The Issue Whether Petitioner, Bans N. Persaud, should be awarded a passing grade on the "Financial Accounting" part of the Certified Public Accounting examination given on May 7-8, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Bans N. Persaud, took the Certified Public Accountant Exam in May of 1997. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner by Examination Grade Report dated August 4, 1997, that he had earned a score of 75.00 which was a passing grade on three parts of the exam: Audit, Accounting & Reporting, and Law Exam. The report informed him that, "CREDIT ON PASSED PARTS HAS BEEN GRANTED." The report also informed Mr. Persaud that he had failed the Financial Accounting Part of the exam. On that part, he received a score of 62.00 when a minimum passing score was 75. Petitioner, "very certain that [he] passed this examination," filed a letter of appeal with the Department, treated by the Department as request for a formal administrative hearing. During the course of pre-hearing procedures, Mr. Persaud requested that he be allowed to audit the grading of the examination. The Department responded by pointing to Section 455.217(2), Florida Statutes, which states in pertinent part, The board . . . shall make available an examination review procedure for applicants . . . . Unless prohibited or limited by rules implementing security or access guidelines of national examinations, the applicant is entitled to review his examination questions, answers, papers, grades, and grading key . . . and the following language of Rule 61-11.012(6), Florida Administrative Code: In order to preserve the security and integrity of the examination, such candidate shall be permitted to review only the questions and answers missed on the examination. Furthermore, the Department pointed to the following excerpt of Section 119.07(3)(a), a provision of the public records law, Examination questions and answer sheets of examinations administered by a governmental agency for the purpose of licensure, certification, or employment are exempt from the provisions of subsection (1) and s.24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution [provisions which require disclosure of public record]. In light of the response, the ruling was made at hearing that the Department was not required to allow Petitioner to conduct the requested audit. In fact, it was determined that the requested audit was a prohibited act under the force of law through the operation of Rule 61-11.012(6), Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Persaud claimed that without an audit, he would not be able to prove that he had, in fact, passed the examination. The examination was developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, a national organization of certified public accountants whose function it is to develop, prepare and grade the "in-force CPA exam." (Tr. 74). As such, the exam is considered a "national examination," id., developed by a national organization. About such exams, the following is stated in the rules of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Bureau of Testing: If the examination being challenged is an examination developed by or for a national board, council, association or society, (hereinafter referred to as national organization) the Department shall accept the development and grading of such examination without modification. Rule 61-11.012(1), Florida Administrative Code. The examination consisted of six questions, two of which (Questions five and six) were essays. Mr. Persaud received 36 points out of the 60 points available for question one, 2.15 out of five points available for question two, 4.38 out of five available for question three, 3.68 out of five for question four, 8.5 out of ten for question five, and 5.5 out of ten for question six, for a total of 62 points. Mr. Persaud pointed to his background as a person of Indian descent (that is, from the subcontinent of India) who immigrated from Georgetown, Guyana, to the United States where, in 1984, he received U.S. citizenship. Mr. Persaud felt that lack of points on the essay for English composition, grammar and expression were due to prejudice and incorrect because of the excellent state of his English. During the hearing, it was obvious that Mr. Persaud's spoken English, although at times difficult to understand because of pronunciation, is otherwise of high quality. Whatever the state of his written English, however, had he received all points available for the essay questions he still would have failed the Finance and Accounting part of the exam with a score of 68 when a passing score of 75 was necessary. It was therefore incumbent on Mr. Persaud to show more than just that improper grading of English (which he did not show) in the essay portion of the exam led to the failing grade. Mr. Persaud made no attempt to do so. To the contrary, Mr. Persaud did not show that the examination was faulty, or that it was arbitrarily worded, or that the answers to challenged questions were capriciously graded or that he was arbitrarily denied credit through a grading process of the challenged questions devoid of logic or reason. In fact, Mr. Persaud does not appear to have ever identified the questions among those that he missed that were under challenge. He simply insisted that he had passed the exam. Rather than challenge specific questions for which he was not given credit or the grading of the answers to those questions, Mr. Persaud took a different tack. He testified that immediately after passing parts 3 and 4 of the CMA in 1996, he was suddenly bombarded on a daily basis by the noise of planes from the international Airport who were assisted in some way by a Village Inn not far from his house. When he complained to the authorities, they stated that they did not fly anywhere near his house. He complained of other noises and pressures to which he was subject while trying to study and identified them as "[p]lanes at four o'clock," (Tr. 48) and a "12 part air conditioner." Id. He also complained that his computer had been sabotaged and produced documents he had composed where the word "and" appeared in a sentence when his choice, and the more appropriate word, would have been "but." (Tr. 55). After this line of the challenge to the exam had been exhausted at hearing, Mr. Persaud was asked to identify the questions among those he missed that he now challenges as well as any of their answers. Aside from testimony about written English on the Essay questions, Mr. Persaud made no reference to individual questions. He chose to maintain his position that he had passed the test.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's challenge to the grade he received on the Financial Accounting part of the CPA Exam administered in May of 1997. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 16th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Bans N. Persaud 310 Ninety-Second Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Martha Willis, Executive Director Division of Certified Public Accounting Department of Business and Professional Regulation 4001 Northwest 43rd Street, Suite 16 Gainesville, Florida 32606
