The Issue Whether the penalties assessed against Respondent by Petitioner in the amount of $336.00, for allowing its vehicle to be operated with a load which exceeds the permissible gross weight, were proper.
Findings Of Fact Donna Edwards, W.M. Daniels and Robert J. Avery are employees of Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, motor carrier compliance section. While so employed on June 22, 1991, Ms. Edwards issued a load report and field receipt to Respondent's driver, Rick Benafield, who was operating a truck owned by Respondent. Ms. Edwards measured and weighed the truck. The weight was 80,480 pounds and the maximum permissible weight for the truck which was 51 plus feet long, is 80,000 pounds. Ms. Edwards assessed Respondent's driver (Benafield) a penalty of $24.00 for being 480 pounds over the maximum allowable weight. On March 31, 1991, Petitioner's employee, W. M. Daniels, measured and weighed a vehicle owned by Respondent. The weight of the vehicle was 80,740 pounds and the bridge weight was 70,740 pounds. The legal maximum allowable weight for the bridge section of the subject vehicle is 69,500 pounds. As a result of being 1,240 pounds overweight in the bridge section, employee Daniels assessed a penalty of $62.00 against Respondent's driver (Benafield). On June 2, 1991, while on official duty, employee Avery issued a load report and field receipt to Respondent's driver, Rick Benafield, and assessed a $250.00 civil penalty for operating a vehicle which was 5,000 pounds over the gross allowable weight of 80,000 pounds on the extension bridge section of the vehicle. The gross weight of the vehicle was 85,000 pounds and the maximum allowable weight was 80,000 pounds. Employees Edwards, Daniels and Avery used standard operating procedures in weighing Respondent's vehicles. Petitioner's scales are tested and certified for accuracy semi-annually in accordance with its rules and regulations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order denying Respondent's request for a refund of the $336.00 civil penalty assessed its driver, Rick Benafield. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 14th day of January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esq. Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 James R. Benafield Gene Hyde Trucking Co. 3315 Swindell Road Lakeland, FL 33809 Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue Whether the contested and unpaid portions of the tax, penalty and interest assessment issued against Petitioners as a result of Audit No. 9317210175 should be withdrawn as Petitioners have requested?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Shuckers is an oceanfront restaurant and lounge located at 9800 South Ocean Drive in Jensen Beach, Florida. In November of 1992, Petitioner Mesa's brother, Robert Woods, Jr., telephoned Mesa and asked her if she wanted a job as Shuckers' bookkeeper. Woods had been the owner of Shuckers since 1986 through his ownership and control of the corporate entities (initially Shuckers Oyster Bar Too of Jensen Beach, Florida, Inc., and then NAT, Inc.) that owned the business. Mesa needed a job. She therefore accepted her brother's offer of employment, notwithstanding that she had no previous experience or training as a bookkeeper. When Mesa reported for her first day of work on November 19, 1992, she learned that Woods expected her to be not only the bookkeeper, but the general manager of the business as well. Mesa agreed to perform these additional responsibilities. She managed the day-to-day activities of the business under the general direction and supervision of Woods. After a couple of weeks, Woods told Mesa that it would be best if she discharged her managerial responsibilities through an incorporated management company. Woods had his accountant draft the documents necessary to form such a corporation. Among these documents were the corporation's Articles of Incorporation. Mesa executed the Articles of Incorporation and, on December 3, 1992, filed them with the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, thereby creating Petitioner TAN, Inc. TAN, Inc.'s Articles of Incorporation provided as follows: The undersigned subscribers to these Articles of Incorporation, natural persons competent to contract, hereby form a corporation under the laws of the State of Florida. ARTICLE I- CORPORATE NAME The name of the corporation is: TAN, INC. ARTICLE II- DURATION This corporation shall exist perpetually unless dissolved according to Florida law. ARTICLE III- PURPOSE The corporation is organized for the purpose of engaging in any activities or business permitted under the laws of the United States and the State of Florida. ARTICLE IV- CAPITAL STOCK The corporation is authorized to issue One Thousand (1000) shares of One Dollar ($1.00) par value Common Stock, which shall be designated "Common Shares." Article V- INITIAL REGISTERED OFFICE AND AGENT The principal office, if known, or the mailing address of this corporation is: TAN, INC. 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 The name and address of the Initial Registered Agent of the Corporation is: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 ARTICLE VI- INITIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS This corporation shall have one (1) director initially. The number of directors may be either increased or diminished from time to time by the By-laws, but shall never be less than one (1). The names and addresses of the initial directors of the corporation are as follows: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 ARTICLE VII- INCORPORATORS The names and addresses of the incorporators signing these Articles of Incorporation are as follows: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 On the same day it was incorporated, December 3, 1992, TAN, Inc., entered into the following lease agreement with the trust (of which Woods was the sole beneficiary) that owned the premises where Shuckers was located: I, Michael Blake, Trustee, hereby lease to Tan, Inc. the premises known as C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, 9800 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, Florida for the sum of $3,000.00 per month. This is a month to month lease with Illinois Land Trust and Michael Blake, Trustee. Mesa signed the agreement in her capacity as TAN, Inc.'s President. She did so at Woods' direction and on his behalf. No lease payments were ever made under the agreement. 