer's substantial interests. The undersigned concludes further, for reasons set forth below, that the PDSE does not reflect a persuasive or correct interpretation of the applicable law. Rather, because the stamp tax is assessed only against the consideration given in exchange for RE, the law requires that, in determining the amount of stamp tax due on an instrument arising from an LSMS, a pro-rata share of the undifferentiated consideration must be allocated to the RE. The amount of the undifferentiated consideration that is reasonably attributable to the RE conveyed in an LSMS is a question of fact. To prove its allegation that only $77.8 million of the consideration received from Purchaser for the Hotel Business, and not the entire $125 million, is attributable to the RE conveyed in the LSMS, Taxpayer relies upon the DPA and the testimony of Ms. Dowell, who authored that report. The Department did not present any expert testimony to rebut the opinions of Ms. Dowell concerning the allocation of the undifferentiated consideration. Rather, the Department argues that Ms. Dowell's opinions are unreliable as a matter of law and should be disregarded, if not excluded as inadmissible——a position that depends heavily upon the Daubert standard for screening expert testimony, which does not apply in administrative proceedings, for reasons that will be explained in the Conclusions of Law. Alternatively, the Department asserts, based on Taxpayer's 2015 federal income tax return, that the amount paid for the RE component of the Hotel Business was actually $122 million. Although this argument is inconsistent with the Department's main position, because it concedes that the allocation is a disputable issue of material fact, rather than a legal conclusion driven by the Default Allocation Presumption or Consensual-Allocation Deference, as applicable, the Department is correct that the tax return can be viewed as evidence in conflict with Ms. Dowell's testimony; the undersigned will resolve the evidential conflict in favor of Ms. Dowell's testimony, in findings below. Primarily, though, the Department eschews evidence bearing on the pro-rata allocation of the consideration on the grounds that the Default Allocation Presumption conclusively establishes the taxable amount as a matter of law. In other words, the Department considers Ms. Dowell's opinions to be irrelevant, regardless of her credibility as an expert witness—— or lack thereof. In this respect, the Department has made a strategic error because the Default Allocation Presumption, besides being extralegal, is both irrational and arbitrary. It is irrational to assume that the seller in an arm's length transaction would simply give away valuable PP for nothing of value in return. It is arbitrary automatically to assign all of the undifferentiated consideration paid in an LSMS to one category of property transferred, i.e., RE, to the exclusion of the other property types exchanged. Systematically allocating the entire purchase price to any other involved property class, e.g., TPP, would be equally (un)justifiable. Put another way, there is no rational answer to the question: Why not deem the entire purchase price allocable to the personal property? Why not a 50/50 split instead? Or 60/40? The Default Allocation Presumption, in short, is not even a reasonable inference. Without the Default Allocation Presumption to trump the DPA, the Department is left with the representations of value in the Form 4797 attached to Taxpayer's 2015 federal income tax return as its best, indeed only, rebuttal evidence. The form is used to report gain or loss from sales of business property, such as, in this instance, the Hotel Business. In its return, Taxpayer reported gross sales prices of $20 million for the hotel land, $102 million for the hotel building, and $3 million for the hotel's furniture, fixtures, and equipment. In other words, Taxpayer represented to the Internal Revenue Service that $122 million of the undifferentiated consideration for the Hotel Business was attributable to RE, with the balance going towards TPP. Notably, Taxpayer did not list, much less assign value to, any "section 197 intangible" property, such as goodwill, going concern value, workforce in place, business records, operating systems, permits, licenses, trade names, etc. See 26 U.S.C § 197(d). Taxpayer's Form 4797 statements regarding the cumulative sales price of the RE are admissions that, arguably at least, conflict with Ms. Dowell's opinions as expressed in the DPA. See § 90.803(18), Fla. Stat. What is to be made of these admissions? They are not binding, of course. Taxpayer is free to disavow or distinguish the statements in its Form 4797, which is essentially what it has done. Different taxes, different rules, different reasons—— in these general terms, Taxpayer strives to deflect attention from, and dismiss as irrelevant any serious consideration of, its federal income tax filing. Taxpayer's position is not without merit because, in fact, the stamp tax is fundamentally different from the federal income tax, as are the laws governing these noncomparable revenue raising measures. On the other hand, Taxpayer did declare the gross sales prices of the land, building, and TPP to be as described above, and these statements of apparent historical fact would