The Issue Whether Respondent Office of the Comptroller should refund to Petitioner taxes paid pursuant to Chapter 199 and 201, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the facts set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9 of the Petition herein, as follows: The agencies affected in this action are the Department of Revenue, Tallahassee, Florida, and the Office of the Comptroller, Tallahassee, Florida. The Petitioner is Zimmer Homes Corporation, 777 Southwest 12th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. Zimmer Homes Corporation, on or about December 12, 1974, conveyed a piece of property described as follows: All of that part of the Southeast quarter of Section 10, Township 44 South, Range 42 East, of Palm Beach County, Florida, lying North of the North right-of-way (r/w) line of Forest Hill Boulevard, less the West 40 feet thereof for road right-of-way and less the East 40 feet thereof. The sellers paid the necessary excise tax on documents and intangible tax as follows: a. $11,250.00 total consideration $3,750,000.00 of Section Florida 201.02(1) Statutes b. 3,900.00 based upon note of $2,600,000.00 Section Florida 201.07 Statutes c. 1,542.00 based upon note of $1,027,906.00 Section Florida 201.07 Statutes d. 4,125.00 based upon total consider- ation of $3,750,000.00 Section Florida 201.021(1) Statutes e. 5,200.00 based upon mortgage secur- ing note of $2,600,000.00 Section Florida 199.032(2) Statutes f. 2,055.81 based upon mortgage secur- ing note of $1,027,906.00 Section Florida 199.032(2) Statutes A lawsuit was commenced for reasons not relevant to this Petition and the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida entered a Final Judgment on July 12, 1978, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". In the Final Judgment the Court determined that the Purchasers had a right to rescind the transaction. The Court ordered that all obligations of the parties arising out of the Purchase and Sale Agreement were cancelled and that the Purchasers were entitled to a sum of money in order to restore the parties to their original positions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On March 22, 1979, pursuant to Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, Zimmer Homes Corporation applied for a refund of the excise tax on the documents in an amount as specified in Paragraphs 4(a), 4(b), 4(c) and 4(d), above. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On April 3, 1979, pursuant to Section 199.252, Florida Statutes, and Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, Zimmer Homes Corporation applied for a refund of the intangible tax paid in an amount as specified in Paragraphs 4(e) and 4(f) above. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). According to a letter from the Office of the Comptroller dated April 23, 1979, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", the Office of the Comptroller indicated that they concurred with the findings and conclusions of the Department of Revenue in denying the refund request on the excise tax on documents as specified in paragraph 6 above. As grounds therefore, it was indicated that the refund requests were denied because the statute of limitations under Section 215.26, Florida Statutes, barred the request for refund. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). By letter dated April 26, 1979, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C", the Office of the Comptroller indicated that they concurred with the findings of the Department of Revenue on denying the refund for intangible taxes which had been paid as specified above. As grounds therefore it was indicated that the request was denied because the applicable statute of limitations had run. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2).
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for refund of tax paid under Chapters 199 and 201, Florida Statutes, be approved. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard B. Burk, Esquire Scott, Burk, Royce and Harris 450 Royal Palm Way Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Barbara Harmon, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Vogue be obligated to pay the interest assessed on the corporation for failure to timely pay the corporate intangible property tax due for 1987 and 1988. That Vogue's penalty assessment be reduced by $200.00 as a compromise of assessment penalties due to the circumstances surrounding the corporation's late reporting. This reduction reflects the removal of the late reporting penalty by $100.00 for each year. That Vogue not be required to pay the $22.00 filing fee for the warrant that was filed by the Department, without statutory authority to do so, the Public Records of Collier County. Any other costs surrounding the warrant, including its removal from the public records, should not be borne by the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 16th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5744 The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Admitted. See HO #1 and #2. Rejected. See HO #3 and #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Rejected. Irrelevant in these proceedings. Copies furnished: William H. Kaverman, Qualified Representative 3115 Gulfshore Boulevard North Apartment #709 Naples, Florida 33940 Vern D. Calloway, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lealand L. McCharen, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William D. Moore, Esquire General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. Thomas Herndon Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's certificates of registration should be revoked for an alleged failure to file tax returns and to remit taxes to the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for collection of sales and use taxes in Florida, pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes (2011).1/ The Respondent is a Florida company doing business at 7810 U.S. Highway 19, Port Richey, Florida, and is a "dealer" as defined at section 212.06(2). The Respondent holds two certificates of registration issued by the Petitioner (Certificate No. 61-8012297146-3 and Certificate No. 61-8012297147-0) and is statutorily required to file tax returns and remit taxes to the Petitioner. As set forth herein, the Respondent has failed to file tax returns or has filed returns that were not accompanied by the appropriate tax payments. During the time the Respondent has held the certificates, the Petitioner has filed 15 separate warrants against the Respondent related to unpaid taxes, fees, penalties, and interest. The Petitioner is authorized to cancel a dealer's certificate of registration for failure of a dealer to comply with state tax laws. Prior to such cancellation, the Petitioner is required by statute to convene a conference with a dealer. On June 24, 2011, the Petitioner issued a Notice of Conference on Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Notice). The conference was scheduled for July 27, 2011. The Respondent received the