3/ The execution of the lease agreement had no impact upon Shuckers. Woods remained its owner and the person who maintained ultimate control over its operations. At no time did he relinquish any part of his ownership interest in the business to either Mesa or her management company, TAN, Inc. Mesa worked approximately 70 to 80 hours a week for her brother at Shuckers doing what he told her to do, in return for which she received a modest paycheck. Woods frequently subjected his sister to verbal abuse, but Mesa nonetheless continued working for him and following his directions because she needed the income the job provided. As part of her duties, Mesa maintained the business' financial records and paid its bills. She was also required to fill out, sign and submit to Respondent the business' monthly sales and use tax returns (hereinafter referred to as "DR- 15s"). She performed this task to the best of her ability without any intention to defraud or deceive Respondent regarding the business' tax liability. The DR-15s she prepared during the audit period bore NAT, Inc.'s Florida sales and use tax registration number. On the DR-15 for the month of December, 1992, Mesa signed her name on both the "dealer" and "preparer" signature lines. Other DR-15s were co-signed by Mesa and Woods. In April of 1993, Woods told Mesa that she needed to obtain a Florida sales and use tax registration number for TAN, Inc., to use instead of NAT, Inc.'s registration number on Shuckers' DR-15s. In accordance with her brother's desires, Mesa, on or about May 14, 1993, filed an application for a Florida sales and use tax registration number for TAN, Inc., which was subsequently granted. On the application form, Mesa indicated that TAN, Inc. was the "owner" of Shuckers and that the application was being filed because of a "change of ownership" of the business. In fact, TAN, Inc. was not the "owner" of the business and there had been no such "change of ownership." By letter dated June 22, 1993, addressed to "TAN INC d/b/a Shuckers," Respondent gave notice of its intention to audit the "books and records" of the business to determine if there had been any underpayment of sales and use taxes during the five year period commencing June 1, 1988, and ending May 31, 1993. The audit period was subsequently extended to cover the six year period from June 1, 1987 to May 31, 1993. Relying in part on estimates because of the business' inadequate records, auditors discovered that there had been a substantial underpayment of sales and use taxes during the audit period. The auditors were provided with complete cash register tapes for only the following months of the audit period: June, July, August and December of 1992, and January, February, March, April and May of 1993. A comparison of these tapes with the DR-15s submitted for June, July, August and December of 1992, and January, February, March, April and May of 1993 revealed that there had been an underreporting of sales for these months. Using the information that they had obtained regarding the three pre- December, 1992, months of the audit period for which they had complete cash register tapes (June, July and August of 1992), the auditors arrived at an estimate of the amount of sales that had been underreported for the pre- December, 1992, months of the audit period for which they did not have complete cash register tapes. The auditors also determined that Shuckers' tee-shirt and souvenir sales, 4/ Sunday brunch sales, cigarette vending sales, vending/amusement machine location rentals 5/ and tiki bar sales that should have been included in the sales reported on the DR-15s submitted during the audit period were not included in these figures nor were these sales reflected on the cash register tapes that were examined. According of the "Statement of Fact" prepared by the auditors, the amount of these unreported sales were determined as follows: TEE-SHIRT SALES: Sales were determined by estimate. This was determined to be $2,000/ month. No records were available and no tax remitted through May, 1993. SUNDAY BRUNCH SALES: Sales were determined by estimate. This was determined to be 100 customers per brunch per month (4.333 weeks). No audit trail to the sales journal was found and no records were available. CIGARETTE VENDING SALES: The estimate is based on a review of a sample of purchases for the 11 available weeks. The eleven weeks were averaged to determine monthly sales at $3/pack. VENDING MACHINE LOCATION RENTAL REVENUE: The revenue estimate is based on a review of a one month sample. TIKI BAR SALES: The sales estimate is based on a review of infrequent cash register tapes of February, 1993. The daily sales was determined by an average of the sample. The number of days of operation per month was determined by estimate. In addition, the auditors determined that TAN, Inc. had not paid any tax on the lease payments it was obligated to make under its lease agreement with Illinois Land Trust and Michael Blake, Trustee, nor had any tax been paid on any of the pre-December, 1992, lease payments that had been made in connection with the business during the audit period. According to the "Statement of Fact" prepared by the auditors, the amount of these lease payments were determined as follows: The estimate is based on 1990 1120 Corporate return deduction claimed. This return is on file in the Florida CIT computer database. The 1990 amount was extended through the 6/87 - 11/92 period. For the period 12/92 - 5/93 audit period, TAN's current lease agreement of $3,000/month was the basis. No documentation was produced during the audit supporting any the sales tax exemptions that the business had claimed during the audit period on its DR-15s. 6/ Accordingly, the auditors concluded that the sales reported as exempt on the business' DR-15s were in fact taxable. Using records of sales made on a date selected at random (February 1, 1993), the auditors calculated effective tax rates for the audit period. They then used these effective tax rates to determine the total amount of tax due. An initial determination was made that a total of $201,971.71 in taxes (not including penalties and interest) was due. The amount was subsequently lowered to $200,882.28. On or about December 22, 1993, TAN, Inc., entered into the following Termination of Lease Agreement with Ocean Enterprises, Inc.: TAN, Inc., a Florida corporation, hereby consents to termination of that certain lease of the premises known as C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 of ISLAND BEACH CLUB, located at 9800 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, Florida, dated December 3, 1992, acknowledges a landlord's lien on all assets for unpaid rent; and transfers and sets over and assigns possession of the aforesaid units and all of its right, title and interest in and to all inventory, equipment, stock and supplies located on said premises 7/ in full satisfaction of said unpaid rent; all of the foregoing effective as of this 22nd day of December, 1993. FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing termin- ation of lease, OCEAN ENTERPRISES, Inc., a Florida corporation, hereby agrees to pay Linda Mesa, each month all of the net revenues of the operation of the bar and restaurant located on said premises, up to the sum of $15,000.00, for sales tax liability asserted against TAN, Inc. or Linda A. W. Mesa based upon possession or ownership of said premises or any of the assets located thereon, plus attorney's fees incurred in connection with defending or negotiating settlement of any such liability. Net revenue shall mean gross revenue, less operating expenses, includ- ing, but not limited to, rent, up to the amount of $5,000.00 per month, costs of goods sold, utilities, payroll and payroll expense and insurance. OCEAN ENTERPRISES, Inc. represents that it has entered into a lease of said premises for a term of five years commencing on or about December 22, 1993, pursuant to the terms and conditions of which OCEANFRONT [sic] ENTERPRISES, Inc. was granted the right to operate a restaurant and bar business on said premises. Ocean Enterprises, Inc., leases the property from Island Beach Enterprises, which obtained the property through foreclosure. TAN, Inc., has been administratively dissolved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order withdrawing the contested and unpaid portions of the assessment issued as a result of Audit No. 9317210175, as it relates to TAN, Inc., and Linda A. W. Mesa. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of June, 1995. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1995.