seem to be true regardless of the specific tax purposes that prompted their making. There is more to this evidence than Taxpayer would have it. Ultimately, however, the undersigned finds the Form 4797 evidence to be less persuasive than the DPA, for several reasons. First, it is undisputed that ITPP was conveyed in the LSMS of the Hotel Business, and this ITPP included section 197 intangibles. But: Was Taxpayer required to segregate, and report separately, the gross sales price of these section 197 intangibles on its Form 4797? The undersigned does not know. Or, was Taxpayer allowed (or even obligated) to put the value of the section 197 intangibles onto, say, the building? Again, the undersigned does not know. To evaluate the persuasive force of the Form 4797 admissions, however, one needs to know these things. If Taxpayer were not required, for example, to report separately the value of the section 197 intangibles, and if, further, there were tax advantages in not doing so, then the admissions at issue would not be very probative. There is no evidence in the record regarding how, from May 2012, when Taxpayer acquired the Hotel Business, Taxpayer valued the attendant section 197 intangibles, for federal income tax purposes. It is possible that, for reasons undisclosed in this proceeding, Taxpayer never segregated the cost of the section 197 intangibles but instead allowed the value of the ITPP to be taxed as part of the value of the building. In any event, topics such as the proper classification of business property under the Internal Revenue Code; the different amortization periods applicable to various types of property; the tax planning strategies an owner might cautiously, aggressively, or even illegally employ to minimize its liability; and the common mistakes made, or advantages overlooked, by tax preparers, are complex and beyond the scope of the current record.3/ As a result, the statements regarding asset prices in Taxpayer's 2015 federal income tax return, which sit in the record practically devoid of meaningful context, are consistent with too many alternative possibilities to be credited as persuasive admissions about the respective values of the land and building in question.4/ Second, as mentioned, Taxpayer did not state, on the Form 4797, that ITPP was sold for a price of $0, in which case one might expect Taxpayer also to have reported a loss on the sale of section 197 intangible property. Rather, Taxpayer did not disclose the sale of any ITPP in the LSMS at issue. This is important, from a weight-of-the-evidence standpoint, because it is an undisputed historical fact that valuable ITPP was conveyed to Purchaser in the subject transaction, which makes it unreasonable to infer a gross sales price of $0 for the ITPP. Imagine, however, the probative force the Form would have had if Taxpayer had listed a gross sales price of, say, $1 million for the ITPP, together with corresponding reductions in the prices of the RE and TPP; in such a hypothetical situation, the Form 4797 admissions would have been much more persuasive as an apportionment of the undifferentiated consideration. As it stands, however, the reasonably inferable likelihood is that Taxpayer did not report the sales price of the ITPP because it did not report the sale of ITPP——not because there was no sale (for there was) or because the sales price was $0 (which is unlikely), but for other reasons, unknowable on the instant record. Third, for purposes of levying Taxpayer's 2015 real estate property taxes, the Miami-Dade Tax Collector appraised the RE at $39 million. (This figure is the higher of two contemporaneous assessments by the local taxing authority.) This is less than one-third of $122 million——but, in contrast, constitutes 50% of Ms. Dowell's pro-rata allocation of consideration to the RE. There is no evidence in the record regarding the reliability of the local tax collector's appraisals of hotel property, or specifically the percentage of fair market value such assessments are reasonably likely to reflect. Therefore, the undersigned does not place too much weight on the 2015 ad-valorem tax assessments. Still, one cannot help but notice that Ms. Dowell's opinions on the RE's implied value are much closer to the Miami-Dade County Tax Collector's appraisal than the Form 4797 admissions.5/ Having found that the Form 4797 admissions possess some, but not much, probative value regarding the allocation of the undifferentiated consideration, the DPA emerges largely unscathed. As fact-finder, the undersigned has the discretion, nevertheless, to reject, as not credible, the expert testimony of Ms. Dowell. But he credits her opinions, both because Ms. Dowell is a qualified authority on the subject matter, and because the opinions she has expressed are objectively reasonable and logically supported. As for Ms. Dowell's credentials, she has a bachelor of science degree and a master of science degree, both in finance. She has worked in the field of property valuation for around 30 years. Working for major hotel companies, Ms. Dowell routinely performed the sort of allocation of value between asset classes that she has conducted in this case. In 2007, Ms. Dowell formed Cynsur, Inc., which performs value allocations for hospitality industry clients, predominately for taxation purposes, as