Notice and attended the conference. Certificate of Registration No. 61-8012297146-3 The Respondent failed to file tax returns related to Certificate No. 61-8012297146-3 for the period of August through December 2001. The Petitioner assessed estimated taxes of $587.50, fees of $110.95, and a penalty of $285.00. As of the date of the Notice, the accrued interest due was $633.79. Additionally, the Respondent failed to remit taxes of $5,623.63 related to Certificate No. 61-8012297146-3 that were due according to his filed tax returns. Based thereon, the Respondent assessed fees of $994.58 and a penalty of $2,478.26. As of the date of the Notice, the accrued interest due was $4,702.27. As of the date of the Notice, the Respondent's total unpaid obligation on Certificate No. 61-8012297146-3 was $15,415.98, including taxes of $6,211.13, fees of $1,105.53, penalties of $2,763.26, and accrued interest of $5,336.06. Certificate of Registration No. 61-8012297147-0 The Respondent failed to file tax returns related to Certificate No. 61-8012297147-0 for the months of June 2000, September 2000, May 2001, and August 2001. The Petitioner assessed estimated taxes of $619.00 and fees of $202.00. As of the date of the Notice, the accrued interest due was $782.56. Additionally, the Respondent failed to remit taxes related to Certificate No. 61-8012297147-0 of $4,332.48 that were due according to his filed tax returns. Based thereon, the Respondent assessed fees of $771.71 and a penalty of $1,576.87. As of the date of the Notice, the accrued interest due was $4,725.27. As of the date of the Notice, the Respondent's total unpaid obligation related to Certificate No. 61-8012297147-0 was $13,009.89, including taxes of $4,951.48, fees of $973.71, penalties of $1,576.87, and accrued interest of $5,507.83. The Audit A separate audit of the Respondent's business records for the period of February 2004 through January 2007 resulted in an additional assessment totaling $9,314.07, including taxes of $5,048.23, fees of $661.76, and a penalty of $252.42. As of the date of the Notice, the accrued interest due was $3,351.66. At the July 27, 2011, conference, the parties negotiated a compliance agreement under which the Respondent would have retained the certificates of registration. The agreement required the Respondent to make an initial deposit of $2,000.00 by August 15, 2011, and then to make periodic payments towards satisfying the unpaid obligation. The Respondent failed to pay the $2,000.00 deposit, and the Petitioner subsequently filed the Complaint at issue in this proceeding. As of the date that the Complaint was filed, the Respondent owed a total of $37,797.66 to the State of Florida, including taxes of $15,004.34, estimated taxes of $1,206.50, fees of $2,741.00, penalties of $4,592.55, and accrued interest of $14,253.27.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order revoking the certificates of registration held by the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 1st day of May, 2012.
The Issue Whether the "Additional Payment" made by Hernando HMA, Inc., d/b/a Brooksville Regional Hospital to Hernando County pursuant to a document entitled Lease Agreement, as amended, constitutes "rent" subject to sales tax under section 212.031, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Hernando HMA, Inc. (HMA) is a for-profit entity which operates Brooksville Regional Hospital, Spring Hill Regional Hospital, and other entities, as successor to an entity that was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings from 1993 to 1998, Regional Healthcare, Inc. (RHI). The Department is an agency of the State of Florida that has been delegated the responsibility to collect sales and use taxes imposed by chapter 212, Florida Statutes. In 1998, as part of RHI's bankruptcy plan, HMA and the County entered into various agreements, including a lease agreement (1998 Lease), regarding the use and operation of several RHI hospital properties and improvements owned by the County, and leased back to RHI. Under the 1998 Lease and other agreements, HMA agreed to continue to operate the hospital facilities for 30 years with possession of the real property and improvements to be returned to the County at the end of the lease term. Section 1.2W. of the 1998 Lease defined "Rental Payment" as follows: "Rental Payment" means all payments due from Lessee to Lessor or otherwise required to be paid by Lessee pursuant to the terms of this lease. The 1998 Lease further provided in section 3.3 under the heading "Rent": The annual rental payment of the Leased Premises for each year of the Lease Term (the "Rental Payment") shall be in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($300,000). This Rental Payment shall be paid to Lessor by Lessee on the Commencement Date and on each anniversary date of the Commencement Date during the Lease Term. The 1998 Lease also provided that HMA, as Lessee, would pay "all taxes, if any, prior to delinquency." Under the 1998 Lease, the County agreed to lease the premises in consideration of HMA’s timely payment of rent and timely performance of the other covenants and agreements required under the lease. It was an “event of default” under the lease if HMA failed to observe and perform any covenant, condition, or agreement on its part which could be cured by a payment of money. Remedies for default under the 1998 Lease included termination of the lease by the County and exclusion of HMA from possession of the leased premises. Even though the leased premises under the 1998 Lease were not subject to ad valorem taxes because they were owned by the County, during public discussions of the proposed 1998 Lease, an issue arose about HMA's responsibility for payment of fire assessments that would have been paid if the property was not immune or exempt from ad valorem taxes. HMA agreed, by separate agreement, to pay the fire assessments and buy a new ambulance to serve the community. The fire assessment agreement was by separate document that was included as part of the closing of the 1998 Lease and other agreements involving the hospital facilities in June 1998. The 1998 Lease was dated June 1, 1998. The 1998 Lease terms included a merger clause in section 15.6 entitled “ENTIRE AGREEMENT,” which provided: This lease may not be modified, amended or otherwise changed orally, but may only be modified, amended or otherwise changed by an agreement in writing signed by both parties. This Lease Agreement and its accompanying guaranty constitute the entire agreement between the parties affecting this Lease. This Lease Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements, and understandings between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter thereof, and no such outside or prior agreements shall be used to interpret or to construe this Lease. There are no promises, covenants, representations or inducements in addition to, or at variance with any of the terms of this Lease Agreement except the Guaranty. In 2001, the County and HMA began negotiations for relocation