Findings Of Fact On March 26, 1991, petitioner's safety officer, David Pearce, stopped a commercial vehicle operated by respondent on State Road 7 in Palm Beach County, Florida, for inspection. Such stop was predicated upon the officer's well- founded belief that the weight of the vehicle exceeded legal limits. The subject vehicle had four axles, with the rear axles in tandem. The officer weighed the vehicle by axle, and the rear tandem axles weighed 49,400 pounds. The legal weight for the tandem axles was 44,000 pounds, as provided by Sections 316.535 and 316.545, Florida Statutes. 1/ Accordingly, the axle weight of the subject vehicle was 5,400 pounds over the legal limit. A penalty in the amount of $10.00 for the first 1,000 pounds and 5 cents per pound for each additional pound overweight was assessed against respondent. The total assessed penalty was $230.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining the penalty of $230.00 assessed against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of February 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February 1992.
The Issue Petitioner's liability for proposed assessment of fuel tax and penalty pursuant to Chapter 206, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Barkett Oil Company, Miami, Florida, is a distributor of motor fuel and a dealer in special fuel licensed by Respondent. During the period 1971 through 1974, it held three licenses for motor fuel and three for special fuel. It owned over 100 fuel service stations during that period. At the time petitioner obtained its licenses, it provided Respondent with a list of its stations' fuel storage tank capacities. However, over the years and prior to 1971, the fuel capacity of 12 stations was increased by the addition of tanks in the total amount of some 57,000 gallons, but Petitioner did not advise Respondent of such changed capacity. (Testimony of Barkett, Respondent's Exhibit 3). In May 1974, D. L. Hunt, Respondent's auditor, conducted an audit of Petitioner's business for the period April 1971 through March 1974. Petitioner made most of its existing records available to the auditor, including purchase and sale invoices, and monthly tax reports which had been timely filed with Respondent during the audit period. Petitioner used Respondent's standard forms for the monthly tax returns which reflected an inventory of fuel at the beginning of the month plus gallons acquired during the month, less nontaxable sales. These computations resulted in net gallonage subject to fuel tax on which the tax was remitted, less a collection fee. Petitioner's standard business practice had been to conduct its monthly inventory in the morning of the last day of the monthly period. However, by this method, sales and deliveries which were made during the remaining portion of the day, and fuel contained in its trucks were reflected in the next month's report. Once the inventory was made, Petitioner recorded the "stick" measurements of fuel on hand at the various stations in its computer and discarded the individual station inventory records. State tax returns were then prepared using the figures derived from the computer "print-out." (Testimony of Hunt, Barkett, Petitioner's Exhibit 1,3). During the course of his audit, Mr. Hunt ascertained that the recorded purchases and sales as reflected on the monthly tax returns were correct. However, he noted that fuel on hand at the end of each month apparently exceeded Petitioner's storage capacity. He therefore asked for inventory records in the form of tank readings, but was informed that they had been destroyed and he was not informed that the readings from the "stick" measurements had been processed by computer and that this stored information was available. Hunt therefore made audit findings that the amount of gallonage on hand at the end of each month over and above Petitioner's storage capacity was taxable, even though there was no showing that the fuel had actually been sold. He also predicated penalties against Petitioner for late payment of tax because sales made during the latter half of the last day of the reporting month were carried over to next month's report. Additionally, he found that certain untaxed sales should have been taxed. In February 1975, a proposed assessment of tax and penalties was issued in the total amount of $375,543.27. A number of informal conferences were held by the parties which resulted in certain adjustments to the proposed assessment, primarily consisting of tax exempt sales. As a result of these conferences, the asserted tax was reduced to $245,652.96, with penalties of $39,405.04, for a total amount of $285,058.00. Thereafter, further reductions were made in the assessment, as reflected in a letter from Respondent's counsel to Petitioner's counsel, dated July 22, 1977. This letter stated that the remaining assessment consisted of tax due in the amount of $27,216.05, with penalties of $63,269.22, for total amount due of $90,485.27. The letter explained that the differences in the penalties consisted of instances where the tax had not been timely paid on fuel which had been sold. For instance, as to license No. 391, the letter showed that although only $2,378.46 in additional tax was due, penalties over the audit period amount to $38,769.19. (Testimony of Hunt, Barkett, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibits 1-2, 5, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). During the course of informal negotiations, Petitioner's counsel, by letter of April 17, 1978, to Respondent's counsel, provided a corrected list of the capacity of twelve of its stations. Respondent's auditor Hunt had checked four of these stations, but was unable to determine the existence of additional tanks at those locations. He also declined to accept the computer printout sheets as a basis for determining inventory because the actual tank reading reports were not available. At the hearing, Petitioner's president, Harry Barkett, established that additional tanks had existed at the four locations during the audit period. (Testimony of Hunt, Barkett, Petitioner's Exhibit 4-8, Respondent's Exhibit 3, 4). A certified public accountant retained by Petitioner testified that he had audited Petitioner's books and had personally reconciled inventory amounts for the fiscal year 1972-73. He further testified that Petitioner's accounting procedures were proper and that even if inventory had been overstated, it had no effect on sales, and that any unreported sales during one monthly period would be overstated in the following month, which would balance out any prior underpayments. He had never found any discrepancy in Petitioner's fuel reports and found no accounting reason for retaining "stick" readings after the information had been placed in the computer. (Testimony of Pfeiffer).