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent failed to provide workers’ compensation insurance as required by section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2019), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement in section 440.107(3), that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent is a company engaged in the construction industry. James Colligan is its sole employee. Respondent’s office is 637 Four Point Road, Holt, Florida, 32564. On or about October 1, 2019, Sabrina Johnson, a compliance investigator for the Division, observed someone installing vinyl fencing on an existing home located at 101 Pine Court, in Niceville, Florida. She approached and spoke to the lone worker, who identified himself as James Colligan. Ms. Johnson identified herself as a compliance investigator for the Division and asked for proof of workers’ compensation insurance. Mr. Colligan advised her that he had an exemption. Ms. Johnson consulted the Department of State, Division of Corporation’s website to determine the identity of Respondent’s officers, and found that Mr. Colligan was the sole officer. She then consulted Petitioner’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) for proof of workers’ compensation coverage, and for any exemptions associated with Respondent. Ms. Johnson’s research revealed that Respondent did not have a workers’ compensation policy or an employee leasing policy, and did not have a current exemption. Mr. Colligan previously held an exemption, but it expired on July 20, 2018. He had applied for a renewal of the exemption on July 2, 2018, but his application was rejected as incomplete because the FEIN number on the renewal application did not match the one on file. Mr. Colligan was notified by email on July 3, 2018, that his application was being returned to him as incomplete. He acknowledged at hearing that he had provided his email address to the Division, but stated he gets so many emails, he does not always read them. He did not recall ever seeing the email from the Division, and believed that his exemption had been renewed. Mr. Colligan’s testimony was sincere and credible. However, it is his responsibility to make sure that his exemption is up to date, and he did not do so. Upon learning from Ms. Johnson that his exemption had expired, Mr. Colligan immediately applied for and received an exemption. However, the newly acquired exemption is prospective, and does not cover the period of noncompliance. Investigator Johnson consulted with her supervisor, who provided authorization for the issuance of a Stop-Work Order. She issued a Stop-Work Order and personally served it on Mr. Colligan on October 1, 2019. At the same time, she issued and served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Mr. Colligan executed an Agreed Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order, paid the minimum $1,000 fine and, as noted above, submitted a new application for an exemption. The records requested fall into five categories: 1) payroll documents, such as time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earning records, check stubs, and payroll summaries, as well as federal income tax documents and other documents that would provide the amount of remuneration paid or payable to each employee; 2) account documents, including all business check journals and statements, cleared checks for all open and/or closed business accounts, records of check and cash disbursements, cashier’s checks, bank checks, and money orders; 3) disbursement records, meaning all records of each business disbursement including, but not limited to, check and cash disbursements, indicating chronologically the disbursement date, to whom the money was paid, the amount, and the purpose for which the disbursement was made; 4) subcontractor records, identifying the identity of each subcontractor of the employer, the contractual relationship held, and any payments to those subcontractors; and 5) documentation of subcontractor’s workers’ compensation coverage. Respondent worked as a subcontractor, but there was no evidence presented that he hired subcontractors, so records falling into the categories related to subcontractors likely do not exist. Respondent provided copies of bank statements, but these records did not contain earning records, income tax filings, check images, or other sufficient records from which the Division could determine payroll. Lynne Murcia reviewed Respondent’s records in her capacity as a penalty auditor for the Division. She testified credibly that income can be identified through direct wage payments to an employee, bonuses given, income distributions, loans that are not repaid, and the like. The bank statements provided by Respondent were simply insufficient for her to determine which items were reflective of payroll. Therefore, in accordance with section 440.107(7)(e) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028, she determined payroll in this case by imputing payroll for the work classification assigned to the identified work being performed. On October 29, 2019, the Division issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which was served on Respondent on October 30, 2019. The penalty assessed for noncompliance with chapter 440 workers’ compensation requirements was $15,260.56. The penalty calculation is based upon the classification codes listed in the Scopes® Manual, which have been adopted through the rulemaking process through rules 68L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Classification codes are codes assigned to different occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. Ms. Murcia used classification code 6400 for Mr. Colligan. The description for code 6400 is for “specialist contractors engaged in the erection of all types of metal fences, i.e., chain link, woven wire, wrought iron or barbed wire fences.” There is no dispute that Code 6400 was the appropriate classification code for the type of work Respondent performed. Using this classification code, Ms. Murcia used the corresponding approved manual rates for that classification and the period of noncompliance. Ms. Murcia multiplied the average weekly wage by 1.5, in accordance with section 440.107(7)(e). The period of noncompliance in this case ran from the expiration of Mr. Colligan’s exemption (July 21, 2018), to the day that he applied for and received a new exemption (October 1, 2019). The average weekly wage is established by the Department of Economic Opportunity. Because the period of noncompliance involved two different pay rates, Ms. Murcia provided a separate calculation for each calendar year. The imputed gross payroll for July 21, 2018 through December 31, 2018, was $33,013.55, which she divided by 100 and then multiplied by the manual approved rate ($9.73), times two, to reach the amount of penalty to be imposed for that calendar year. A similar calculation was performed for the period from January 1, 2019 through October 1, 2019, using the manual approved rate of $8.01. All of the penalty calculations are in accordance with the Division’s penalty calculation worksheet. The Division proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was engaged in the construction business for the period beginning July 21, 2018, and ending October 1, 2019, without prior workers’ compensation coverage or a valid exemption. The Division also demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the documents submitted by Respondent, which may be all of the documentation that Respondent possessed, were not sufficient to establish Respondent’s payroll, thus requiring the imputation of payroll. Finally, the Division proved by clear and convincing evidence that the required penalty for the period of noncompliance is $15,260.56.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding that Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 440.107 and impose the penalty identified in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, with credit for the $1,000 already paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 19th day of February, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: James Colligan 637 Four Point Road Holt, Florida 32564 Rean Knopke, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Kami Alexis Sidener, Law Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Leon Melnicoff, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondents violated the statutes and rules alleged in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty to be imposed against Respondents.