of the Brooksville Regional Hospital which was part of the leased premises described in the 1998 Lease. During the negotiations, HMA, through its attorney, Steven Mitchell, prepared a proposed comprehensive relocation agreement in consultation with former County Attorney Bruce Snow. Section 7.3 of the proposed relocation agreement contemplated revising the 1998 Lease and suggested the following preliminarily negotiated language for rental payments under a revised 1998 Lease: Rental Payments The Lessee shall pay to Lessor on the due date therefore as set forth in the Lease Agreement, the sum of Three Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) per annum. The Lessee shall pay to Lessor on an annual basis, either as rent or by virtue of a payment to Hernando County of the same sum to be used by Hernando County as it deems appropriate, an amount equal to the ad valorem taxes that would have been paid on the New Facility Site as improved with the New Facility if the New Facility Site were not owned by Hernando County but owned by a for-profit entity. In the event the New Facility Site and the New Facility located thereon are subsequently required by law to pay ad valorem taxes then the obligation to pay the amount described in Section 7.3(b) herein shall immediately terminate and Lessee shall be responsible for the payment of the appropriate ad valorem tax. The proposed comprehensive relocation agreement was discussed at public meetings held by the Hernando County Board of Commissioners on September 17 and September 25, 2001. The minutes of the September 25, 2001, meeting indicate that the County Administrator advised that the proposed relocation agreement contemplated that HMA would continue to pay $300,000 annually as rent, and “would make a payment-in-lieu of taxes annually to the County . . . .” The minutes also reflect that, in responding to a question from a commissioner regarding whether there should be language in the agreement that would protect the “payment-in-lieu of taxes” provision in the event the law changed: [Former County Attorney] Snow replied that it was his recommendation that there should be a provision that to the extent that the organic law of the State provided that facilities, such as the new hospital or other hospital under the lease, were taxable for ad valorem tax purposes, that that provision of the organic law would apply to ensure that that provision superseded. He explained that the lease provision to provide for an ad valorem tax payment was only to the extent that the organic law did not otherwise compel it so that the County would be receiving ad valorem tax under either scenario. The minutes from the September 25, 2001, meeting further state: Mr. Snow replied to County Attorney Garth Coller that there had been recent Supreme Court decisions which may have a bearing on the organic law to the extent that a decision of that nature indicated that the facilities were subject to ad valorem tax, notwithstanding the ownership issue, then they were subject to ad valorem tax and the lease would need to clarify that. He suggested that if the FS or Constitution should change, even in the absence of an interpretation of the Supreme Court decision, the change would obligate the payment of ad valorem taxes pursuant to the constitutional or statutory provisions. He explained that organic law pertained to provisions of FS or the Constitution as opposed to a Court decision. Mr. Snow’s reported reference to recent “Supreme Court decisions” regarding ad valorem taxes undoubtedly was referring the decision, among others, in Sebring Airport Authority v. McIntyre, 718 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1998). In that decision, rendered a few months after the County entered into the 1998 Lease, the Supreme Court of Florida stated with regard to municipal (as opposed to county) property: [T]here is nothing in article VII, section 3 that allows the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation municipally owned property or any other property that is being used primarily for a proprietary purpose or for any purpose other than a governmental, municipal or public purpose. To the extent section 196.012(6) attempts to exempt from taxation municipal property used for a proprietary purpose, the statute is unconstitutional. Id. at 298. The Sebring case did not address tax immunity of county property as distinguished from the issue of tax exemptions for the proprietary use of municipal property. The proposed “Rental Payments” language for revisions to the 1998 Lease, however, demonstrates that the drafters of the comprehensive relocation agreement were aware of the possibility that the Sebring rationale could be expanded and applied to county property. The comprehensive relocation agreement was approved by the County, and executed in late 2001. Attached as to that relocation agreement as Schedule C was an unsigned document entitled “First Amendment to Lease Agreement” that was not to be executed until the new facility was completed and transferred to the County. Subsection 3.3 of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement entitled “Rental Payments” provided: Rental Payments The Lessee shall pay to the Lessor on the due date therefore as set forth in the Lease Agreement, the sum of Three Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) per annum. The Lessee shall pay to the Lessor on an annual basis, either as rent or by virtue of a payment to Hernando County of an amount (“Additional Payment”) equal to the sum of the following: An amount equal to that portion of the ad valorem taxes that would have been paid to Hernando County on the Leased Premises (as modified by the substitution of the New Facility Site for the Current Hospital Site) if the Leased Premises were not owned by Hernando County but owned by a for profit entity; and An amount equal to that portion of the ad valorem taxes that would have been paid to the Spring Hill Fire and Rescue District, the Township 22 Fire District and/or any other special taxing district that may be established pursuant to law; and An amount equal to all special assessments levied by Hernando County through any Municipal Service Benefit Unit created by Hernando County pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.01, Florida Statutes; and An amount equal to all ad valorem tax levied by Hernando County through any Municipal Service Taxing Unit created by Hernando County pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.01, Florida Statutes. In no event shall the Additional Payments exceed an amount equal to a full ad valorem tax assessment on the New Facility Site as determined annually by the Hernando County Property Appraiser. In the event the Lessee and/or Lessor is required by law to pay ad valorem taxes on the Leased Premises or any portion thereof, the obligation to pay to Lessor the Additional Payment described in this Section 3.3 shall immediately terminate (and/or be adjusted, whichever is applicable), and Lessee shall be responsible for payment of the