Recommendation That Respondent proceed to collect the amount of $5,707.50 from Petitioner for unpaid fuel tax under Chapter 206, Florida Statutes, but that the remainder of the proposed assessment be withdrawn. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxie Broome, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Milton J. Wallace, Esquire 2138 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a tractor-trailer combination that it uses for hauling a large crane. As configured at the time in question, the gross vehicle weight was 127,780 pounds, which is distributed over one steering axle, a four-axle combination at the rear of the trailer, and a three- axle combination between the other axles. The four-axle combination bore 60,280 pounds. The outerbridge of the vehicle, which is the distance from the front axle to the rear axle, was over 70 feet. Respondent, which is a small company located in Tennessee, transports its crane throughout the southeastern portion of the United States. Respondent employs a company known as Comchek to secure the necessary permits for the trips. In this case, Comchek obtained for Respondent a Trip Permit dated April 12, 1989. The permit states that the trip is from the Georgia line to the Alabama line on Interstates 95, 295, and 10. The permit notes that the vehicle is 75 feet long, has eight axles, and weighs 135,000 pounds. One of the special requirements on the permit states: "If overweight, a max (3)000 axles allowed per grouping with a minimum of 10 feet to next adjacent axle, center to center." The "000" represents a graphic depiction of three axles. Respondent's vehicle did not meet the axle-grouping requirement. Less than 10 feet separated the four axles in the rear from each other. Thus, the vehicle, if overweight, violated this condition of the permit. The permit contains only two references to weight. One notes the gross weight. The other is in a special condition and requires that overweight vehicles obtain an 80,000 pound license tag. Although the Trip Permit does not clearly disclose on its face that any weight over 80,000 pounds is overweight, Respondent's representatives were on notice that their long and heavy vehicle exceeded the normal weight restrictions so as to be classified as "overweight." The permit's reference to 135,000 pounds cannot be construed to set the standard over which a vehicle would be overweight. Otherwise, the permittee could use the permit to transport a 300,000 pound load on an eight-axle vehicle as long as the vehicle had no axle groupings of more than three. The failure to obtain the proper permit was the fault of Respondent or its agent, Comchek. Either Respondent did not communicate the axle groupings to Comchek or Comchek did not communicate them to Petitioner. In either event, through no fault of Petitioner, the Trip Permit obtained by Respondent was violated the moment the vehicle crossed the Florida line. Inspecting the vehicle at the Sneads inspection station at 6:53 a.m. on April 14, 1989, Petitioner's representatives discovered the violation. The Load Report and Field Receipt of the same date, which cites a violation of Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, states that the gross weight of 127,780 pounds exceeds the legal weight of 80,000 pounds by 47,780 pounds. The resulting penalty is $2389. The receipt acknowledges payment under protest. At 9:53 a.m. on the same date, Petitioner issued to Respondent a second Trip Permit that suspended the requirement of 10 feet between axle groupings. Petitioner released the vehicle at 11:05 a.m., and the vehicle completed the remainder of its trip in Florida without incident. The expedience with which Petitioner issued the second Trip Permit was largely because Respondent had already crossed the bridges that were most vulnerable to excessive loads. However, due to the length of the outerbridge and the number and distribution of axles, Petitioner's expert determined that Petitioner would have, after computer analysis, issued a permit for the vehicle as originally configured, if the proper information had been supplied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating the above-cited statutes and imposing a fine of $2389 or such lesser amount as the Board may deem appropriate. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 13th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4523 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7 and 12: rejected as recitation of testimony, argument, and not finding of fact. 8-11: rejected as subordinate. 13-16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17: rejected as against the greater weight of the testimony of DOT's expert witness, Larry H. Davis. There is no evidence that the outerbridge was only 51 feet. There is conflicting evidence as to the length of the outerbridge, which is at least 64 feet. The diagram that Respondent gave to Petitioner in applying for the permit states that the vehicle length is 75 feet. Subtracting the distance of five feet and three inches between the centerline of the rearmost axle and the rear extreme of the vehicle, the outerbridge is almost 70 feet. However, adding up the confusing distances given on the diagram, which among other shortcomings is clearly not drawn to scale, the total outerbridge is 54 feet. The distance between the centerline of the three-axle grouping and the four-axle grouping was 30 feet. The distance between the first and fourth axle in the rear is about 13 feet. The distance between the steering axle and the rearmost of the three-axle group is about 21 feet. COPIES FURNISHED: David M. Maloney Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1602 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carl R. Nidiffer, President Precipitator Services Group, Inc. P.O. Box 339 Elizabethton, TN 37644 Ben Watt Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Elyse S. Trawick, Executive Secretary Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE REVIEW BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 89-4523 PRECIPITATOR SERVICES GROUP, INC., Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact On August 27, 1976, the Respondent, State of Florida Department of Revenue, notified the Petitioner of its intention to assess sales tax, penalties and interest against the Respondent for business transactions in the period August 1, 1973 through July 31, 1976. This Notice of Proposed Assessment was revised on May 27, 1977, and the Petitioner was notified of that revision. By his letter of June 19, 1977, the Petitioner has