Findings Of Fact OFR is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing chapter 560, Florida Statutes, including part II related to money services businesses. At all times material hereto, Payservices has been a foreign corporation and part II licensee pursuant to chapter 560, specifically a "money services business," as defined in section 560.102(22), and "money transmitter," as defined in section 560.102(23).4/ At all times material hereto, Mr. Danenberg has been the chief executive officer, compliance officer, and an owner of Payservices. As such, Mr. Danenberg is an "affiliated party" and a "responsible person" as defined in sections 560.103(1) and 560.103(33). Count I Licensees, such as Payservices, are required to annually file a financial audit report within 120 days after the end of the licensee's fiscal year. The financial audit report is prepared by a certified public accountant and is used to demonstrate to OFR that the licensee has the financial health to conduct its business and transmit funds within the State of Florida. Payservices' fiscal year ends December 31st. Respondents were required to provide Payservices' 2016 financial audit report to OFR by no later than May 1, 2017. On December 20, 2017, William C. Morin, Jr., OFR's Chief of the Bureau of Registration, contacted Payservices by email with regard to Payservices' failure to timely file a financial audit report within 120 days after the 2016 fiscal year ended. Mr. Danenberg responded by email that same day, telling Mr. Morin that Payservices' accountant had prepared a financial audit report "many months ago," and that it was his "impression" that it had been uploaded to the REAL system "at some point when we filed the quarterly reports." Mr. Danenberg attached to his December 20, 2017, email what OFR accepted as the financial audit report that same day. Notably, the document indicated it was prepared by a certified public accountant on June 15, 2017, after the May 1, 2017, deadline. In any event, Mr. Morin reviewed the REAL system regarding Payservices and determined there were no problems with the REAL system's ability to accept uploaded documents. Mr. Morin testified that he could see on the REAL system that Payservices successfully uploaded a quarterly report and Security Device Calculation Form on January 26, 2017, which created a transaction number. Mr. Morin also observed that Payservices started to upload its financial audit report, which would create a transaction number, but no financial audit report was actually attached and uploaded to the REAL system on January 26, 2017, under that transaction number. According to Mr. Morin, Payservices may have attempted to start to file a financial audit report on January 26, 2017, but it did not complete the transaction because no financial audit report was attached. At hearing, Mr. Morin acknowledged that: "When I looked at the Financial Audit Report transaction, nothing was attached. And I also know that the functionality of the REAL system will kind of allow for the transaction to be completed and nothing attached." Tr. p. 100. Mr. Morin testified that Mr. Danenberg was cooperative when he was contacted on Decemeber 20, 2017, and submitted the financial audit report. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondents did not submit their financial audit report to OFR until December 20, 2017, almost eight months after the May 1, 2017, deadline. Count II Licensees, such as Payservices, are required to annually file Form OFR-560-07, Security Device Calculation Form, by January 31st of each calendar year for the preceding calendar year. The Security Device Calculation Form requires licensees to report to OFR the dollar amount of transactions with Florida consumers. The dollar amount of transactions identified in the form is then utilized by OFR to determine if additional collateral is necessary to protect Florida consumers in the event a claim is made against the collateral for monies that were not properly transmitted by the licensee. Andrew Grosmaire, OFR's Chief of Enforcement in the Division of Consumer Finance, acknowledged at hearing that a licensee has 60 days to amend the face value of its surety bond, should an increase be required, and that at all times material hereto, the value of Payservices' surety bond has been correct for the minimum amount required. Nevertheless, Mr. Morin testified that Respondents did not file Form OFR-560-07, Security Device Calculation Form, until February 10, 2018, ten days late. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondents did not file Form OFR-560-07, Security Device Calculation Form, until February 10, 2018, ten days late. Count III Licensees, such as Payservices, are required to update information contained in an initial application form, or any amendment to such application, within 30 days after the change is effective. In Payservices' initial application dated September 25, 2015, Respondents identified Corporate Access, Inc., as its registered agent with an address for service of process at 236 East 6th Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32303. According to the Department of State, Division of Corporation's records, on January 10, 2017, Mr. Danenberg was appointed as Payservices' registered agent with a new address for service of process at 300 West Palmetto Park Road, A210, Boca Raton, Florida 33432. Respondents filed an amended license application with OFR on August 28, 2017, which still listed Corporate Access, Inc., as the registered agent for service of process. On February 26, 2018, Respondents amended their registered agent information with the Department of State listing a new address for Mr. Danenberg at 14061 Pacific Pointe Place, No. 204, Delray Beach, Florida 33484. Mr. Morin testified that at no time have Respondents updated their initial application with OFR to reflect Mr. Danenberg as the registered agent for Payservices and his address as the registered agent.5/ Mr. Morin and Mr. Grosmaire testified that the reason a licensee needs to update a change in the registered agent's name and address is so that OFR may effectuate service of process against the licensee. Yet, Mr. Grosmaire acknowledged that OFR has access to the Division of Corporation's records. Nevertheless, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondents did not update their initial application with OFR to reflect Mr. Danenberg as the registered agent for Payservices and his address as the registered agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that OFR impose an administrative fine against Respondents in the amount of $6,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 16th day of December, 2019.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent should assess tax, interest, and penalty on gross sales that Petitioner reported in Petitioner's federal income tax returns, but not in Petitioner's state sales tax returns; and on gross sales of services in transactions that also involved sales of tangible personal property.