appropriate ad valorem tax. The First Amendment to Lease Agreement further provided, “[e]xcept as expressly modified herein, all other terms and conditions set forth in the [1998] Lease Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed.” The new hospital facility was completed and transferred to the County in 2005. On November 15, 2005, the County commission approved documents related to the transfer, including the First Amendment to Lease Agreement in the precise form as attached to the relocation agreement approved in 2001. The approval was obtained on a consent agenda, and the minutes reflect no further discussion by the commission or the public on the documents that were approved. In 2009, the Hernando County School District sued the County Property Appraiser, alleging that the properties subject to the 1998 Lease as amended by the First Amendment to Lease Agreement should not be exempt from ad valorem taxation. In a 13-page Order dismissing the School District’s action, Circuit Judge Daniel B. Merritt, Jr., distinguished the cases disallowing statutory ad valorem tax exemptions for properties owned by special tax districts or cities from the sovereign immunity against ad valorem taxes enjoyed by real estate owned by the State of Florida and its counties. In his ruling, Judge Merritt noted that Florida law specifically makes leasehold interests in governmental property subject to taxation, noting: The Legislature defines leasehold interests as intangible personal property and, hence, assessed by the Florida Department of Revenue, when: (1) rent is due; (2) the property is used for commercial purposes; (3) is not used for agriculture; (4) not financed with revenue bonds, and; (5) the lease is for an initial term of less than 100 years; §§196.199(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), 199.023(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), specifically preserved in Chapter 2006-312, Laws of Florida (2006). However, see below for further analysis with regard to presumed ownership of property leased for 100 years or more as set forth in §196.199(7), Florida Statutes. Judge Merritt also discussed those instances where “leased” property might not qualify as State or county property where lessees are the “equitable owners,” such as leaseholds of 100 years or more or where properties do not revert to the State until the end of a lease term. In his order, however, Judge Merritt noted that the tax immunity of the County was a fundamental attribute of county property and held that “under the terms of the Lease Agreements the Court concludes that HMA has merely the right to use and possession and is not the beneficial owner as a matter of law Hernando County’s immune property and improvements.” Judge Merritt’s Order was affirmed on appeal. School Board of Hernando County v. Mazourek, Case No. H-27-CA-2009-549 (5th Cir. 2009), per curiam aff’d, 2010 WL 4323055 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) In December, 2010, the Department notified the County it had been selected for a tax compliance audit under chapter 212, Florida Statutes, Sales and Use Tax. The audit period was from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2009. The County’s personnel were cordial and receptive during the audit process and the Department’s auditor determined that the books and records kept by the County had adequate internal accounting controls in place and sufficient data integrity. Out of the approximately 19 tax registration accounts the County has with the Department, the Department’s auditor found exception with only tax account #12445797, the tax collected and remitted under its lease with HMA. In her record review, the Department’s auditor noticed invoices and worksheets from the County to HMA, titled “Payment in lieu of taxes.” In examining the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement, Section 3.3 “Rental Payments,” the Department’s auditor determined that the County was not collecting sales tax on a portion of the rent received under that section. The monthly tax return filed by the County under account # 12445797 reflected that it was collecting and remitting the sales tax calculated on the $300,000.00 annual rent payment, but was not collecting and remitting sales tax calculated on the additional payments in lieu of taxes. The Department’s auditor determined the additional payments, required under the lease and made as a condition of occupancy, constituted a taxable transaction as additional rent consideration. The amount of the additional payments, made January 2007 and March 2008, as revealed on the County’s “Payment in lieu of taxes worksheets,” was multiplied by 6.5 percent to arrive at the additional tax amount due of $78,710.17. On December 9, 2010, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, Form DR 1215, advising the County of its audit findings, which included $78,710.17 in taxes due, $14,526.37 in accrued interest through December 9, 2010, and a $19,677.55 late payment penalty. On December 21, 2010, the Department issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment, Form DR 831, showing an assessment of $78,710.17 in tax and $14,707.51 in accrued interest, for a total of $93,417.68 through December 21, 2010, with interest accruing thereafter at the rate of $15.10 per diem. All penalty amounts were waived. At the final hearing, the County argued that the additional payments from HMA under the First Amendment to Lease Agreement were not rent, but rather separate payments to pay for County services. While the actual language used in the First Amendment to Lease Agreement appears to unambiguously indicate that the additional payments were rent, the County offered additional evidence of facts and circumstances beyond the terms of the lease itself in support of its argument that the additional payments were not rent. That evidence was admitted, without objection, and has been considered in determining the intention of the parties to the lease with regard to the additional payments. In addition to evidence that the lease drafters were aware of certain cases decided on the issue of whether the leased premises would be subject to ad valorem taxes, the County offered the testimony of Mr. Mitchell regarding the “Rental Payments” language found in the First Amendment to Lease Agreement. When asked whether there had been much negotiation over the format or wording of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement, Mr. Mitchell recalled: No, there really wasn’t other than, you know, the concept – what this amendment does is what we had agreed to pay rental payment. The rental payment was $300,000. And then, we also had agreed independently just to go ahead and pay the County for certain services that they were providing to us. And then we specified those. Those were independent payments, not part of the rental payment. Mr. Mitchell further testified: [B]asically, this property is free of ad valorem tax. That is why the school board filed their lawsuit because, of course, they were not getting any of the ad valorem taxes. So, the property is free of payment of ad valorem taxes. We’re paying our 300,000. It was very, very clear. However, HMA felt that the County was providing certain services, the fire districts and whatnot. So, independent of the rent, we paid this amount. If you read the section dealing – it’s 3.3.