challenged the assessment, as revised. Upon receipt of the June 19, 1977 petition, the Respondent moved for a more definite statement and the Petitioner was afforded fifteen (15) days from the date of the Order within which time to amend his petition. Petitioner took advantage of that opportunity to amend and by an undated document did make such an amendment. The Respondent subsequently moved to strike certain portions of the amended petition and filed its answer to the petition. A pre-hearing conference was held to consider the Motion To Strike and after that pre-hearing conference was concluded an Order was issued which struck certain portions of the amended Petition and allowed copies of the proposed notices of assessments of August 27, 1976 and the revision of May 27, 1977 to be made a part of the complaint/petition as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. After the pre-hearing Order had been issued by the undersigned, the case was noticed for hearing for December 5, 1977. At the December 5, 1977 hearing date a Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest Under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes was tendered. This revision dated from December 5, 1977, was allowed to be introduced as the final position of the Respondent on the question of the assessment. It was also allowed to be attached as Exhibit 3 to the amended petition. (Under cover of a separate correspondence the original petition, amended petition, exhibits to the amended petition, an Order which was entered after consideration of the Motion To Strike, are being submitted as a part of the record herein). In the ordinary course of his duties a tax examiner employed by the Respondent went to the business premises of the Petitioner to perform an audit to determine whether or not the Petitioner was collecting and remitting sales tax for the category of sales which the Petitioner was making, that required the payment of sales tax. These requirements spoken of are those set forth in Chapter 212, F.S. Mr. DeCico, the tax examiner, allowed Mr. Farhud to pick three (3) months in the year 1976 as being the period to be audited. DeCico then returned to Farhud's place of business and showed him the details of the three (3) month audit. Farhud was dissatisfied wish this audit and indicated that he preferred to have the audit sample expended for a full three (3) years. DeCico replied that he would be willing to expand the audit period. but cautioned Farhud that expansion of the audit period might promote an increased liability. Nonetheless, at Farhud's request, the audit period was expanded to one for thirty-six (36) months. The new audit period dated from August 1, 1973, through July 1, 1976. The work papers on that audit may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. This audit which is depicted in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, left out invoices pertaining to stamps, electric bills, wrapping paper, grocery bags, etc., since they were not retail items for sale. The audit was rendered on August 27, 1976. Before the Notice of Assessment was filed, Farhud had expressed his displeasure with the outcome of the second audit process because he felt that certain amounts depicted in the gross sales were not accurate; to wit, the inclusion of certain so-called "service fees", namely income tax preparation, notary fees, etc. DeCico tried to get a reasonable statement of the amounts of the categories which Farhud desired to have excluded. Farhud did not have records of the matters and was unable to provide an estimate as to the amount of income which had been derived from the aforementioned "service fees". The August 27, 1976, proposed assessment was computed on the basis of the proposition that the gross sales are equivalent to actual sales and are subject to sales tax in the taxable categories. As indicated before, this audit did not take into consideration any "service fees", nor did it grant any allowance for pilferage. No allowance was made for the latter category, because Farhud had not provided any estimate and/or police records to indicate the amount which would be lost to pilferage, and cause a reduction of the sales tax liability. Farhud formally challenged the audit of August 27, 1976, by his correspondence of September 8, 1976 in which he rejects the amount claimed and asks for a hearing. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. An informal conference was held between the parties on October 12, 1976 to see if a resolution of the dispute could be achieved. Mr. Farhud was represented at the informal conference by Michael J. Burman, Esquire, an attorney in Jacksonville, Florida. By a letter of October 14, 1976, Farhud's attorney requested the Respondent to utilize the figures for the three (3) month audit period, as opposed to the thirty-six (36) month period. The letter concluded by stating that Mr. Burman was unaware of any intention Mr. Farhud had to appeal the assessment of August 27, 1976. This letter was followed by a series of letters in which the various parties were indicating the desire to determine whether or not Mr. Farhud intended to accept the August 27, 1976 assessment or to appeal it. In the course of his correspondence Mr. Farhud continued to insist that he did not accept the amount of assessment as accurate. Mr. Farhud failed to indicate to Mr. Burman whether he was going to appeal the assessment or not and Mr. Burman withdrew as his attorney, as shown in the January 31, 1977 correspondence addressed to one of the employees of the Respondent. This correspondence is Respondent's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. On February 2, 1977, the audit supervisor in the Jacksonville district of the Respondent wrote Mr. Farhud indicating the intention of the Respondent to collect the taxes pursuant to the August 27, 1976 audit. A copy of this correspondence is Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. It should be indicated at this point, that the Respondent's representative had continued to request documentation from Farhud on the items requested for exemption which have been referred to as "service fee". The subject of pilferage had also been discussed at the October 12, 1976 informal conference and a request made for some form of records of police reports which would verify pilferage allowances. No documentation had been provided at the time the February 2, 1977 letter was written to Farhud. Subsequent to the February 2, 1977 letter another informal conference was held on April 4, 1977. As a result of that