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a Florida corporation from May 1, 1995, through April 30, 2000 (the audit period). Petitioner maintained its principal place of business at 153 East Morse Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida 32789, and engaged in the business of providing services for interior design and decorating and selling tangible personal property used in the design and decoration of properties. On October 10, 2004, the Department of State, Division of Corporations, administratively dissolved Petitioner for failure to file Petitioner's annual report. Petitioner's federal employer identification number during the audit period was 59-2706005. Petitioner reported income and deductions for purposes of the federal income tax using the cash method of accounting. During the audit period, Petitioner was a registered dealer and filed a monthly Sales and Use Tax Return (DR-15) with Respondent. On June 2, 2000, Respondent sent Petitioner a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records (Form DR-840) bearing audit number A9933414838. Respondent and Petitioner agreed that a sampling method would be the most effective, expedient, and adequate method in which to audit Petitioner's books and records. Respondent examined and sampled the available books and records to determine whether Petitioner properly collected and remitted sales and use tax in compliance with Chapter 212, Florida Statutes (1993). For 1996, 1997, and 1999, Petitioner reported fewer gross sales on the DR-15s used for the purpose of the state sales tax than Petitioner reported on its Form 1120S federal income tax return. Respondent determined that the difference between gross sales reported for purposes of the state and federal taxes constituted unreported sales on which Respondent was statutorily required to assess sales tax, penalty, and interest. Respondent's auditor divided the yearly differences in the amounts reported on the Form 1120S and the DR-15s to determine a monthly difference for each month from 1996 through 1997. The auditor then scheduled the monthly difference and assessed the tax appropriately. The auditor also assessed tax for the value of design services that Petitioner provided to customers when Petitioner sold the customers design services and tangible personal property as a part of the same transaction. Pursuant to an agreement between Petitioner and Respondent's auditor, the sample included the entire year in 1999. Petitioner collected sales tax on all sales of tangible personal property, but did not collect sales tax on fees charged for decorator and design services provided in the same transactions. Respondent is authorized by rule to assess sales tax on the value of services provided in the same transaction in which Petitioner sold tangible personal property. The auditor correctly divided the total taxable design fees invoiced for 1999 by the total invoiced amount per sales by customer detail. The resulting quotient of .0752 percent was the applicable percentage of the design fees that were taxable in 1999. The auditor multiplied the applicable percentage by the gross sales that Petitioner reported on its federal tax returns for 1997, 1998, and 1999 to determine the total amount of design fees that were taxable. The auditor then properly scheduled and assessed the taxable interior design fees. On May 1, 2001, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (form DR-1215). The Notice provided that Petitioner owed $77,249.72 in taxes; $38,625.02 in penalties; and $29,471.12 in interest, for a total deficiency of $145,345.86. Interest continued to accrue on the unpaid assessment. On August 15, 2001, Respondent issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment. The Notice provided that Petitioner owed: $77,249.72 in taxes; $38,625.02 in penalties; and $32,145.15 in interest, for a total of $148,019.89 through August 15, 2001.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order assessing Petitioner for $148,019.89 in tax, penalty, and interest, plus the amount of interest that accrues from August 15, 2001, through the date of payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Scott Carter Carter Wolf Interiors, Inc. 153 East Morse Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32789-7400 J. Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 W. Scott Carter 1700 Briercliff Drive Orlando, Florida 32806-2408 James O. Jett, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is liable for the sales and use tax assessment issued by Respondent on February 21, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this proceeding, Respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), has issued a proposed sales and use tax assessment in the amount of $24,546.54, plus $6,640.12 in penalties, plus interest from the date of the assessment, against Petitioner, Florida Truck Dock Company (Petitioner or taxpayer). As of March 20, 1997, the assessment totaled $55,195.27, and it continues to increase by $8.07 each day. The assessment constitutes taxes, penalties, and interest allegedly due from Petitioner for various materials and supplies purchased by Petitioner for use in the performance of real property contracts for Petitioner's customers. In its response to the assessment, Petitioner denied that it owed the money. Petitioner's business activities consisted primarily of purchasing truck loading dock equipment from suppliers, principally Kelly Company, Inc. (Kelly), and then installing such equipment as an improvement to real estate. Its records indicate that purchased equipment was generally brought into Florida and installed in real property in the state under a contract whereby parts and labor were furnished for one lump sum contract price. The foregoing contracts were Class A or lump sum contracts within the meaning of Rule 12A-1.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Class A contracts are considered contracts for the improvement of real estate, not contracts for the resale of tangible personal property. In addition, when the equipment was purchased, Petitioner had not issued resale certificates to its vendors. Under these circumstances, Petitioner was properly treated as an end-user of the equipment in question and owed use taxes on all such purchases of tangible personal property. This controversy began on March 30, 1992, when DOR issued a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records of the taxpayer in conjunction with a routine audit. The notice requested that Petitioner make available various corporate records pertaining to its sales and use tax and intangible tax liability. However, only the sales and use tax is in issue here. DOR later advised the taxpayer that the audit period would run from March 1, 1987, through February 29, 1992, and that instead of a detailed audit, only a three-month sampling of the full audit period would be necessary. An initial audit revealed that Petitioner was entitled to a refund. None was given, however, because of information supplied by an employee of the taxpayer regarding the possible destruction and alteration of certain records by the taxpayer, and the auditor's conclusion that a three-month sampling of the records was not representative for the full five-year audit period. In addition, the auditor concluded that the results of the sample period were not reasonable. For these reasons, the scope of the audit was expanded. The auditor then requested, among other things, that copies of all sales (summary) journals for the entire five-year period be produced. Although Petitioner has always contended that these journals were merely "commission" journals for transactions between its vendors and customers, the auditor's finding that they are records of cash transactions is consistent with the language on the face of the journals, referring to "deposits" and "total deposits." Further, a comparison of the journals with Petitioner's own bank statements confirms this finding. At least twelve months of the records were missing, and the taxpayer agreed to recreate the missing records. Once a copy of all journals (both original and recreated) was produced, the auditor tested their validity and then made various audit adjustments, which are reflected on Schedule A-2 of Exhibit 5. In those