here. Ms. Dowell has conducted approximately 1,000 deal pricing analyses for clients around the country. In the niche of implied value allocations between the categories of property transferred in LSMS transactions involving hotel operations, Ms. Dowell is clearly an experienced, knowledgeable, and credible expert. The DPA that Ms. Dowell prepared is not an independent appraisal of the hotel property per se, but an allocation of the undifferentiated consideration, which uses estimates of value as the basis for dividing the lump-sum purchase price into three shares, each representing an amount reasonably attributable to a type of property conveyed in the LSMS. The estimates of value that provide the grounds for determining the implied price-per- category are a kind of appraisal, but the DPA is not designed or expected to produce a total valuation that might exceed, or fall short of, the $125 million lump-sum purchase price that is being apportioned. Again, to be clear, the goal of the DPA is to divide the $125 million into asset classes, not to verify whether $125 million was the fair market value of the Hotel Business in 2015, because the stamp tax applies, not to fair market value as such, but to that portion of the undifferentiated consideration fairly attributable to the RE conveyed. Ms. Dowell's approach to apportionment is to determine the "implied values" of the RE and TPP by analyzing the income an owner would expect to receive on a separate investment in the RE or TPP, as the case may be, apart from the Hotel Business as a whole. She starts with a discounted cash flow analysis of the Hotel Business as a going concern, using the Purchaser's pro forma projections as developed at the time of the LSMS. In this instance, Purchaser had presented a five-year projection of cash flow to analyze the investment, which assumed that the Hotel Business would be sold at the end of year five. Using Purchaser's assumptions, Ms. Dowell determined that the hotel acquisition would yield an implied rate of return on (and of) investment of 11.99%. With this in mind, Ms. Dowell sought to quantify the present value of the income that an owner would expect to receive on an investment in the hotel RE alone, based on a hypothetical or proxy rent for this asset in isolation. To determine the hypothetical rent, Ms. Dowell needed to make certain assumptions, which are set forth in the DPA. She determined, ultimately, that 12% of gross operating revenue represents a reasonable approximation of the proxy rent for the RE assets in question. Of course, the assumptions underlying this determination are not necessarily, or even probably, the only reasonable assumptions that could have been made. The Department, however, did not offer any expert opinion evidence that challenged Ms. Dowell's assumptions, nor did it present alternative rental scenarios. Ms. Dowell discounted the projected, five-year RE income stream at 10%, reflecting the more conservative nature of a pure RE investment as compared to an investment in the Hotel Business as a going concern. The Department did not offer any expert opinion testimony disputing this discount factor. Ms. Dowell concluded that the net present value of the RE at issue was $77,803,500 ($77.8 million when rounded), which represents about 62% of the undifferentiated consideration for the Hotel Business. The undersigned credits this opinion and finds that $77.8 million is a reasonable allocation of consideration to the RE component of the Hotel Business. Ms. Dowell performed a similar analysis of a hypothetical standalone investment in the hotel TPP and calculated a net present value of $7 million, using a discount rate of 11%. This left the remainder of $40,196,500 to be allocated to ITPP. For present purposes, the breakdown between TPP and ITPP is relatively unimportant because the stamp tax is not payable on consideration given for PP of any stripe. Indeed, the ultimate factual determination that $77.8 million of the undifferentiated consideration is reasonably attributable to RE is the material finding; from that, it follows mathematically that the remaining balance of $47.2 million reflects consideration for the PP, however that figure might be allocated between TPP and ITPP. Thus, having found that $77.8 million is a reasonable allocation of consideration to the RE component of the Hotel Business, the undersigned is bound to determine that $47.2 million is a reasonable allocation of consideration to the PP. Because Taxpayer paid stamp tax on $125 million instead of $77.8 million, it overpaid the tax and is due a refund. It is undisputed that the amount of the stamp tax that Taxpayer paid on the excess consideration above $77.8 million is $495,013.05.