conference it was determined that certain items would be deleted from the audit assessment of August 27, 1976. This is evidenced in Respondents Exhibit No. 9 which is a copy of a letter dated May 27, 1977, from the audit supervisor, Mr. McCrone, to Mr. Farhud. At the April 4, 1977, discussion the subject of pilferage allowance as brought up in the deletion of 4 percent of the purchase price of taxable goods, as to soft drinks, paper and said products, pet foods and miscellaneous sundries were allowed. No allowance was given for beer, wine and tobacco products because these were felt to be out of reach of prospective pilferers. Again, this deletion is found in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 9. The 4 percent figure was arrived at as an industry estimate. Farhud still was not satisfied after the April 4, 1977, conference had been held and adjustments to the assessment had been mode. In view of this dissatisfaction, the Respondent elected to make a new type of audit, which was performed and was premised upon an analysis of the taxable purchases by the Petitioner for the three (3) year period. These purchases were divided into taxable categories and these categories were then marked up in price using an industry average to arrive at the actual taxable sales. The industry average was based upon an examination of the United Food Stores, Inc.'s sales catalog, which had suggested retail prices for low volume and high volume stores. The Respondent gave the Petitioner the benefit of the range of high volume stores, although the Petitioner's store was a neighborhood convenience store and therefore a low volume operation. The effect of allowing the average retail price for the high volume stores was that it made the differential between his purchase price and the retail price less than that for a low volume neighborhood store, causing lesser tax liability. As stated before, this alternative method was elected for the reason that the Respondent had objected that the gross sales figures reported in the monthly tax returns were incorrect, due to the fact that the Petitioner was unable to document his claim for entitlement to certain exemptions due to pilferage and "service fees", and due to the belief that the more correct approach to the audit was the second method. The work sheet on the alternative method may be found on Respondent's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence. The utilization of this method led to the revised assessment of May 27, 1977, which is the subject of the appeal by petition, and amended petition of the Petitioner. This revision was superceded by the second revision of December 5, 1977, which was allowed to be entered without objection from the Petitioner. The second revision reduces the amount of tax liability claimed by the Respondent. An analysis of the documents offered in this cause and the testimony, leads to the conclusion that the Petitioner/taxpayer owed sales tax during the audit period August 1, 1973 through July 31, 1976. Furthermore, the more correct form of audit procedure under the circumstances, was the alternate method employed in arriving at the May 27, 1977 revised Notice of Assessment as further revised by the December 5, 1977 Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment. This conclusion is grounded on the requirements of Section 212.05(1), F.S., which requires persons in the Petitioner's category for the exercise of the privilege of doing business, to assist in levying a tax in the amount of 4 percent in the categories covered. Furthermore, Sections 212.06(3) and 212.07(2), F.S., places the duty on the Petitioner to collect this 4 percent sales tax. The Petitioner failed to act in accordance with the provision of Chapter 212, F.S. and the Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment is correct and in keeping with the authority of Section 212.12(6), F.S.
Recommendation Therefore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest found as Exhibit 3 to the amended petition which total is $2,238.92 be allowed with such adjustments as may be necessary for a computation of interest prior to the rendition of a final order. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan Weil, Esquire 203 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Patricia Turner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Attorney, Division of Administration Department of Revenue Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Flora-Bama Farms, was operating a commercial vehicle, traveling west on Interstate Highway 10, on December 1, 1990. The truck stopped at the Department's weight scales located in the area of Sneads, Florida. The Department's Inspector checked the vehicle registration handed to him by the driver. The registration had expired. Using the tag number, the registration was checked on the Department's computer. The computer showed the tag was good until December 31, 1990 and that the truck was registered for a gross vehicle weight of 54,999 pounds. 1/ The total weight of the truck on said date was 76,820 pounds. The total weight exceeded its registered weight by 21,821 pounds. Flora-Bama Farms was assessed a statutory penalty of five cents a pound for all weight over the commercial vehicle's registered gross vehicle weight of 54,999 pounds. At five cents a pound, the penalty assessed was $1,091.05. Tony D-Amico, president and owner of Flora-Bama Farms, had personally registered the truck with the County Tag Agency. He informed the Clerk that he would be carrying 44 fruit bins, weighing approximately one thousand pounds each. Mr. D-Amico did not realize that the weight the truck was registered for should include the vehicle's weight and relied on the employee at the tag office to know the appropriate weight for the truck. Apparently, he did not question and verify whether the gross vehicle weight of 54,999 pounds was adequate for his purposes and paid the tax for the 54,999 pounds gross vehicle weight registration. He had no intent to purposely operate an overloaded truck. After his truck was fined for being overweight on December 1, 1990, he returned to the Tag Agency and increased its gross vehicle weight
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the penalty of $1,091.05 was correctly assessed against Flora-Bama Farms, pursuant to Section 316.545, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 11th day of June, 1991.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is guilty of operating an overweight, unregistered commercial vehicle and, if so, the amount of the penalty.