[2], or whatever it is, which I’ll read it to you, it talks about, at the very end – and they did it for whatever reason the property became taxable, you know, it effectively became taxable and we had to pay full ad valorem taxes on the property, then the specialties – these additional payments we called, you know, would go away and they, effectively, be part of rent. That's why it talks about it as such, and it was either additional payment and/or rent. Contrary to Mr. Mitchell’s recollection, section 3.3.2 of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement does not speak in terms of “additional payment and/or rent” but rather states that another payment would be made “either as rent or by virtue of a payment to Hernando County of an amount ('Additional Payment') . . .". Mr. Mitchell makes a valid point regarding the fact that HMA was concerned about having to pay both the additional payment and ad valorem taxes. Consistent with this concern, the lease amendment made it clear that HMA would not have to pay the additional amount if the property ever became subject to ad valorem taxes. Mr. Mitchell’s testimony in support of the County’s contention that HMA’s payment in lieu of taxes under the First Amendment to Lease Agreement was not rent, however, is unpersuasive. Considering the extrinsic evidence offered by the County, especially evidence of the parties concern that the subject County property might someday be subject to ad valorem taxes, together with the 1998 Lease, language negotiated for the proposed relocation agreement, and the actual terms of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement, it is found that the parties intended the language under the "Rental Payments" section to assure that HMA did not have to pay the additional amount twice. The extrinsic evidence offered by the County, however, was insufficient to support a finding that the parties intended to differentiate between “rent” and the “additional payment” or that, however characterized, the payment in lieu of taxes was not rent subject to assessment by the Department. If the parties had wanted to provide language that designated the payment in lieu of taxes as a payment for services instead of rent they could have, as they did in the Second Amendment to Lease Agreement entered into on September 13, 2011, just ten days prior to the final hearing in this case.2/ That Second Amendment to Lease Agreement changed the name of section 3.3 from “Rental Payments,” as found in the First Amendment, to “Rent and Additional Payment for County Services.” Pertinent subsections of the Second Amendment further provided: 3.3.2 Additional Payment for County Services. The Lessee shall pay to Lessor on an annual basis, as an additional payment (“Additional Payment”) for services provided by Hernando County [in its role as a service provider and local taxing authority], . . . * * * The Additional Payment is not intended to constitute “rent” and is not intended to create an event subject to Florida sales tax – but rather is intended to constitute a separate payment for the provision of services, payable to the local taxing authority, as provided in § 212.031(1)(c), Florida Statutes (which allow parties by contractual arrangement to distinguish between payments which are intended to be taxable and payments which are intended to be nontaxable), as this section may be amended or renumbered from time to time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, consistent with the Notice of Proposed Assessment dated December 21, 2010, and this Recommended Order, the Department of Revenue enter a final order finding that Petitioner owes tax and interest due totaling $93,417.68 through December 21, 2010, with interest accruing thereafter at the rate of $15.10 per diem, without penalties. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 30th day of December, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Modern Tool and Die, (MTD), is a privately held corporation engaged in manufacturing equipment. In 1965 they started the manufacture of bumper guards which required electroplating. They entered into agreements with MPC pursuant to which MTD erected two buildings adjacent to their plant which they leased to MPC in which to do the electroplating of the bumper guards. MPC is also a privately held corporation and there is no common ownership of these two companies. The two buildings built for MPC's occupancy were partitioned, compartmented and wired as desired by MPC and at its expense. Florida Power Corporation supplied electricity to the complex through the main transformer of MTD. In 1965 and to a lesser extent now, electricity rates per kilowatt-hour (kwh) were lowered with increased usage of electricity. Since both MTD and MPC are large users of electricity they obtain a cheaper rate if all electricity used is billed from the master meter serving MTD. Accordingly, and at the recommendation of the power company, additional transformers and meters were placed at the two buildings occupied by MPC and read monthly at or about the same time the master meter is read by the power company. The kw used at the two buildings is forwarded by MPC to MTD each month. The latter, upon receipt of the power company bill, computes the cost of the power per kwh and in turn bills MPC for its portion of the bill based upon the usage forwarded by MPC to MTD. Upon the commencement of this working agreement between these two companies in 1965 MPC, pursuant to an oral lease, has paid rent to MTD monthly at the rate of approximately $2,400 per month. It has also paid to MTD its pro rata cost for the electricity used each month. The rent is invoiced each month on the first of the month as in Exhibit 3 and paid by the 10th by MPC. Sales tax is added to the rent and remitted to DOR. Electricity usage is also invoiced by MTD to MPC on or about the 20th of the month and paid by MPC on or about the first of the following month. (Exhibit 4). Sales tax on the electricity used is paid by MTD to Florida Power Company who presumably remits this to DOR. During the 15 years these two companies have shared the cost of electric power they have been audited numerous times; the arrangement was made known to the auditors; and no auditor, prior to the present, suggested that the cost of electricity was part of the rent paid by MPC upon which sales tax was due. Notice of Proposed Assessment (Exhibit 1) in the amount of $9,747.34 is based upon the cost of electricity billed to MPC during the period of the audit December 1, 1976 through November 30, 1979 multiplied by 4 percent sales tax plus penalties and interest. The parties stipulated to the accuracy of this amount. They differ only as to whether the tax is owed.
