The Issue Whether the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License dated April 14, 1988, filed by Ocie C. Allen, Jr., should be approved by the Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Ocie C. Allen, Jr., d/b/a OCA, filed an Application for Alcoholic Beverage License dated April 14, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with the Division. In the Application, Mr. Allen indicated under "Type of Application" that the Application type was "Other - ownership change because of contract." Mr. Allen listed himself as the "Applicant" and signed the Application as the "Applicant." The "Current License Number" listed in the Application to be transferred to Mr. Allen is 15-1924, current series 3 PS. The holder of the license was Thomas Tripp. At the end of the Application there is an "Affidavit of Seller(s)" to be executed by the licensee from whom the license is to be transferred. This affidavit has not been completed in the Application. The purchase price for the business was listed as $86,250.00. In a letter dated April 22, 1988, the Director of the Division requested the following additional information from Mr. Allen: Affidavit of seller must be signed by Thomas Tripp and notarized. Documentation as to the source of funds invested must accompany this application. The transfer fee on quota license is assessed on the average annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the three (3) years immediately proceeding transfer and is levied at the rate of four (4) mills, and in no event exceeds $5,000. The parties may elect to pay the $5,000 transfer fee or submit documents (usually sales tax records), which will establish gross sales in order to compute the transfer fee. By letter dated May 2, 1988, Mr. Allen responded as follows to the Division's request for information: Mr. Tripp has signed the Independent Contractor Agreement which is the affidavit of seller. Source of funds comes from Mr. Tripp as per the Independent Contractor Agreement. The sales tax receipts will be submitted upon approval pending payment of transfer fee. The Division notified Mr. Allen that it intended to deny the Application in a letter dated May 9, 1988. Mr. Allen was provided a Notice of Disapproval of the Application in a letter dated June 29, 1988. The following reasons were given for denial of the Application: Application to transfer the license does not bear the signature of the current licensee and, therefore does not evidence a bonafide [sic] sale of the business pursuant to [Section] 561.32, Florida Statutes. Application incomplete as applicant has failed to provide complete verification of his financial investment. Also, applicant has failed to provide records establishing the annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the three years immediately preceding the date of the request for transfer. The Division is, therefore, unable to fully investigate the application pursuant to Florida law. By letter dated July 19, 1988, Mr. Allen requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the Division's denial of the Application. Mr. Allen sent a letter to the Division dated October 27, 1988, with an Affidavit requesting permission to pay a transfer fee of $5,000.00 "in lieu of the 4-mill assessment."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing the case with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of January, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Ocie C. Allen, Jr. Post Office Box 10616 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lt. B. A. Watts, Supervisor Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 345 S. Magnolia Drive, Suite C-12 Tallahassee., Florida 32301 Harry Hooper Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927
The Issue Should Respondent’s license to sell alcoholic beverages be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent El-Bireh, Inc., held license number 63-02202, ZAPS, authorizing Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of Sam’s Big Apple Number 2, located at 110 Manor Drive, Bartow, Polk County, Florida. Zahieh Awad Awadallah is the sole corporate officer and sole shareholder of El-Bireh, Inc. On January 18, 1997, as a result of a complaint from the City of Bartow, the Department initiated an investigation of Respondent’s premises located at 110 Manor Drive, Bartow, Polk County, Florida, for the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under 21 years of age. On January 18, 1997, Special Agent Greenlee, along with another Department Special Agent, and Gabriel Shuler, went to Respondent’s licensed premises to investigate the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under 21 years of age. Gabriel Shuler was born on January 7, 1978, and on January 18, 1997, was 19 years of age. At times pertinent to this proceeding, Shuler was 6 feet 6 inches tall and weighed 270 pounds. Shuler had a valid State of Florida driver’s license in his possession on January 18, 1997. The driver’s license carried Shuler’s correct age, height, and weight. The Department’s special agents present at Respondent’s licensed premises on January 18, 1997, instructed Shuler to enter the premises and attempt to purchase an alcoholic beverage. Shuler was also instructed to produce his driver’s license for identification, if requested, and not to attempt to deceive the clerk as to his correct age. Shuler entered the licensed premises and selected a 16-ounce can of “Budweiser” beer from the cooler inside the premises. Shuler purchased this 16 ounce can of “Budweiser” beer from a person later identified as Zahieh Awad Awadallah, the sole shareholder of Respondent. Sahieh Awad Awadallah did not ask Shuler for any identification or ask Shuler if he was 21 years of age. The 16 ounce of “Budweiser” beer purchased by Shuler from Respondent was in a container labeled “beer” and contained “beer,” an alcoholic beverage. The Respondent has not denied that Shuler purchased the beer. Special Agent Greenlee entered the licensed premises after Shuler and witnessed the sale of the beer to Shuler by Respondent. After purchasing this beer, Shuler exited the premises. Upon Shuler’s exiting the premises, the Department’s Special Agent took custody of the beer. Respondent was subsequently advised of the violations by Special Agent Greenlee and was issued a Notice to Appear by Special Agent Greenlee. There is sufficient evidence to show that Sahieh Awad Awadallah, the sole shareholder of El-Bireh, Inc., d/b/a Sam’s Big Apple Number 2, sold a 16-ounce can of “Budweiser” beer, an alcoholic beverage, to Gabriel Shuler, a person under the age of 21 years, without asking Shuler his age or requesting Shuler to produce identification showing his age to be 21 years. There are no mitigating circumstances which would support a reduction of the standard penalty imposed for the violation alleged in the Administrative Action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and having reviewed the penalty guidelines set forth in Rule 61A-2.022, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and for this violation that the Department issue