instances where inadequate cost price information concerning equipment purchases was provided by the taxpayer, the auditor properly used estimates in making his adjustments. The tax liability for each taxable transaction was recorded by the taxpayer under Account 367 on the sales journals. The auditor then examined the source documents (original invoices) to verify the accuracy of the recorded amounts. These numbers were then compared with the taxes paid by the taxpayer on its monthly tax returns filed with DOR. This comparison produced a deficiency which represents approximately 75 percent of the total assessment. However, in those instances where Petitioner collected sales tax from its customers, and remitted the same to DOR, Petitioner was not assessed with a tax for those same items. A sampling of the audit period established that Petitioner also had a number of lump-sum contracts with various governmental customers on which it neither paid taxes to the vendor when the equipment was purchased, nor did it collect taxes from the end-user when the equipment was resold. Thus, it was responsible for the use taxes on these transactions. The deficiency is detailed on Schedule B-3 of the final audit report (Exhibit 6), and it accounts for approximately 14 percent of the total assessment. The remaining part of the assessment is related to four miscellaneous transactions which are unrelated to the sales journals. Two of the transactions occurred during the short period of time when the service tax was in effect in 1987, while the remaining two relate to small purchases of equipment and supplies by the taxpayer for its own consumption. There was no evidence that the taxpayer paid the taxes due on these transactions. DOR met with the taxpayer, its accountant, and its original counsel on various occasions in an effort to obtain more documentation favorable to the taxpayer's position. In most cases, the taxpayer refused to provide more records. At one meeting, however, the taxpayer produced additional source documents (invoices) that appeared to be altered from the original invoices previously given to the auditor. These are shown in Exhibit 7 received in evidence. When asked by the auditor for copies of the same invoices sent to customers so that the discrepancy could be resolved, the taxpayer refused to comply with this request. During the audit process, the taxpayer contended that its primary supplier, Kelly, had already paid taxes on a number of the transactions. No documentation was produced, however, to support this contention. It also complained that there was bias on the part of DOR's auditor. As to this contention, the record shows that the auditor had no relationship with the taxpayer prior to this audit, and for the intangible personal property tax, the auditor's field work actually resulted in a refund for Petitioner. Finally, the taxpayer contended that rather than using the originally supplied records, the auditor should have used Petitioner's recreated or altered records in making the audit adjustments. This latter contention has been rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining its original assessment against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Jeffrey M. Dikman, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Benjamin K. Phipps, Esquire Post Office Box 1351 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 L. H. Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following factual findings. Respondent, at times material hereto, was actively licensed to practice public accounting in the State of Florida, such license issued by the Petitioner, Board of Accountancy, Department of Professional Regulation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Respondent has been issued license number AC 5470. After becoming licensed as a certified public accountant, Respondent met Ronald Demon, another CPA, while both were employed with a national "Big 8" public accounting firm in Miami--Pete, Marwick and Mitchell. Thereafter, they became social friends and worked for each other at various times performing per diem work for each other. (TR 165, 167) Respondent's first contact with the Housing Authority for the City of Dania was in 1981 when he performed the two-year audit for the Authority on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), thereafter becoming the fee accountant for that Authority on a monthly retainer. For the succeeding two years as fee accountant, Respondent provided the Authority's monthly accounting information, posting to the general ledger, cash disbursements, bank reconciliations and filing the required reports to HUD. Respondent had limited involvement with classifying bank checks for purposes of posting to the general ledger. In 1983, another two-year audit of the Dania Housing Authority was required to be performed and Respondent submitted a proposal to the Housing Authority to perform same. That proposal was rejected by HUD on the basis of contract and rule provisions that the contracting CPA not have provided accounting or bookkeeping services for the Housing Authority during the period covered by the audit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pages 8, 10) Upon HUD' s rejection of his engagement proposal on behalf of the Housing Authority, Respondent contacted another CPA, Bernard Koon, seeking his submission of an engagement proposal to HUD. Koon's proposal was rejected by HUD based upon the high price quoted for his audit services. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pages 8-11) Koon and Respondent had agreed to an arrangement whereby Koon would sign the accountant's report and financial statements of the audit in question, after performance of the work by Respondent and his staff for an agreed fee of $1000. (TR 60; Petitioner's Exhibit 2, pages 11-12) When Koon's engagement proposal was rejected, Respondent contacted Ronald Demon concerning the audit engagement for the Dania Housing Authority. Ronald Demon was then working as a full-time accountant with the City of Miami. At the time, Demon was performing 4 other audit engagements other than his full- time position with the City of Miami, a practice which appears to be fairly common among accountants. Demon was asked by Respondent to contact the Executive Director of the Housing Authority, Frank W. Peterman. Respondent also related to Demon his availability to assist him (Demon) in performing the audit engagement, if Demon needed, which offer was based upon the fact that Respondent knew that Demon was working in a full-time employment relationship. Respondent told Demon that the contract amount would be approximately $4500 which was $500 less than the amount Respondent had proposed, and which proposal had been rejected by HUD. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pages 7, 10-15) Respondent advised Demon that to earn a stated portion of that fee, $500 of the $4500, he would merely have to sign the audit report. Respondent would be in charge of conducting all field work, preparation of the audit report and all other related work with Demon having no day to day involvement concerning preparation of the accountant's report and related financial statements. After Demon contacted the Authority's Executive Director, Respondent prepared for his (Demon's) signature, the engagement proposal which was signed in the parking lot of a Denny's Restaurant at 36th Street and Biscayne Boulevard in North Miami and Respondent later either mailed or hand-delivered the engagement proposal to the Housing Authority offices. Respondent admits that he informed the Executive Director of the Authority of Demon's availability, the fact that he was a CPA and that he was black. Unknown to Respondent, Demon was an inactive licensee at that time. Shortly after Demon's contract proposal was submitted to the Authority, it was awarded to him and, at that time, Demon and Respondent had reached an agreement wherein, as stated earlier, the field work in preparation of the audit report and related finances would be prepared by Respondent and his staff for subsequent signature by Demon. Respondent characterized their agreement as one whereby he was the "orchestrator" of the engagement for financial review and approval of the reports by Demon. (TR 170; Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pages 22-24) Respondent's accounting firm employed two accountants, who were not CPAs, to perform the field work for the subject audit report. Respondent's involvement consisted initially of planning the audit with the staffers and providing them a copy of HUD's Audit Guide. These employees of Respondent were not known by Demon nor did he (Demon) engage in any of the initial planning of the field work; provided no written instructions, audit programming or scheduling of the work plans for completion of the field work. Respondent's supervision of his staff for the subject audit was limited, consisting primarily of being available to answer specific questions they had, a visit to the job site and performed the initial review of work papers that were generated by the staff. After his initial review of the work papers, Respondent submitted the work papers and a draft of the financial statements and accountant report to Demon for his approval and signature. After at least a two-week period, Respondent contacted Demon to ask if there were any problems with his submittal to him whereupon Demon signed and returned the papers to Miller with only grammatical changes in the management letter which accompanied the report and finances, and the submittal was typed in final form on Demon's letterhead by Respondent's office staff. Respondent was unaware that Demon did not review the accountant's report or related financial statements. Demon considered that his agreement for the fee with Miller did not entail that duty and he relied upon Respondent's prior knowledge and experience, supervision and review of the work performed to correct any problems with the report. Upon submission of the audit report to HUD, a check was sent payable to Ronald Demon for $2250 or half of the $4500 engagement fee, with the remainder of the fee to be remitted when the audit report was approved by the client. That fee was first obtained by Miller who called Demon and arranged to meet him at Respondent's bank for negotiation of the check. Respondent had already stamped the check payable to Demon with his deposit stamp and Demon signed above the stamp and Respondent thereafter deposited that check into his (Respondent's) account. Respondent then gave Demon a check for $250 which represented half of the agreed fee. (Deposition testimony of Ronald Demon) HUD rejected the audit report signed by Demon and engaged the services of a public accounting firm--Deloitte, Haskins and Sells to perform another audit. Upon rejection of the audit report, but prior to the employment of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, Respondent, Demon and Executive Director Peterman met to confer on the matter to seek a resolution of the situation. Neither Respondent nor Demon corrected the deficiency cited in the HUD report requiring HUD to employ another public accounting firm to complete the audit. Respondent did not return to HUD the monies received by him. Demon remitted to HUD all the monies paid to either him or Respondent. (TR 49, 51) Marlyn Felsing, CPA, was received as an expert in these proceedings in the areas of public accounting with specific emphasis on audited financial statements and related accountant's reports and work papers. Felsing has had extensive experience in auditing and has been engaged on behalf of the Petitioner and others in numerous peer reviews of accounting firms. Without regard to the arrangement between Respondent and Demon, both individuals, as certified public accountants, are responsible for practicing public accounting in accordance with generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting. Respondent was required to comply with generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted accounting standards in preparation of the audit report for Dania Housing Authority. Rules 21A-20.07; 20.08 and 21A-21.02 and 21A-21.03, Florida Administrative Code. (TR 88, 92, and 94) As an assistant to the auditor (Demon), Respondent, as required by the standards on auditing services, was responsible for the work performed. Respondent acknowledged his accountability under published standards and generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting practice. (TR 204- 206) Felsing completed an investigative report and analysis of the field audit conducted by Respondent's staff and noted specific departures from generally accepted accounting principles and auditing standards and generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting practice within the questioned audit report. They are, in summary, as follows: Violation of the "independence" requirements; Failure to exercise professional care respecting his review of staff work; Failure to adequately plan and assist staff in completion of field work and the supervision thereof; Failure to maintain safety of the work papers (the work papers have disappeared); Failure to refer to prior years' audit reports demonstrating a lack of consistency; and Failure to delineate footnote disclosures, improper labeling of financial statements, failure to disclose conflicts between the re- quirements of the HUD Audit Guide and generally accepted and prevailing standards of account- ing practice including the published generally accepted accounting principles and auditing standards. Felsing found it especially troublesome and a violation of the HUD requirements on independence based on Respondent's conduct based on his engagement with Demon in performing the auditing services in violation of generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting and auditing practice. Rule 21A-22.01, Florida Administrative Code. Finally, Felsing noted that the deficiencies and departures from generally accepted and prevailing standards were not simply matters of professional judgment but were deficiencies which were objective and clear-cut in nature. (TR 143, 147, 148, 154, 156, and 158) Respondent's major contention was that his level of responsibility was limited inasmuch as Demon, as signatory of the audit report, owed a greater duty and responsibility for the statements and the report in question. As found herein, and as pointed out by Mr. Felsing, as licensees sharing in the performance of the accounting engagement, both were liable for the deficiencies found in the statement and the audit report for the Dania Housing Authority.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent's licensure as a certified public accountant be suspended for a period of six (6) months, with reinstatement under such probationary terms and conditions as shall be established by the Board of Accountancy, including continuing professional education in the areas of accounting and auditing in monitoring of his professional practice under such terms and conditions as shall be established by the Board. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 July, 1985.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Chapter 473 and rules promulgated thereunder as set forth in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Order. His license should be suspended for one year with probation thereafter for a period of two years. He should also be required to take such additional continuing education courses as the Board deems appropriate. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Edward J. Tooze holds certificate number R-0434 as a certified public accountant in the State of Florida. Tooze's certificate is currently under suspension pursuant to order of the State Board of Accountancy entered under to authority of Section 473.111(5), Florida Statutes. Tooze, although under suspension, is subject to the authority of the Florida State Board of Accountancy for violations of Chapter 473 and the rules contained in Chapter 21A, Florida Administrative Code. Tooze undertook to provide an audited and an unaudited financial statement for Gull-Aire Corporation on September 30, 1976. Said audited and unaudited financial statements were received into evidence as Composite Exhibit #1. Financial statements are representations made by management, and the fairness of a representation of unaudited statements is solely the responsibility of management. See Section 516.01 of Statements on Auditing Standards, No. 1, (hereinafter referred to as SAS) The auditor's report dated October 4, 1976, prepared by Tooze, states as follows: In accordance with your instructions, we submit herewith the balance sheet of Gull-Aire Corporation as of September 30, 1976. This statement was prepared without audit, and accordingly we do not express an opinion thereon. Each page of the unaudited statement bears the language, "Prepared without audit from books of account and information provided by management." Paragraph 516.04 of SAS provides an example of a disclaimer of opinion as follows: The accompanying balance of x company as of December 31, l9XX, and the related statements of income and retained earnings and changes in financial position for the year then ended were not audited by us and accordingly we do not express an opinion on them. (Signature and date) The form of the disclaimer used by Tooze in the financial statement of Gull-Aire quoted in Paragraph 6 is not identical to the example given in Section 516.04, SAS, No. 1. However, Tooze's statement does reflect that the financial statement was not audited and that Tooze did not express any opinion on it. The notes to the audited financial statement of Gull-Aire Corporation do not include a summary of significant accounting policies used by Tooze in the preparation of the financial statement. While only a balance sheet is shown in both of the Gull-Aire financial statements, retained earnings were reported which were the result of the sale of a parcel of real property. No notes were made on either of the reports explaining this sale, and its treatment, although this was a major business transaction and source of income to the corporation for the period covered. Tooze did not disclose the treatment of income taxes in both the financial statements of Gull-Aire, particularly the tax treatment of the retained earnings in the amount of $45,499.64 from the sale of the real property. Although Tooze issued two financial statements for Gull-Aire Corporation as of September 30, 1976, one audited and one unaudited, he did not state on the second financial statement the reason for its preparation and explain the accounting decisions which resulted in the change of various entries on the second statement. Tooze stated to the Board's investigator that he did not obtain a representation letter from the management of Gull-Aire Corporation. Tooze further stated that he did not prepare a written audit program nor obtain and report what internal controls existed within Gull-Aire Corporation. Tooze also prepared a financial report dated April 30, 1977, for Jack Carlson Company, Inc., which was received into evidence as Exhibit 2. The disclaimer prepared by Tooze in the Jack Carlson financial statement contained in the letter to the Board of Directors of the company dated September 15, 1977, stated as follows: We submit herewith our report on the examination of the books and records of Jack Carlson Company, Inc., for the fiscal year ended April 30, 1977, and the following exhibits: (delete) The terms of our engagement did not include those standard auditing procedures instant to the rendition of an opinion by an independent Certified Public Accountant. The limited scope of our examination precludes our expression of an opinion as to the fairness of the over-all representations herein. The attached statements were made the basis for the preparation of the U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return for the fiscal year ended April 30, 1977. Essentially the same statement is contained in the statements for Albeni Corporation and Georgetown Mobile Manor, Inc. No statement of changes in financial position was contained in the financial statement prepared for Jack Carlson Company, Inc. Section 516.08, SAS, No. 1 provides in pertinent part as follows: When financial statement's are issued proporting to present fairly financial position, changes in financial position, the results of operations in accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures, a description of all significant accounting policies of the reporting entity should be reported as an integral part of the financial statement. (Emphasis supplied) Tooze prepared financial statements for Albeni Corporation which were received as Exhibit #3, and financial statements for Georgetown Mobile Manor, Inc., which were received as Exhibit #4. The financial statements of Carlson, Georgetown and Albeni were all unaudited. Tooze did not provide an explanation or note to the financial statements describing significant accounting policies which he applied in preparing the statements. In the financial statement of Albeni Corporation, Tooze indicated that "these interim financial statements are intended primarily for internal management use." The fixed assets in the financial statement of Georgetown Mobile Manor, Inc., constitute $301,642 out of $345,000 of the company's assets. Depreciation and accumulated depreciation are reported as $103,641. The method of computing depreciation was not indicated on the financial statement. In the unaudited financial statements prepared for Carlson and Albeni, the basis of stating inventories and the methods used to determine inventory costs were not disclosed, although inventories constitute a significant percentage of both companys' assets.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Bearing Officer recommends that the Board of Accountancy take no action on the violation of Rule 21A-4.02, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 473.251, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director State Board of Accountancy Post Office Box 13475 Gainesville, Florida 32604 Samuel Hankin, Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Mr. Edward J. Tooze 464 Patricia Avenue Dunedin, Florida 33528