Findings Of Fact The facets herein are undisputed. On May 31, 1973 Petitioner purchased Thomas Concrete Company, and on February 28, 1973 Petitioner purchased Kelly Builders, Inc. Both companies were forthwith liquidated and federal income tax returns were filed in which depreciation in excess of fair value of the properties was recaptured for federal tax purposes. In his state corporate income tax returns Petitioner claimed deduction for that portion of the recaptured depreciation which occured prior to November 2, 1971, the effective date of the Florida Corporate Income Tax Statute. These deductions were disallowed by the Department of Revenue, that portion of the tax relating to Thomas Concrete Company was paid under protest, the portion relating to Kelly Builders, Inc. was not paid, and this petition was filed. In 1974 Petitioner sold real property on which it made a substantial capital gain. In computing its federal income tax the full capital gain was reported. However, that portion of its capital gain accruing prior to November 2, 1971 was excluded from its Florida corporate income tax and the assessment of $50,494.75 was levied against Petitioner by Respondent, Department of Revenue for the full amount of the capital gain as income received in 1974. The two issues here involved are whether Petitioner is taxable under Chapter 220 F.S. on depreciation taken prior to the effective date of Chapter 220, and subsequently recaptured, and whether Petitioner is taxable under Chapter 220, F.S. for the full amount of capital gain realized on property held prior to the effective date of Chapter 220 where part of appreciation occurred prior to the effective date of the Florida Corporate Income Tax law.
The Issue Does the taxpayer owe sales tax, penalty, and interest as assessed by the Department of Revenue.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Revenue, is an agency of the State of Florida, lawfully created and organized pursuant to Section 20.21, Florida Statutes. By law, the Department is vested with the responsibility of regulating, controlling and administering the revenue laws of the State of Florida, including, specifically, the laws relating to the imposition and collection of the state's sales and use tax, pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Worldwide Equipment Group, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company, whose principal address is Post Office Box 1050, Freeport, Florida 32439. Respondent sells and leases heavy equipment. In early 2006, Petitioner, Department of Revenue, conducted an audit of the books and records of Petitioner, pursuant to statutory notice. The period covered by the audit was March 1, 2002, through February 28, 2005. The audit was conducted by Department of Revenue auditor David Collins and addressed three issues. Issue A-01 addressed misclassified exempt sales, i.e. failure to collect appropriate sales and use tax or lack of documentation to prove tax exempt status of certain sales. Issue A-03 addressed discrepancies in sales for 2003 as reported for federal income tax returns and for state sales and use tax returns. Issue A-03 addressed interest owed due to a timing difference between actual transactions and the filing of state returns: basically a manipulation of the grace period for payment of sales and use taxes. Respondent was notified of the apparent discrepancies observed by the auditor. The original Notice of Intent To Make Audit Changes was issued February 17, 2006, and started at more than $75,000.00 in taxes, penalty, and interest due. Respondent then filed amended federal income tax returns, reflecting larger sales figures covering a portion of the audit period which reduced the discrepancy. The dispute was originally referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on or about August 30, 2006. The original facts in dispute surrounded an addendum to the Notice of Proposed Assessment showing a balance due of $31,434.82. This was DOAH Case No. 06-3287. The request for a disputed-fact hearing was made by David R. Johnson CPA, who has a power of attorney on file with Petitioner Agency permitting him to represent Respondent. Throughout these proceedings, Worldwide has been served through Mr. Johnson by Petitioner and by DOAH. The parties filed a Joint Motion for Provisional Closing Order in DOAH Case No. 06-3287 on November 1, 2006. On November 2, 2006, DOAH Case No. 06-3287 was closed with leave to return if the parties' proposed settlement was not finalized. Mr. Johnson met once with counsel for Petitioner during the time the case was returned to the Agency. At some point, Respondent had produced certain accounting entries and supporting documents to the auditor. These were used to adjust the assessment levied by the Department. A Revised Notice Of Intent To Make Audit Changes dated March 13, 2007, was issued with a letter of the same date. The revised, and final Notice included an assessment of tax, penalty and interest totaling $15,065.24, as of the date of issue and information that the tax accrues interest at the rate of $3.10 per diem. On April 4, 2007, Petitioner filed before DOAH its Motion to Re-open Case and Notice for Trial. No timely response in opposition was filed by Respondent. By an Order to Re-open Case File, entered April 19, 2007, the case was re-opened as the instant DOAH Case No. 07-1710. Petitioner has established that the amount of $15,065.24 as tax, penalty, and interest was due as of March 13, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue sustain the March 13, 2007, assessment of the subject sales tax, penalties and interest to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Warren J. Bird, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Lisa Echeverri, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 David R. Johnson, CPA 1265 Highway 331 South Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Worldwide Equipment Group LLC Post Office Box 1050 Freeport, Florida 32439
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Respondent's certificate to practice as a certified public accountant in the State of Florida should be revoked based on conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail for alleged violations of Chapter 473, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated and adopted thereunder in Chapter 21A, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence introduced at the hearing, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Mark Finkel, Respondent, is the holder of certificate No. 2327 as a certified public accountant in the State of Florida. As such, the Respondent is subject to the provisions of Chapter 473, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated in Chapter 21A, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent has been so registered as a certified public accountant since 1968. During early 1973, Respondent was engaged by David E. Wells, M.D., P.A., to prepare and file individual and corporate tax returns for the entity, David E. Wells, M.D., P.A., for the three years ending June 30, 1975. Respondent's engagement stamped from a referral of Dr. Wells' former C.P.A., Tom Williams, who relocated from Florida during late 1972. At the outset of his