an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 against Respondent and that Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license number 63-02202, ZAPS, be suspended for a period of 7 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1997, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin, Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Brandon Rafool, Esquire Post Office Box 7286 Winter Haven, Florida 33883 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact By check dated September 17, 1974 Willie Calhoun attempted to pay the 1974-75 beverage license fee for Blount's Place and the check was returned to the Division stamped "Closed". The witness for the Division testified that the check was returned marked "NSF". Willie Calhoun is the son of Annie Lee and with his mother, owns the "6129 Corporation" known as King the Tailor. This is their primary business and the accounts from Blount's Place are co-mingled with those funds. This business is located in a section of Miami which has been the locale of numerous racial incidents and the proprietors were unable to obtain fire insurance. A fire occurred at this store in 1973 which burned the assets and records. The IRS audited the corporation and levied against the owners. When the check for the 1974-75 beverage license was written there was sufficient funds in Willie Calhoun's account to honor the check; however, before it was presented for payment the IRS had garnished the account. During the period between 1972 and December 2, 1975 Willie Calhoun and his mother paid the IRS some $42,000 in taxes and penalties. They now have returned to a solvent status and their beverage license payments are current.
The Issue The issue in Case no. 92-4204 is whether the Respondent correctly reported and remitted the alcoholic beverage surcharge for the audit period of July 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991. The amount claimed by the Department for this case is $5,767.82. The issue in Case no. 92-4205 is whether the Respondent correctly reported and remitted the surcharge for the audit period of July 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991. The amount of the audit deficiency alleged by the Department for this case is $4,952.48.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing and administering Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. Respondent is the owner and holder of two alcoholic beverage licenses. License no. 58-01411 which is a 4COP SRX license is for Hemingway's Oyster Bar and Caribbean Barbeque, Inc. doing business as Townsend's Fish House, Oyster Bar & Tavern (Fish House). The business location for that license is 35 West Michigan Street, Orlando, Florida. The second license, license no. 58-02757, is also a 4COP SRX license for Hemingway's Oyster Bar and Caribbean Barbeque, Inc. doing business as Townsend's Plantation and Doc Tommy's Tavern (Plantation). That business location is 604 E. Main Street, Apopka, Florida. Following the enactment of Section 561.501, Florida Statutes, the Department issued a form designated DBR 44-005E that directed alcoholic beverage licensees to elect a method of reporting and computing the beverage surcharge. The form directed licensees to specify whether the beverage surcharge would be paid based upon purchases or based upon sales. For vendors utilizing the sales method, form DBR 44-005E required a certification of the inventory of alcoholic beverages on hand before opening for business July 1, 1990. Respondent elected to utilize the sales method. The Fish House inventory certified that it had 351.05 gallons of beer (241 bottled, 110.05 draft), 79.48 gallons of wine, and 172.82 gallons of liquor on hand as of the date noted. The Plantation certified it had 183.84 gallons of beer, 139.14 gallons of wine, and 99.46 gallons of liquor. In May, 1991, auditors employed by the Department met with Respondent's employees at each of the licensed premises. An audit for the period July, 1990 through March, 1991, utilizing the depletion method was chosen since the licensee had elected the sales method for reporting and remitting the beverage surcharge. In performing the audit at the Plantation location, the Department accepted that 74.66 gallons of liquor, 39.85 gallons of wine, and 567 gallons of draft beer were used in food preparations and were, therefore, not included in the gallons reported for surcharge purposes (cooking allowance). The invoices for suppliers at the Plantation were reviewed for the following categories of purchases: draft beer, beer (presumably bottled or canned), wine coolers, wine, and liquor. By adding the total of all purchases for the audit period to the beginning inventory, the Department calculated a total volume for the Plantation. In theory, by subtracting the ending inventory from the total volume resulted in the amounts of beverages consumed. From that amount the Department subtracted the cooking allowance noted above, and a spillage amount provided for by rule. As it is presumed some spillage occurs in the mixing and serving of beverages, the rule provides for an offset for spillage by beverage category. Following the procedure outlined above, the auditor calculated that for the audit period, the Plantation had sold 720 gallons of draft beer, 1731.61 gallons of beer, 8.55 gallons of wine coolers, 1090.70 gallons of wine, and 546.27 gallons of liquor. When compared to the reports filed by the Plantation, the auditor determined that in each category noted, the licensee had under reported the volumes sold. The difference for each category was: 494.01 gallons of draft beer, 788.25 gallons of beer, 8.55 gallons of wine coolers, 642.01 gallons of wine, and 244.93 gallons of liquor. The total additional surcharge which should have been remitted based upon the difference not reported was $5,767.82. The auditors used the same approach when reviewing the records for the Fish House. The cooking allowance accepted by the Department for the Fish House was 1400 gallons beer, 67.38 gallons wine, and 9.50 gallons liquor. The spillage allowance was calculated as provided by rule. Additionally, a collection allowance was given for the Fish House in the amount of $195.85. After computing the totals as described above, the auditor found a difference in each of the categories reviewed. After applying the surcharge to the unreported sales amount, the Fish House was cited for a shortage of $4,952.48. The Fish House management claimed, as part of the volume unaccounted for, drinks which were deemed complimentary or free. However, such beverages should have been included in the volume reported as a sale. Respondent also claimed that the spillage allowance provided for by rule was arbitrarily low. Also unconsidered were the losses to inventory due to theft. When such losses are deemed minimal, the theft may go unreported to police or insurance. Cumulatively such losses may be significant. Also unconsidered in reconciling the inventory was the industry practice of "over pours." While discouraged by Respondent, it is not uncommon for bartenders to pour more than the standard measurement of liquor for a good customer. If so, the Respondent's practice of looking to the number of sales to determine ounces sold would have resulted in an under estimating of the ounces dispensed. The auditors did not review the sales tapes or other sales records to confirm the surcharge amounts. The Respondent was unaware of the audit method which would be used to review the surcharge accounting. No insurance or police reports were made for the loss or stolen inventory claimed by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in case no. 92-4204 requiring the Respondent to remit an additional surcharge in the amount of $5,767.82. For case no. 92-4205, the Department should require the Respondent to remit an addition surcharge amount of $4,952.48. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 7th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASE NOS. 92-4204 AND 92-4205 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: 1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 17, 18, 21, and 22 are accepted. Paragraph 4--the first sentence is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or comment. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 10, 11, and 12 are rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 15 is rejected as repetitive, unnecessary or irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 19 and 20 are rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 7 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to governing law or rule. NOTE: Respondent mistakenly has alleged facts or circumstances more appropriately raised by a rule challenge procedure. Section 120.57(1) hearings do not resolve issues related to the lawfulness of rules. Further, challenges to unpromulgated agency policy should be challenged as an unpromulgated rule. Such challenges are not appropriate to this type of proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Richard S. Wright Firstate Tower, Ste. 1550 255 S. Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 Clay M. Townsend 35 W. Michigan St. Orlando, FL 32806 Richard W. Scully, Executive Director Dept. of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Dept. of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact Petitioner J. J. Zazz, Inc., is licensed by the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, and is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license commonly referred to as a 4-COP for the transaction of business in Hillsborough County, Florida. As the holder of such a license, Petitioner is authorized to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption both on and off the premises. Since approximately October 10, 1984, Petitioner has been selling an alcoholic beverage produced on his premises and dispensed by a machine. That beverage includes distilled spirits and is commonly known as a "frozen daiquiri." Petitioner sells these frozen daiquiris and other types of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. Between approximately mid-October and mid-November, 1984, Petitioner also sold for consumption off the premises its frozen daiquiris in plastic one-gallon containers, which it filled on the licensed premises and on which it then placed a self-sealing cap. In mid-November one of Respondent's agents advised Petitioner that its sales of frozen daiquiris in those containers for consumption off premises was illegal, and Petitioner ceased selling that product for off premise consumption. When a holder of a 4-COP license sells alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises, the alcoholic beverage must be in a sealed container. For many years, a federal strip stamp was placed over the cap of alcoholic beverages at the manufacturing level in the chain of distribution. Since alcoholic beverage vendors cannot purchase their product from manufacturers but can only purchase from distributors, and since distributors may not engage in rebottling the product received by them from the manufacturer, an untorn or unbroken federal strip stamp effectively ensured that the alcoholic beverage container reached the vendor in a manufacturer-sealed condition. For many years Respondent has interpreted the beverage laws requiring that sealed containers be sold for off premise consumption to mean containers with the federal strip stamp affixed in an untorn and unbroken condition. In other words, the federal strip stamp was considered to be the "seal" since the container could not be opened without that "seal" being altered. Respondent consistently interpreted the sealed container requirement therefore to mean manufacturer-sealed since the manufacturer placed the federal strip stamp on the alcoholic beverage container. Use of the federal strip stamp was discontinued by the federal government in July 1985. In preparation for the discontinuance of that stamp, Respondent amended its rule 7A-1.08, effective March 10, 1985. The frozen daiquiris made by Petitioner are not available from a distributor since they are frozen and are, therefore, neither storable nor transportable.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license, Series 3-PS, No. 39- 01099, for the premises located at 13508 Florida Avenue, Tampa, should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Action filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of outlets for the retail sales of alcoholic beverages, and for the enforcement of the liquor laws of this state. By stipulation of fact, the parties agreed than on or before August 7, 1996, Benjamin Nenno, a male under the age of 18 at the time, became involved in an investigation of Respondent’s retail sales facility in issue by the Division. On the evening of August 7, 1996, Nenno was briefed and searched by agents of the Division and allowed to carry with him only a certain amount of cash and a driver’s license which clearly showed him to be under 21. He was instructed by the agents to indicate he was only 17 if he were to be asked by a store employee and to produce the driver’s license if it were to be requested. Specifically, he was instructed not to make any misrepresentation of fact in order to get the clerk to make a sale to him. Thereafter, Nenno entered the Respondent’s store number 620, located at 13508 Florida Avenue in Tampa and asked to purchase a bottle of Captain Morgan’s Special Rum, an alcoholic beverage which would be unlawful for him to purchase. When he did so, the Respondent’s clerk, identified as Freddy Posey, asked to see Nenno’s identification and Nenno produced the driver’s license which reflected he was under 21. Posey looked at it but made the sale anyway. The sale was witnessed by Special Agent Randall West who confirmed the facts stated above. When Nenno left the premises he met with Special Agents West and Miller who confiscated the beverage. West then entered the store and issued a notice of Violation as well as a vendor check list to Posey which was to be filled out by him and returned to the Division. The investigation continued on August 13, 1996 when Nenno, again under the control of the Division personnel, was again searched and instructed and sent