The Issue Is the purchase or use of tangible personal property by a contractor who purchases material and supplies for use in performing non-public works contracts taxable under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and Rule 12A-1.051, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. Petitioner is a Florida Corporation having its principal place of business located at 560 Highway 27 North, Sebring, Florida 33820, and is subject to the taxes imposed under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. The Department is the agency authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 213.05, Florida Statutes. The Department is authorized to prescribe the records to be kept by all persons subject to taxes under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Such persons have a duty to keep and preserve their records, and the records shall be open to examination by the Department or its authorized agents at all reasonable hours pursuant to Section 212.12(6), Florida Statutes. The Department is authorized to conduct audits of taxpayers and to request information to ascertain their tax liability, if any, pursuant to Section 213.34, Florida Statutes. The Department conducted an audit of Petitioner to determine if Petitioner was properly collecting and remitting sales and use tax to the Department. The audit covers the period from November 1, 1992, through October 31, 1997. Petitioner is a retail carpet store, selling carpet and other flooring material, both installed and non-installed, in Sebring, Florida, and the surrounding areas. An invoice is prepared for each sales transaction. Petitioner rents the building in which its business is conducted and where Petitioner’s inventory and supplies are stored. Petitioner pays rent monthly. During the audit period, tax was neither paid nor collected on the rent payments. Petitioner purchases carpet samples from out-of-state vendors for use in its business. During the audit period, sales tax was not paid on all purchases. Petitioner collected tax on the price of the carpet or other flooring materials, as reflected on the invoice, where the customer was a taxpaying entity and collected tax on the total price on the invoice when the invoice specified installation. Petitioner did not collect tax on the price of the carpet or other flooring material, as reflected on the invoice, for tax-exempt entities, whether the invoice reflected the carpet or other flooring material as installed or non-installed. On May 18, 1998, a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes was presented to Petitioner. Additional sales and use tax and infrastructure surtax were determined to be due for the following taxable events: (a) rental expenses; (b) taxable purchases of samples; and, (c) sales to tax-exempt entities where the sale of carpet or other flooring materials included installation to real property. On May 18, 1998, Petitioner paid the additional tax assessed for taxable rental expenses and taxable purchases of samples and has been given credit for such payment. Petitioner protests the tax assessed on the cost price of carpeting used where the customer was a tax-exempt entity and the sales price included installation. On July 16, 1998, the Department sent to Petitioner its Notice of Proposed Assessment showing that Petitioner owed additional sales and use tax and infrastructure surtax in the amount of $13,569.15 and $2,188.01, respectively. Added to the tax owed by Petitioner were penalties in the amount of $6,730.78 and $1,085.02, respectively, and interest through July 16, 1998, in the amount of $4,627.66 and $736.95, respectively. The total assessment was $24,927.59 and $4,009.98, respectively. Credits in the amount of $8,233.87 and $1,372.30 respectively, have been applied against the taxes assessed and reflect the payments made by Petitioner on May 18, 1998. The amount of taxable rental expenses reported on the audit work paper Schedule B010 is consistent with Petitioner’s monthly reports. The amount of taxable sample expenses reported on the audit work paper Schedule B020 is consistent with Petitioner’s monthly reports. 18 The amount of exempt sales reported on the audit work paper Schedule B030 is consistent with Petitioner’s monthly reports. Petitioner timely filed a written protest of the Department’s proposed assessment. On October 25, 1998, the Department issued its Notice of Decision as to the protest of Petitioner. The proposed assessment was sustained by the Department. All invoices in the Department’s Composite Exhibit numbered 2, with the exception of invoices numbered 68, 197, 262, 432, 481, 482, 497, and 498, which are related to transactions that do not involve real property, are records of contracts between Petitioner and the tax-exempt entity to furnish and install wall-to-wall carpet or other flooring materials on real property. There is no retained title provision in any of these contracts. With the exception of invoices numbered 68, 197, 262, 432, 481, 482, 497, and 498, the invoices contained in the Department’s Composite Exhibit numbered 2 reflect an improvement being made to real property. Each of the invoices in the Department’s Composite Exhibit numbered 2 corresponds to a specific entry in Schedule B030 of the audit work papers and which is included under Tab 7a, pages 19 through 32, of the Department’s Composite Exhibit numbered 1. When Petitioner installed, or subcontracted the installation of carpet, the carpet was affixed to the floor by glue, nails, or other means and became the finished floor. Although tack strips, glue, nails, seaming tape, and other items were not listed on the invoice, these items are commonly used in the industry to complete performance of contracts such as those involved in this proceeding. In providing for the installation of carpet or other flooring materials involved in this proceeding, Petitioner engaged subcontractors and paid the subcontractor by the square yard. The square yard price included all materials and labor. With some exceptions, such as metal strips, materials used in the installation of the carpet or other flooring materials were not reflected on the invoices. Since there was no itemization of parts and labor, the invoices contained in the Department’s Composite Exhibit numbered 2, with the exception of invoices numbered 68, 197, 262, 432, 481, 482, 497, and 498, are lump-sum contracts. During his testimony at the hearing, John T. Griffin described Petitioner’s invoices as lump-sum contracts. Petitioner argued that the Department had failed to provide the proper information and training concerning the Department’s position on the imposition of the tax. However, based on the testimony of the Department’s witnesses concerning this matter it appears that sufficient information and sufficient training concerning the Department’s position on the imposition of the tax was readily available to Petitioner or its employees. The noncompliance by Petitioner with the applicable sales and use tax rules was not due to willful negligence, willful neglect, or fraud. It is the recommendation of the Department’s employees that the penalty assessed in this matter be waived. As of January 18, 2000, the total sales and use tax, penalty, and interest was $17,658.80. The local governmental infrastructure total surtax, penalty, and interest was $2,786.58. These totals do not reflect a downward adjustment for the taxes, penalty, and interest assessed against invoices numbered 68, 197, 262, 432, 481, 482, 497, and 498. For these invoices, the adjustment for taxes assessed, penalty, and interest shall be calculated from the date of each specific invoice and Petitioner given credit for any taxes, penalty, or interest charged against it for invoices numbered 68, 197, 262, 432, 481, 482, 497, and 498. The interest that has been assessed for the taxes that were not paid on the rent of the building or the carpet samples is appropriate. Petitioner does not disagree with this interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order upholding its assessments dated October 25, 1998, of sales and use tax, the local infrastructure surtax, plus applicable interest against Griffin Carpet Mart, Inc., with credit being provided for any payments made and for the assessments related to invoices numbered 68, 197, 262, 432, 481, 482, 497, and 498. It is further recommended after considering all the circumstances surrounding this case, that all penalties be waived. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. McCollum, Esquire Law Offices of James F. McCollum, P.A. 129 South Commerce Avenue Sebring, Florida 33870-3698 John Mika, Esquire Nicholas Bykosky, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