Findings Of Fact On November 3, 1997, Petitioner was operating a U-Haul truck on County Road 951 in Collier County. Respondent's weight and safety officer pulled over the vehicle for a routine inspection. Petitioner was in the moving business and was transporting a third party's household goods from Chicago, Illinois, to Naples, Florida. Petitioner produced an Ohio- apportioned registration, which had expired on May 31, 1997. However, Petitioner had no log book concerning his driving activity. Respondent's weight and safety officer weighed the vehicle, which was a laden straight truck, and found that it weighed 13,400 pounds. Respondent's law enforcement officer thus issued Load Report Citation Number 090045M and collected $170 for the overweight load and Safety Report Number 085886 and collected $100 for the failure to maintain a log book.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's request for a refund of the penalties in the amount of $270 already collected from him. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly A. Bennett Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Christopher W. Campbell 14751 South Homan Number 5 Midlothian, Illinois 60445 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Attn: Diedre Grubbs Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue's ("Department") assessment of tax, penalty, and interest against Nation Auto Sales of South Florida, Inc., is valid and correct.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency responsible for administering the revenue laws of the State of Florida, including the imposition and collection of the state's sales and use taxes. Petitioner, during the period of October 1, 2005, through March 31, 2010 ("assessment period"), was engaged in the business of selling used motor vehicles at retail in Broward County, Florida.1/ Arie Abecasis was Petitioner's president and sole corporate officer. Petitioner was continuously registered with the Department as a "dealer," pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was continuously licensed by the State of Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles ("DMV") as an independent motor vehicle dealer, pursuant to chapter 320, Florida Statutes. On September 3, 2008, the Department issued correspondence to Petitioner advising that the Criminal Investigations process had received a referral from the Department's collection sub process, concerning Petitioner's possible failure to remit all of the sales tax collected from its customers. In order to determine if a discrepancy existed, the Department requested Petitioner to provide: (1) sales invoices/ buyer's orders; (2) sales journals; (3) cash receipt and disbursement journal; (4) general ledger; and (5) bank statements for all depository accounts. On September 9, 2008, Mr. Abecasis met with Robert Taft, a criminal investigator for the Department. Mr. Taft advised Mr. Abecasis that there were two areas of concern: (1) Petitioner's failure to file returns and remit collected sales tax over several collection periods; and (2) that a comparison of the Department and DMV records appeared to reveal a substantial and repeated underreporting and under-remitting of collected sales tax. Mr. Abecasis advised that he would fully cooperate and provide records from 2005 on or before September 17, 2008. Thereafter, Petitioner provided some 2005 records, which Mr. Taft compared with DMV records. After completing a review of the same, on November 7, 2008, Mr. Taft issued correspondence to Petitioner advising that Petitioner's license was used to transfer vehicles for which Petitioner had failed to provide documentation. The same records indicated sales tax collected but never remitted to the Department. Accordingly, Mr. Taft requested all of the documentation originally requested to be produced on or before December 5, 2008. The Department did not receive the requested documentation. Thereafter, Mr. Taft obtained additional records from the DMV regarding a listing of all vehicles titled during the period from October 1, 2005, through March 31, 2010, using Petitioner's motor vehicle dealer's license numbers. Additionally, certified title applications for each of the title transfer transactions were reviewed. From the documents obtained, the Department was able to determine the following information regarding vehicles sold by Petitioner: the acquisition month, dealer number, acquisition date, title number, owner's last name, vehicle make, vehicle body, vehicle ID, and tax credit. The Department established that Petitioner filed with the Department Sales and Use Tax Returns, Form DR-15, that were not accompanied by payment of the tax due, for the following months: April through July, 2008; and February through August 2009. The Department established that Petitioner did not file with the Department Sales and Use Tax Returns, Form DR-15, for February and March, 2010. Petitioner collected at least $810,063.15 in sales tax. Petitioner remitted to the Department $509,735.53 in sales tax. Petitioner failed to remit to the Department at least $300,327.62 in sales tax collected from its customers. On or about November 1, 2010, the Department referred the matter to the Office of the State Attorney for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida for criminal prosecution. On October 31, 2012, in the case styled State v. Abecasis, Case No. 11-0002423 CF 10A, Mr. Abecasis entered a plea of no contest to the criminal charge of theft of state funds in an amount of $20,000 or more, a second-degree felony. As a special condition of his probation, Mr. Abecasis was ordered to make restitution to the Department in the amount of $50,000.00. It is undisputed that, on or before April 10, 2014, Petitioner satisfied the restitution ordered. On April 17, 2014, the Department issued to Petitioner a Notice of Jeopardy Finding and a Notice of Final Assessment. The Notice of Final Assessment notified Petitioner that $192,501.80 in tax, $20,190.35 in penalty, and $66,031.36 in interest were due.2/ The Notice of Jeopardy Finding averred that the Department found "one or more of the jeopardy conditions provided in Rule 12-21.005, Florida Administrative Code, which tend to prejudice or render wholly or partly ineffectual the normal conditions for collection of tax, penalty, or interest." The stated jeopardy condition was delay. On April 21, 2014, the Department recorded a warrant for collection of delinquent sales and use tax against Petitioner in the amount contained in the Notice of Final Assessment. Petitioner testified that, due to the nature of his business, it was a frequent occurrence that potential vehicle purchasers would require financing. Petitioner testified that it was Petitioner's practice to allow the customer to obtain the vehicle prior to financial approval from the lending institution. Accordingly, when the customer was not ultimately approved for financing or when the vehicle was repossessed, a true "sale" did not occur, and, therefore, sales taxes were not collected and remitted. The undersigned finds Petitioner's testimony not credible and not otherwise supported by the record evidence.
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 validates the assessment against Nation Auto Sales of South Florida, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 26th day of November, 2014.
The Issue Whether petitioner taxpayer is liable for delinquent sales tax, penalties, and interest under Chapter 212, Florida Stat utes, as alleged by respondent Department in its notice of proposed assessment.