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order approving Taxpayer's claim and authorizing payment of $495,013.05 to Taxpayer as a refund of overpayment of the stamp tax, plus statutory interest if and to the extent section 213.255, Florida Statutes, requires such additional compensation. (If a dispute of material fact arises in connection with the payment of interest, the Department should return the matter to DOAH for a hearing.) DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 17th day of December, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is liable for the sales and use tax assessment issued by Respondent on February 21, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this proceeding, Respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), has issued a proposed sales and use tax assessment in the amount of $24,546.54, plus $6,640.12 in penalties, plus interest from the date of the assessment, against Petitioner, Florida Truck Dock Company (Petitioner or taxpayer). As of March 20, 1997, the assessment totaled $55,195.27, and it continues to increase by $8.07 each day. The assessment constitutes taxes, penalties, and interest allegedly due from Petitioner for various materials and supplies purchased by Petitioner for use in the performance of real property contracts for Petitioner's customers. In its response to the assessment, Petitioner denied that it owed the money. Petitioner's business activities consisted primarily of purchasing truck loading dock equipment from suppliers, principally Kelly Company, Inc. (Kelly), and then installing such equipment as an improvement to real estate. Its records indicate that purchased equipment was generally brought into Florida and installed in real property in the state under a contract whereby parts and labor were furnished for one lump sum contract price. The foregoing contracts were Class A or lump sum contracts within the meaning of Rule 12A-1.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Class A contracts are considered contracts for the improvement of real estate, not contracts for the resale of tangible personal property. In addition, when the equipment was purchased, Petitioner had not issued resale certificates to its vendors. Under these circumstances, Petitioner was properly treated as an end-user of the equipment in question and owed use taxes on all such purchases of tangible personal property. This controversy began on March 30, 1992, when DOR issued a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records of the taxpayer in conjunction with a routine audit. The notice requested that Petitioner make available various corporate records pertaining to its sales and use tax and intangible tax liability. However, only the sales and use tax is in issue here. DOR later advised the taxpayer that the audit period would run from March 1, 1987, through February 29, 1992, and that instead of a detailed audit, only a three-month sampling of the full audit period would be necessary. An initial audit revealed that Petitioner was entitled to a refund. None was given, however, because of information supplied by an employee of the taxpayer regarding the possible destruction and alteration of certain records by the taxpayer, and the auditor's conclusion that a three-month sampling of the records was not representative for the full five-year audit period. In addition, the auditor concluded that the results of the sample period were not reasonable. For these reasons, the scope of the audit was expanded. The auditor then requested, among other things, that copies of all sales (summary) journals for the entire five-year period be produced. Although Petitioner has always contended that these journals were merely "commission" journals for transactions between its vendors and customers, the auditor's finding that they are records of cash transactions is consistent with the language on the face of the journals, referring to "deposits" and "total deposits." Further, a comparison of the journals with Petitioner's own bank statements confirms this finding. At least twelve months of the records were missing, and the taxpayer agreed to recreate the missing records. Once a copy of all journals (both original and recreated) was produced, the auditor tested their validity and then made various audit adjustments, which are reflected on Schedule A-2 of Exhibit 5. In those instances where inadequate cost price information concerning equipment purchases was provided by the taxpayer, the auditor properly used estimates in making his adjustments. The tax liability for each taxable transaction was recorded by the taxpayer under Account 367 on the sales journals. The auditor then examined the source documents (original invoices) to verify the accuracy of the recorded amounts. These numbers were then compared with the taxes paid by the taxpayer on its monthly tax returns filed with DOR. This comparison produced a deficiency which represents approximately 75 percent of the total assessment. However, in those instances where Petitioner collected sales tax from its customers, and remitted the same to DOR, Petitioner was not assessed with a tax for those same items. A sampling of the audit period established that Petitioner also had a number of lump-sum contracts with various governmental customers on which it neither paid taxes to the vendor when the equipment was purchased, nor did it collect taxes from the end-user when the equipment was resold. Thus, it was responsible for the use taxes on these transactions. The deficiency is detailed on Schedule B-3 of the final audit report (Exhibit 6), and it accounts for approximately 14 percent of the total assessment. The remaining part of the assessment is related to four miscellaneous transactions which are unrelated to the sales journals. Two of the transactions occurred during the short period of time when the service tax was in effect in 