engagement by Dr. Wells, Respondent was briefed on the nuances of Dr. Wells' cardiology practice by Tom Williams. Respondent, according to Dr. Wells, was told that his duties would include those of filing corporate and individual tax returns and proper accounting for the administration and payment of pension plan taxes. During 1973, Respondent made quarterly visits to Dr. Wells' office to review records and billing information. The record reveals that Respondent filed quarterly payroll tax returns through September of 1976 and individual income tax returns for the years ending 1973 and 1974. Respondent failed to file individual income tax returns for the year ending December, 1975, or corporate returns for the years ending June 30, 1973, through 1976, and pension tax returns for the years ending 1973 through 1976. However, Respondent represented to Dr. Wells that all necessary returns were filed with the Internal Revenue Service and the other governmental agencies charged with the collection of taxes. For the years 1973 through 1976, Dr. Wells received inquiries from the Internal Revenue Service requesting information as to why corporate tax returns had not been filed for his corporation for the three years ending June 30, 1975. Based on the correspondence received from the Internal Revenue Service, Dr. Wells attempted to communicate with Respondent to either get the necessary forms filed or to request a return of Respondent's working papers which would assist another C.P.A. in preparing and filing the pertinent returns, to no avail. In this regard, after repeated calls, Dr. Wells obtained what records Respondent had which were of little use to his newly retained accountant, Myron Kahn, a certified public accountant who, since 1959, has been licensed in Florida and North Carolina. Messr. Kahn was retained by Dr. Wells in December of 1976 and established that the Respondent had only filed an individual income tax return for Dr. Wells for the calendar year 1973, plus quarterly payroll tax returns filed which were current. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2.) Based on the available records, Messr. Kahn reconstructed the necessary accounting data based on cash receivables and disbursement vouchers for the prior four-year period. Messr. Kahn, after diligent search, found no control sheets, financial summaries, analyses, etc., which would have been kept if the pertinent income tax returns had been filed as required. Because Messr. Kahn had to reconstruct the necessary accounting data, he spent an inordinate amount of time compiling the returns he needed to file. Evidence reveals that due to Dr. Wells' late filing of tax returns for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, he incurred an additional penalty of $12,600, plus approximately $2,700 in interest and for his state corporate return, a penalty of $1,700 was assessed, plus $325 for interest. For the year ending June 30, 1975, Dr. Wells paid a Federal penalty of $5,618, plus $878 in interest, and a state penalty of $1,052, plus $132 in interest. Douglas H. Thompson, Jr., the Board's Executive Director, has been a certified public accountant since April, 1968. Director Thompson is the Board's chief administrative officer and custodian of records. On approximately December 16, 1976, Director Thompson received a complaint from David E. Wells, M.D., based on Respondent's "failure to file requested corporate returns and to return certain documents."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and in the absence of any effort on Respondent's part to refute or otherwise mitigate the evidence presented, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's license to practice as a certified public accountant (certificate No. 2327) be REVOKED. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact 1. After an audit, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment (‘NOPA’) to Dever, Inc. (“Dever”) on April 7, 2009, finding Dever liable for additional documentary stamp taxes, plus interest. 2. Dever informally protested the Department’s NOPA as permitted by Department rules, and the Department issued a Notice of Decision on March 25, 2010, and, subsequently, a Notice of Reconsideration on July 23, 2010. The Notice of Reconsideration set forth the Department's final position regarding. the documentary stamp taxes assessed against Dever. Filed November 1, 2011 4:14 PM Division of Administrative Hearings © 3. The Notice of Reconsideration included a section titled “Taxpayer Appeal Rights,” which explained that the Notice of Reconsideration constituted the final decision of the department, prior to court action or administrative proceedings, and that, pursuant to Section 72.011, Florida Statutes, no court action or administrative proceeding could be brought to contest the assessment after sixty (60) days from the date of the assessment. This section further stated, in regard to any request for administrative hearing, Pursuant to Sections 72.011, 120.569, 120.57, and 120.80(14), F.S., and Rule Chapter 12-6, F.A.C., you may contest the assessment in an administrative forum by filing a _ petition for a Chapter_120 administrative hearing with the Department of Revenue, Office of General Counsel, Post Office Box 6668, Tallahassee, FL 32314-6668. THE PETITION MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION. . . . The requirements of Section 72.011(2) and (3)(a), F.S., are jurisdictional for any action contesting an assessment or refund denial under Chapter 120, F.S. See id. at 5. (capitalization in original). 4. Dever did not file a petition or court action within 60 days of the July 23, 2010, Notice of Reconsideration, to contest the tax assessment. On or about January 18, 2011, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Levy (“Intent to Levy”) on certain bank accounts held by Dever. 5. On or about January 21, 2011, Dever filed a one-page letter with the Department stating that it was “a petition/request for an administrative hearing.” This petition was dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to comply with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and Rule 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code. O 6. On March 23, 2011, Dever filed its “Amended Petition For Reconsideration” (“Petition”), which resulted in the instant proceeding. The Petition, however, did not dispute any material facts regarding the Department's Intent to Levy. Neither did the Petition provide any legal basis to contest the levy. Instead, the Petition sought to challenge the underlying basis for the assessment of the documentary stamp taxes, as set forth in the Notice of Reconsideration. 7. The Department, pursuant to Rule 28-106.204, Florida Administrative Code, moved for entry of an order relinquishing jurisdiction back to the Department for entry of a final order of dismissal. The Department asserted that the Division was " without jurisdiction over the matter. Dever did not file a response in opposition. The Division entered an order on August 29, 2011, granting the Department’s Motion to Dismiss, and it relinquished jurisdiction back to the Department. 8. Dever did not file any exceptions or otherwise challenge the order of the Division.