back into the Respondent’s premises by Agents Hamilton and Fisher to again attempt to purchase a bottle of Captain Morgan’s Special Rum. This time Nenno dealt with James Davison, an employee of the Respondent, who asked Nenno to produce a driver’s license. When Nenno did as he was asked, Davison looked at it but nonetheless made the sale even though the license clearly showed Nenno was under 21. This sale was witnessed by Agent Fisher. In this case, however, after having made the sale, Davison came outside the store after Nenno, but after looking around the parking lot, re-entered the store. The Division agents again issued a Notice of Violation and a checklist which was subsequently returned to the Division filled out. On August 20, 1996, the investigation continued with the Division agents this time using Nicole Finch, a female under age 21, who was instructed and briefed as Nenno had been. She, too, was left with only some cash and her driver’s license which reflected her to be under 21. This time, Finch entered the Respondent’s store Number 621 in the company of Agent West and purchased a 200 ml bottle of Bacardi Rum, an unlawful alcoholic beverage for her to buy, from Steven Wilder, the clerk on duty. Before making the sale, Wilder asked to see Finch’s driver’s license, which she showed to him, but after seeing it, he still made the sale. When she left the store, Ms. Finch met Special Agents West and Fischer who subsequently issued a Notice of violation to the Respondent. When questioned by West, Wilder indicated he had received no training nor was he aware of any training program in place regarding sales to underage persons. Special Agent West, who has been an investigator with the Division for more than 18 years, and who has participated in many beverage investigations such as this, entered the Respondent’s store on August 7, 1996 after Nenno had left. He arrested the clerk, Mr. Posey and issued the Notice of Violation. In the course of the transaction, he questioned Posey about how he was trained regarding the sales of alcohol to minors with specific emphasis on whether Respondent has an ongoing training program and whether there were signs or other notices proscribing the sale of alcohol to minors. In response to these questions, Posey indicated he had received verbal training but no formal classroom or video training and had been given no forms to read and sign regarding this. When West looked for signs relating to the practice of checking patrons’ identification or indicating a policy of “no sales to those under 21”, he could find no signs posted or buttons worn by employees to notify prospective patrons of the company’s practice, though the Florida Beverage law does not require buttons to be worn. West made the same observations when he entered the store after the August 20, 1996 purchase by Finch. On this second occasion, in response to West’s questions about the training given by Respondent, Wilder, the clerk involved in that sale, indicated no training programs were in place. At that time, Mr. West could see no changes that had been made in the premises since he was last there on August 7, 1996. Further, West could not find any indication that the Respondent had posted a qualifying birth date for the purchase of alcoholic beverages. In response, Respondent offered into evidence a copy of a sign which, it claims, is posted on the cash register in each store, which refers to the requirement for a person to be 21 years old, (born before the purchase date in 1975) to purchase alcohol. Mr. West, who went behind the cash register to obtain information from the liquor license, did not see a copy of this sign posted in Respondent’s store on either August 7 or August 20, 1996. The Notice of Violations issued by the Division agents were to put the licensee on notice that a violation had occurred so that the employee cannot keep the information from the license holder. Agent Fisher observed the sale to Nenno which took place on August 13, 1996. When he went into the store after the purchase took place, Fisher asked the sales clerk if he had asked to see Nenno’s identification and he had. Fisher also asked the clerk about training offered by Respondent regarding the checking of identification. This employee, who has worked for the company for approximately 16 years, indicated he had seen at least one video which concerned checking identification and admitted he had been required to sign a certificate that he was aware of the rules. Agent Fisher also looked for signs in the store regarding the Respondent’s policy regarding sales to minors but did not see any. When he participated in the operation there on August 20, 1996, he asked the clerk on duty at that time if he had been trained regarding buyers’ identification and was told that since he had been hired by the company in January 1996 he had worked in the warehouse exclusively and had subsequently worked in the store only two days. He had been given no training at all in customer identification before he started working in the store. When Fisher looked behind the counter for some sort of warning sign, he could find none, nor could he find any in the back near the beer cooler. Mr. Davison worked for the Respondent for approximately 16 years prior to his discharge because of the instant sale to a minor. He had worked as manager of store number 620 for about two years before his firing, and his job was to maintain stock and insure the store was properly manned at all times it was open. He employed two other individuals at the liquor outlet to cover the entire week. Only one person was on duty at a time. On the day he made the sale which caused him to be fired, he was the only person on duty. Periodically, he would receive a document from the company containing the company’s policies which he was to read and sign, but nothing more than that, and even they did not come very often. He claims, and it is found, that he was never told he was to train his employees regarding sales of alcohol to minors. He claims that he was never shown a training video even though he signed the document saying he did. He did that because on the one occasion he asked a manager about it, he was told to sign it and not worry about it. Even though each store had a VCR, the entire training process to which Davison was exposed consisted of the reading and signing of this document which was given to him by Mr. Odorosio, the store manager. None of the training reflected on his personnel records as having been given him was, in fact, not given. Davison claims that when he was hired 16 years ago he was not given any training about sales of alcohol to minors and has never been given any since. However, he admits that each store is furnished a chart reflecting the various endorsements to driver’s licenses which are used. He also noted that his store had one sign relating to lawful alcohol sales, given to him by a beverage salesman, which, about two months before the incident, he put on the front of the counter where the customers could see it. He claims that on the evening the agents came to the store, they did not ask to