1987, while the remaining two relate to small purchases of equipment and supplies by the taxpayer for its own consumption. There was no evidence that the taxpayer paid the taxes due on these transactions. DOR met with the taxpayer, its accountant, and its original counsel on various occasions in an effort to obtain more documentation favorable to the taxpayer's position. In most cases, the taxpayer refused to provide more records. At one meeting, however, the taxpayer produced additional source documents (invoices) that appeared to be altered from the original invoices previously given to the auditor. These are shown in Exhibit 7 received in evidence. When asked by the auditor for copies of the same invoices sent to customers so that the discrepancy could be resolved, the taxpayer refused to comply with this request. During the audit process, the taxpayer contended that its primary supplier, Kelly, had already paid taxes on a number of the transactions. No documentation was produced, however, to support this contention. It also complained that there was bias on the part of DOR's auditor. As to this contention, the record shows that the auditor had no relationship with the taxpayer prior to this audit, and for the intangible personal property tax, the auditor's field work actually resulted in a refund for Petitioner. Finally, the taxpayer contended that rather than using the originally supplied records, the auditor should have used Petitioner's recreated or altered records in making the audit adjustments. This latter contention has been rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining its original assessment against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Jeffrey M. Dikman, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Benjamin K. Phipps, Esquire Post Office Box 1351 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 L. H. Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a public adjuster should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined after his conviction for aiding in the preparation of a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7206(2).
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Mr. Lesser be found guilty of violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes (1987), and that his licensure as a public adjuster be suspended for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of December, 1989. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-0502 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: 1 and 2. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Adopted in finding of fact 4. Implicit in findings of fact 5 and 6. Adopted in finding of fact 6. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Implicit in finding of fact 11. Rulings on findings proposed by Mr. Lesser: 1-11. Inapplicable. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Adopted in finding of fact 3, to the extent necessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in finding of fact 5. Adopted in finding of fact 5. Adopted in finding of fact 5, though finding of fact 5 includes certain logical deductions or inferences. Made more specific in findings of fact 5 and 6. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 7. Rejected. Not only were the laundering transactions illegitimate because they allowed Benevento Maneri to mischaracterize the source of their income, they also created false expenses for Lesser and Company, Inc., which artificially lowered the income of Lesser and Company, Inc., by the amount of the expense. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 7. It is difficult to determine what Mr. Lesser actually thought the source of the money was, but he knew it was illicit. See, finding of fact 7. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 8. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 9. 25 and 26. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 9. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 10 The extent of Mr. Lesser's danger cannot be determined from this record, although he was in some danger. Covered in finding of fact 9 Adopted as modified in finding of fact 11. Rejected. See, finding of fact 8. The IRS first contacted Mr. Lesser. He then went to Mr. Weinstein to set matters straight. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 11. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 4. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 12. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 12. A light sentence implies the factors set out in finding of fact 35, were taken into consideration, but does not prove that they were all the reasons the U.S. District Judge took into consideration. To the extent necessary, mentioned in finding of fact 12. Rejected as procedural. 38-51. Covered in findings of fact 13 and 14. The proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made in findings of fact 13 and 14. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Robert V. Elias, Esquire Office of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 William W. Corry, Esquire Jack M. Skelding, Jr., Esquire Patrick J. Phelan, Jr., Esquire Parker, Skelding, Labasky & Corry 318 North Monroe Street Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee Florida 32301 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