Conclusions This cause came before the State of Florida, Department of Revenue ("Department"), for the purpose of issuing a final order.
Other Judicial Opinions Any party who is adversely affected by this final order has the right to seek judicial review of the order under section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by filing a notice of appeal under Rule 9.190 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Revenue in the Office of the General Counsel, Post Office Box 6668, Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 [FAX (850) 488-7112], AND by filing a copy of the notice of appeal accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the District Court of Appeal, First District or with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date this order is filed with the clerk of the Department. C) NY COPIES FURNISHED : Hon. Diane Cleavinger Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Timothy E. Dennis, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capital, Plaza Level 01 400 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Findings Of Fact The facts in this cause are essentially undisputed. The Pen Haven Company was a Subchapter "S" corporation for federal income tax purposes and therefore incurred no State income tax liability. It was formed in 1960 and retained its Subchapter "S" status thorough 1976 for federal income tax purposes. In December of 1977, the capital stock of Pen Haven Sanitation Company was sold to the Board of County Commissioners of Escambia County. Inasmuch as the sole corporate stock holder then was no longer an individual, but rather a governmental entity, the corporation Subchapter "S" election for federal income tax purposes was terminated. Escambia County did not wish to own stock in a private corporation so it accordingly liquidated Pen Haven and its assets were distributed to the County's direct ownership. Thereafter the Corporation filed a final corporate income tax return for 1977 which reflected capital gains on the assets of the corporation which had been distributed. Some of those assets had tax bases which had been reduced to zero through reduction by depreciation, most of which had been charged off prior to January 1, 1972, the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax code. All of the depreciation deductions had been taken prior to the termination of the Subchapter "S" status of the Pen Haven Company. On disposition of the Pen Haven assets however, a gain was reported equal to the fair market value or salvage value, less the basis. This gain was accordingly reported on Pen Haven's federal income tax return, and on the 1977 Florida corporate income tax return, albeit under the protest as to the Florida tax return. Inasmuch as Pen Haven had previously deducted depreciation since its inception, and had the benefit thereof for federal tax purposes, it was required by the Internal Revenue Service to recapture the depreciation for federal tax purposes upon its sale and the filing of its tax return in 1977. The same recapture of depreciation treatment was required of West Florida Utilities. Thereafter an application was made by the Petitioner corporations for Florida Corporate Income Tax Refunds asserting that they should have not paid taxes on the amount of gains which represented a recapture of depreciation which had been taken as a deduction prior to the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax on January 1, 1972. In effect the Petitioner is contending that the so- called "income" which is the subject of the tax in question was not realized in 1977, but rather merely "recognized" in that year by the federal tax law and that it represented income actually "realized" during the years when the depreciation was taken as a deduction prior to January 1, 1972. The Petitioners contend that "realization" for federal income tax purposes occurs when the taxpayer actually receives an economic gain. "Recognition" on the other hand refers only to that time when the tax itself becomes actually due and payable. The Petitioners maintain that when the tax became due and payable in 1977 that was merely the point of "recognition" of the subject taxable gain and not "realization" in that the gain was actually realized prior to the Florida Jurisdictional date of January 1, 1972, in the form of the economic benefit derived from those depreciation deductions applied to federal tax liability prior to that date. The Petitioners cite SRG Corporation vs. Department of Revenue, 365 So2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), for the proposition that Florida could not tax those gains accruing to the taxpayer prior to Florida's having the constitutional and statutory power to impose a corporate income tax. The Respondent in essence agrees that the question of when the economic benefit to the Petitioners was received by them or was "realized" is the key question in this cause. The Respondent contends, however, that "realization" of a taxable gain occurred when the assets were disposed of by the Petitioners in 1977, well after the date when Florida's power to tax such a gain was enacted. The underlying facts in the case of West Florida Utilities are substantially similar. This corporation, however, was organized in 1962 and has never been clothed with Subchapter "S" corporate status. The only grounds upon which it can therefore claim a refund is its assertion that Florida does not have authority to tax that portion of the capital gains attributable to recapture of depreciation which was originally charged off as a deduction prior to January 1, 1972. The Department of Revenue and the Comptroller of the State of Florida both denied the refund claim made on behalf of the Petitioners, and thereafter they seasonably petitioned for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witness and pleadings and arguments of counsel it is, therefore RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 3rd day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Thurston A. Shell Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32578 Robert A. Pierce, Esquire General Counsel Department of Revenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Basile, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Office of Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wilson Crump, II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32310