see it. If they had done so, he would have shown it to them. Davison recognized one of the signs placed in evidence as one he has seen in other of Respondent’s stores. He has never seen the other one. As Davison recalls it, Respondent’s policy is to terminate anyone caught selling alcohol to minors. After the incident of August 7, 1996, Mr. Odorosio advised him to be on the lookout because he felt the Division agents would be back. Davison admits having made the sale to the teenager in question. However, he claims, the individual had just had a birthday which Davison mistakenly believed was the 21st. In fact it was the individual’s 17th birthday. He also claims that in the two years he worked at store 620, he always asked potential underage patrons for identification unless he knew the person. He claims he has always refused to sell alcohol and would not knowingly sell alcohol to minors. In fact, on the night he sold to Nenno, August 13, 1996, when he realized he had sold to a minor, he went outside, he claims, to find Nenno and give him back his money. The four-year difference in age belies Davison’s claim of mistake and that claim is rejected. Mr. Wilder, the assistant manager on the grocery store night shift since January 30, 1996, had worked in the liquor store, temporarily, for only a day and a half at the time of the incident. He was filling in until a new clerk could be brought in from another store. When he received his orientation training in January 1996, he was shown a video and exposed to a group class on paperwork, the handbook of rules and regulations, and the sale of alcohol, after which a test was administered. That was the only time he was shown any video or was involved in any personnel meeting relating to alcohol sales. When he went to work at the liquor store, he was given training only on the operation of the cash register. The liquor store registers do not have the capability to punch in the buyer’s date of birth. However, the day he started in the liquor store, Mr. Odorosio told him to always check a purchaser’s identification and never to sell to anyone under the age of 21. This was the day before he sold the rum to Ms. Finch, and he claims this sale was caused by human error. That very day, he claims, he had make “cheat sheets” which showed the lawful dates for the purchase of tobacco and alcohol, and claims he merely read from the wrong sheet. Officials of the Division have made themselves available to work with retailers of alcoholic beverages to bring them up to the sales standards set for a reasonable industry standard as outlined in the Florida Statutes. The information contained on the alcohol compliance instructional guidelines utilized by Respondent on which clerks and cashiers acknowledge their understanding that violation of those policies may result in termination of their employment is not sufficient orientation from an educator’s standpoint. In the opinion of Agent Miller, the minimum acceptable standards call for training of personnel in alcohol control three times a year, as once a year is not enough. Mr. Miller indicates he has discussed the Respondent’s situation with Mr. Heuermann, the Respondent’s vice-president in charge of personnel training, at Heuermann’s behest on approximately four occasions, and explained his concerns over the violations and what Respondent could do to improve its program. The first discussion took place in June 1996, shortly after an arrest of another Respondent employee and two months before the instant arrests. At that time they discussed what could be done to alert personnel and modify registers to require checking of ID. It was reported at that time that some employees were overriding this; however, the company is in the process of converting all their cash registers to those which require the customer’s birth date be inserted. They were put in grocery stores first and not in the liquor stores because the liquor stores use a different system. As funds for conversion become available the registers in the liquor stores will also be converted. Company trainers also discusse training standards for employees and Respondent’s need to insure that the lowest level of employees, who deal with the public, are properly trained. Though Mr. Miller made several suggestions as to what Respondent could do to improve its educational program, neither he nor any other Division agent was asked to participate in the training. According to Mr. Heuermann, Respondent has over 100 grocery stores and 34 liquor stores and employs approximately 10,000 people, only 1,500 to 2,000 of whom are involved in the sale of alcohol. No one under the age of 18 is hired to work in a liquor store. Company trainers check to insure the age of employees as does the main office. By the same token, the company would not hire anyone as a liquor store manager who had been convicted within the prior five years of a violation of the liquor law, of prostitution, drugs or a felony. The company’s application for employment has a space for listing such an offense and the company completes a background check on its applicants. Respondent contends it has a formal training program for alcohol law compliance. The orientation program for all new employees includes a video tape, a work sheet, and instructional guidelines, all dealing with alcohol compliance, to be signed by all new hires. At training, the trainer goes through the employee handbook, which treats alcohol compliance, sexual harassment, AIDS, ADA, etc., and this training is required of all new employees, both managerial and non-managerial, but it is sketchy at best. Until 1995, such training as existed was centralized but then was made the responsibility of the individual store manager. Sometime thereafter, the training was placed under the human resources directorate and it is again centralized whenever possible, as in the metropolitan areas where employees from several stores easily can be brought together for training. The company also has a formal substance abuse policy under which the use of illegal drugs or alcohol at work is prohibited because of its impact on safety and other workers. When Mr. Heuermann was advised by the store manager of the incident involving Mr. Posey he immediately instructed the manager to fire Posey and sent the information concerning the incident to all his managers for use in training in the individual stores. He also instructed the district managers to reinforce alcohol training in the stores because he wanted to insure this training met all requirements. He called Mr. Miller at the Division to see what could be done and implemented everything Miller suggested. When Heuermann learned of the Davison case he again reviewed the facts and determined to fire Davison as well. He met with the senior vice-president of operations for Respondent who directed that no one but management personnel be put in that store and reemphasized the need for training. Heuermann also went to the store and advised the district manager that his job was in jeopardy if another violation occurred. When the third violation thereafter occurred, Mr. Heuermann