Findings Of Fact The Taxpayer Taxpayer is a family-operated Florida corporation which has engaged in retail sales at the Tampa Port Authority since 1975 or 1976; it is a licensed dealer registered with the Department. (Testimony of Roberts, Marylis.) Taxpayer's Sales During Audit Period From June 1, 1977, through July 31, 1980 (the audit period covered by the Department's proposed assessment), Taxpayer had gross sales in the approximate amount of $691,013.46. (Testimony of Roberts; Exhibit 2.) During that period, Taxpayer filed the required DR-15 monthly sales tax reports and paid taxes on all retail sales transactions which took place on the premises of its store located at 804 Robinson Street, (Tampa Port Authority) Tampa, Florida. (Testimony of Roberts.) During the same audit period -- in addition to sales on its store premises -- Taxpayer sold goods to merchant seamen on board foreign vessels temporarily docked at the Port of Tampa. These vessels operated in foreign commerce, entering the port from and returning to international waters outside the territorial limits of the United States. Taxpayer did not report these sales on its monthly sales tax reports; neither did it charge or collect sales tax from the on-board purchasers. (Testimony of Marylis.) Taxpayer failed to charge or collect sales tax in connection with its on-board sales because it relied on what it had been told by Department representatives. Prior to forming Taxpayer's corporation Thomas Marylis went to the local Department office to obtain a dealer's certificate. While there, he asked Manuel Alvarez, Jr., then the Department's regional audit supervisor, whether he was required to collect sales tax on ship-board sales. Alvarez replied that he didn't have to collect sales taxes on sales made to seamen when he delivered the goods to the ship. 1/ (Testimony of Marylis.) The on-board sales transactions took place in the following manner: Taxpayer (through its owner, Thomas Marylis) would board the foreign vessel and accept orders from the captain, chief mate, or chief steward. (Earlier, one of these persons would have taken orders from the rest of the crew.) If individual crewmen tried to place orders, Marylis would refer them to the captain, chief mate, or chief steward. After receiving orders from one of these three persons, Marylis would return to Taxpayer's store, fill the order, and transport the goods back to the vessel. Whoever placed the order would then examine the goods and give Marylis the money /2 collected from the crew. (Testimony of Roberts, Marylis.) The goods sold in this manner were ordinarily for the personal use of individual crew members; typical items were: shoes, underwear, working clothes, small radios, watches, suitcases, soap, paper towels, and other personal care products. (Testimony of Marylis.) Department Audit of Taxpayer In 1980, the Department audited Taxpayer's corporate books to determine if sales tax had been properly collected and paid. Taxpayer could produce no dock or warehouse receipts, bills of lading, resale certificates from other licensed dealers, or affidavits verifying that its on-board sales were made to out-of-state purchasers for transportation outside of Florida. (Testimony of Roberts, Marylis.) Due to Taxpayer's failure to supply documentation demonstrating that its ship-board sales from June 1, 1977, to July 31, 1980, were exempt from sales tax imposed by Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, the Department issued a proposed assessment on September 23, 1980. Through that assessment, the Department seeks to collect $21,201.01 in delinquent sales tax, $5,131.39 in penalties, and $3,892.18 in interest (in addition to interest at 12 percent per annum, or $6.97 per day, accruing until date of payment). (Exhibit 5.) Informal Conference with Department; Alvarez's Representations to Taxpayer In October 1980 -- after the audit -- Taxpayer (through Marylis) informally met with Manuel Alvarez, the Department's regional audit supervisor, to discuss the tax status of the shipboard sales. Specifically, they discussed the Department auditor's inability to confirm that Taxpayer delivered the items to the ships, as opposed to the buyers picking up the goods at the store. Alvarez told him: [I]f the buyers would come and just pick them up and take them. And I [Alvarez] think I told him that, if that was the case, it was taxable. But, if they just placed their orders there -- like we have had other ship supplies -- and they them- selves, or one of their employees, would take the items aboard ships, that would be an exempt sale. I did make that state ment. If we had any type of confirmation to that effect, when it comes to that. (Tr. 61.) 3/ (Testimony of Alvarez.) Alvarez then told Marylis to obtain documentation or verification that the sales were made on foreign vessels, i.e., proof that Taxpayer delivered the goods to the vessels. He assured Marylis that if he could bring such verification back, such sales "would come off the audit." (Tr. 62.)(Testimony of Alvarez.) Alvarez was an experienced Department employee: he retired in 1980, after 30 years of service. It was Alvarez's standard practice -- when dealing with sales tax exemption questions -- to reiterate the importance of documentation. He would always give the taxpayer an opportunity -- 30 days or more -- to obtain documentation that a sale was exempt from taxation. (Testimony of Alvarez.) Taxpayer's Verification In response to the opportunity provided by Alvarez, Taxpayer (through Marylis) obtained affidavits from numerous captains of foreign vessels and shipping agents. Those affidavits read, in pertinent part: I, [name inserted] , am the Captain aboard the vessel [name inserted] from [place of origin]. I am personally aware that Speros International Ship Supply Co., Inc. sells various commodities, supplies, clothing, and various sundry items to for eign ship personnel by delivering the said items to the ships docked at various termi- nals inside the Tampa Port Authority and other locations in Tampa, Florida from [date] to the present. (Testimony of Marylis; Exhibit 8.) Moreover, in an attempt to comply with the tax law and avoid similar problems in the future, Taxpayer printed receipt books to be used in all future on-board sales. The receipts reflect the type of goods sold, the date of delivery to the vessel, the foreign vessel's destination, and the total purchase price. Also included is a signature line for the individual who delivers and receives the goods. (Testimony of Marylis; Exhibit 7.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Department's proposed assessment of Taxpayer for delinquent sales tax, penalties, and interest, be issued as final agency action. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 17th day of February, 1982.