called Agent Miller, Mr. Odorisio, Mr. Metcalfe and the corporations CEO. At that time, Miller made some suggestions which included a paycheck reminder which Heuermann implemented with a copy being stapled to every one of the 10,000 paychecks issued that month. Mr. Heuermann noted that after the incident involving Mr. Posey, Agent Miller advised him that Division agents would be back. Heuermann passed that information on to the district and store managers and instructed them to advise their employees to be careful. Jacqueline N. Iglesias, Respondent’s district training coordinator since October 1996’ was previously the orientation director. Employee training for the Respondent’s Hillsborough district, as noted previously herein, is done in group sessions involving between 12 and 25 people, on Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays for three-hour sessions conducted twice a day on those days. The instruction covers safety, alcohol compliance and employee appearance and standards. With regard to the instruction concerning alcohol compliance, a form containing relevant information is used along with a video presentation and a multiple choice examination on the provisions of the alcohol compliance law which is administered while the video is playing. The video shown covers hours of sale, sales to minors, sales to those already intoxicated and how to handle unruly patrons. The course material advises the employee to call management in a questionable situation. It also covers acceptable and altered identification, what to look for and what to do in a case of suspected alteration. Specifically, employees are advised to refuse a sale to anyone whose identification is suspect, and employees are warned of the consequences, including job loss, if strict compliance with the law and the company’s policies are not followed. This training program has been in effect since August, 1996. Before that time, the training was done by the individual managers who, according to Iglesias, covered the same information. Though this program appears thorough at first blush, in reality it is considerably less than comprehensive and appears to have been minimally effective. An example of this can be seen in the history of Mr. Posey. Mr. Posey went through the company’s training program training when he was first hired. Company records reflect that he missed seven of the questions on the checklist test but, nonetheless, was still hired since performance on the test is not used to disqualify prospective employees. He supposedly was thereafter given supplemental on the job training under an experienced cashier at his employment location. Kevin Sosa has been employed as a full time liquor store clerk at Store 619-620 for more than two years. He identified a decal which, for some time, including in August 1996, was stuck to the check-out counter just in front of the register. Sosa also claimed that there is, in addition, a decal on the beer cooler located in the back of the store, in the back hallway and on the wall near the register which refer in some way to the legal age for purchasing alcohol. With regard to these signs, Special Agent Hamilton, who participated in the operation involving Mr. Davison on August 13, 1996, did not observe any signs in the store as were described by Mr. Sosa even he claims he looked for them. However, he admitted he did not go behind the counter to where the cashier stood to see if any signs were posted there, nor did he specifically look near the beer cooler. Mr. Sosa also has seen the alcohol compliance guidelines which he has been required to sign at least two or three times during the term of his employment and which he has seen more frequently when training others. He has also been exposed several times to the training guidelines which accompany the alcohol video. The last time he saw it was during the summer of 1996 after the incidents in question, but on each occasion nothing more was done than to show the video. After Mr. Posey was caught and after another incident at another company store, but before the incident involving Mr. Davison took place, he and Davison often discussed how easy it was to become complaisant and not check identification properly. Both recognized they had to be careful. They were frustrated and somewhat angry with the Division over these arrests because they felt anyone could make a mistake and fail to check identification. The efforts at control and procedures described as being in place at Respondent’s stores were reiterated in the testimony of Mr. Stickles, second assistant manager at Respondent’s store in issue, who indicated that numerous and repeated efforts are made to train employees in the proper compliance with the alcohol laws and to get out appropriate and necessary information. Included within these measures used are the use of the company’s DBX system by which individual managers can electronically communicate with headquarters and other managers to identify problems and suggested solutions; memoranda on pertinent topics sent through the mail; consistent verbal reminders from management to clerks; provision of extra stickers for registers and elsewhere in the stores; reminders on employee paychecks and, after the first incident, a mandatory repeat viewing of the alcohol control video by all employees. Aside from the above, however, Mr. Stickles could point to little in the way of formal training. Mr. Odorisio, the store manager at the facility in question related his practice of insuring that all new employees are sent to the centralized orientation program conducted by the company. He attends periodic manager meeting at least three times a year after which he briefs his clerks on any relevant material he picked up. After the incident involving Mr. Posey he again briefed the remaining clerks, including Davison and Sosa, repeatedly advising them that the Division agents would be back and to be sure to card all suspicious customers Mr. Montoto, Respondent’s district manager over the store in question, indicated his efforts to insure proper alcohol compliance included, in addition to those previously noted, a requirement that all employees have attended the pre-hiring orientation program; conduct of store manager meetings at least two or three times a year; and specific posting of managers in the stores who were trained in how to handle alcohol compliance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order imposing an administrative fine of $3,000 against Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license number 39-01099, series 3-PS. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Craig E. Behrenfeld. Esquire Barnett, Bolt, Kirk & long 601 Bayshore Boulevard, Suite 700 Tampa, Florida 33606 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Richard Boyd Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations set forth in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner) against Eden Supply, LLC (Respondent), are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent held alcoholic beverage license no. BEV5810598, series 13CT, which is commonly referred to as a "caterer's license." Florida Statutes set forth specific restrictions applicable to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages by the holder ("licensee") of a caterer's license. One such restriction is that service of alcohol at an event catered by the licensee is restricted to events where the licensee is also providing prepared food. On Friday, November 18, 2011, the Respondent sold and served alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises by customers attending an event at Club LAX, 7430 Universal Boulevard, in Orlando, Florida. The Respondent provided no prepared food to persons attending the event at Club LAX on November 18, 2011. There were no menus, plates or utensils present at the event. There were no dining tables or food service staff present at the event. On April 21, 2012, the Respondent sold and served alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises by customers attending an event at Club Magic, 5600 West Colonial Drive, in Orlando, Florida. The Respondent provided no prepared food to persons attending the event at Club Magic on April 21, 2012. There were no menus, plates or utensils present at the event. There were no dining tables or food service staff present at the event. The Respondent asserted that on the dates referenced above, food was made available to customers at the end of the catered events and that many customers took the food "to go" as they left the event. The assertion was contradicted by the personal observations of witnesses who testified at the hearing, was unsupported by credible evidence, and has been rejected. Florida law requires that a licensee maintain, for a period of three years, all records "required by the department by rule" to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for the caterer's license. One such requirement is that a caterer must derive "at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages." The Petitioner has alleged that the Respondent failed to "maintain separate records of all purchases and gross retail sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages, and all purchases and gross retail sales of alcoholic beverages." Such records are required to determine whether the caterer is meeting the "51 percent" requirement. At the request of the Petitioner, the Respondent provided various documents covering three specific time periods. The materials were reviewed by an employee of the Petitioner, who testified at the hearing in detail as to his unsuccessful attempt to correlate the Respondent's documents to specific events allegedly catered by the Respondent. The documents submitted by the Respondent are insufficient to permit a determination as to whether or not the Petitioner has complied with the statutory requirements to maintain a caterer's license. The Respondent presented no credible evidence that the employee's review of the submitted documents was inaccurate or otherwise flawed. The Respondent asserted that the statute does not specifically state the time frame within which the "51 percent" requirement must be met. The documents submitted by the Respondent to the Petitioner lack sufficient reliability to establish that the statutory requirement was met at any point in time. The applicable statute also requires that a licensee's records include "licensed vendor receipts for the purchase of alcoholic beverages and records identifying each customer and the location and date of each catered event." Alcohol purchased by a licensee for a catered event, but not used at the event, must remain with the customer for whom the event was catered or must be returned, unopened, to the vendor for credit or reimbursement. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of an alcohol vendor with whom the Respondent had an account for the purchase of alcohol in 2012. The vendor reviewed records of the Respondent's purchases and testified that it was "impossible" to bill the Respondent for a single event because the Respondent did not return the unused products. The records for the Respondent's purchases of alcohol from the vendor cannot be credibly correlated to specific events allegedly catered by the Respondent. The quantities of alcohol purchased cannot be reliably attributed to consumption at any specific event. The vendor described the records as a "running invoice" because alcohol taken by the Respondent for use at one event and unused, was retained by the Respondent for use at subsequent events. There was no credible evidence offered to contradict the vendor's testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order imposing a fine of $1,000 and revoking the Respondent's license no. BEV5810598, as set forth in the penalty guidelines. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2013, 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 30th day of October, 2013.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon a Notice to Show Cause filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, against Henry Rodriguez, trading as Hickory House, 38 Sunshine Mall, Clearwater, Florida. This Notice to Show Cause was filed against the license, No. 62-1602, Series 2-COP, which the Respondent had been granted by the Petitioner. This license was in effect on or about April 10, 1978, at a time the Respondent was accused of failing to disclose the name and address of a person connected directly or indirectly with the business, namely, William Vasios, and this failure to disclose was allegedly contrary to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes. That provision reads: "561.17 License application; approved person.-- Any person, before engaging in the business of manufacturing, bottling, distributing, selling, or in any way dealing in alcoholic beverages, shall file, with the district supervisor of the district of the division in which the place of business for which a license, is sought is located, a sworn application in duplicate on forms provided to the district supervisor by the division. Prior to any application being approved, the division may require the applicant to file a set of fingerprints on regular United States Department of Justice forms for himself and for any person or persons interested directly or indirectly with the applicant in the business for which the license is being sought, when so required by the division. If the applicant or any person interested with the applicant either directly or indirectly in the business is not qualified, the application shall be denied by the division. All applications for alcoholic beverage licenses for consumption on the premises shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services or the county health department that the place of business where in the business is to be conducted meets all of the sanitary requirements of the state." The facts in this case reveal that on April 10, 1978, when a routine inspection was made of the licensed premises by an employee of the Petitioner, one William Vasios was found to be in charge of the premises. Vasios reported that in July, 1977, he had loaned the Respondent, Henry Rodriguez, an amount of $14,000.00 to keep the Hickory House business open and Vasios had taken over the operation of the business to protect his interest in the loan. Some of the indicia of Vasios' interest in the business are shown by the fact that the sales tax permit for operating the business was issued in both Rodriguez' and Vasios' names, as demenstrated through the Petitioner's opposite Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. Certain cancelled checks drawn on the business, as shown by Petitioner's Exhibits 3 through 5 admitted into evidence, were written by William Vasios and not the Respondent. These checks pertained to the operation of the business. Certain recap slips and ledger entries indicated that Vasios was controlling the business. The only indication that Rodriguez is still involved in the operation of the licensed premises is shown by his comments to the effect that he makes periodic checks of the business a couple of times a week. Henry Rodriguez had not disclosed the interest which William Vasios had in the license even though this requirement was stated in law through Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, and in our system of jurisprudence the Respondent is presumed to know the requirements of law. Additionally, when the Respondent applied for the license, he completed a form which indicated that he was disclosing any interest which other persons would have in the licensed premises; and even though this form was filled out at a time prior to Vasios' involvement with the business, common sense would have dictated that the Respondent apprise the Petitioner of any future interest which a third party might have in the licensed premises. The license was last renewed for the period October 1, 1977, through September 30, 1978. There has been no further effort on the part of the Respondent, Henry Rodriguez, to renew the license and, by his remarks in the course of the hearing, he has indicated that he has no future desire to renew the license. The license is nonetheless still in effect and subject to the penalties provided for through the Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The license is deemed to be a viable license, based upon an examination of the provisions of Section 561.27, Florida Statutes, which states: "561.27 Renewing license.- A licensee under the Beverage Law shall be entitled to a renewal of his annual license from year to year, as a matter of course, on or before September 30 by presenting the license for the previous year or satisfactory evidence of its loss or destruction to the division and by paying the annual license tax and giving any bond required of such licensee under the Beverage Law. A license may be renewed subsequent to September 30 of each year only upon making to the division a delinquent application for approval, accompanied by an affidavit stating that no sales of alcoholic beverages have been made subsequent to September 30, and upon payment of a penalty of $5 for each month or fraction of a month of delinquency, or upon payment of a penalty of 5 percent of the license fee, whichever amount is the greater. All licenses not renewed within 60 days of September 30 will be canceled by the division unless such license is involved in litigation; however, the division may allow a licensee to renew the license subsequent to the 60day period after good and sufficient cause for the delinquency has been shown to the division by the licensee." It was not revealed in the course of the hearing whether the Notice to Show Cause (Administrative Complaint) was filed later than sixty days beyond September 30, 1978, and under the language of Section 561.27, Florida Statutes, the automatic cancellation set out in that provision only applies to licenses which were not renewed sixty days beyond September 30, 1978, and it excepts those licenses which were the subject of litigation or those licenses where the licensee was able to show good and sufficient cause for his delinquency in the payment of the renewal fee. Since the proof failed to demonstrate the effective date of the filing of the Notice of Show Cause, it is presumed for the purposes of this hearing that the Notice to Show Cause was filed prior to the expiration of the sixty-day grace period which follows the September 30, 1978, date. Therefore, the license would have been in litigation and not subject to cancellation by the provisions of Section 561.27, Florida Statutes. This analysis can be supported by the fact that the Respondent was apprised of the Petitioner's concern on the question of the non-disclosure of the name of William Vasios and this knowledge was imparted to the Respondent on April 11, 1978, at a time when the license was still in operation under the payment of fees for the period October 1, 1977, through September 30, 1978. In summary, the Respondent is the holder of a license within the meaning of the law and has violated the provisions of Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, thereby subjecting the Respondent to the penalties found Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation In consideration of the facts herein, it is recommended that the license, No. 62-1602, Series 2-COP, held by the Respondent, Henry Rodriguez to trade as Hickory House, at the location 38 Sunshine Mall, Clearwater, Florida, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jo M. Gallay, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry Rodriguez t/a Hickory House 38 Sunshine Mall Clearwater, Florida 33516 Captain R. Caplano Park Trammell Building, Room 705 1313 Tampa Street Tampa, Florida 33623
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents' alcoholic beverage licenses should be disciplined for violation of Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. Resolution of this issue requires a determination of whether Respondents correctly reported and remitted alcoholic beverage surcharges required for the audit period of July 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991. Petitioner claims that Respondent Southeast Central, Inc., was deficient in reporting, surcharge payments, and penalties for the period July 1, 1990, through March 31, 1991, in the total amount of $4,121.80, contrary to Section 561.501, Florida Statutes. Similarly, Petitioner alleges that Respondent Central Restaurants, Inc., was deficient in reporting, surcharge payments, and penalties for the same period in the total amount of $96.72.
Findings Of Fact Respondents are two corporations. Southeast Central Inc., operating as the Pirate's Den Seafood Cafe, holds license number 26-03346 SRX, series 4-COP, for premises located at 5023 Central Restaurants, Inc., operating as the Seafood Place, holds license number 26 Jacksonville, Florida. Robert Domin is president, sole corporate officer and sole stockholder of both corporations. Petitioner's auditor performed audits with regard to records of both Respondents, following their random selection by Petitioner, to verify Respondents' compliance with surcharge requirements imposed by Section 561.501, Florida Statutes, on the retail sales of "on premise consumption" of alcoholic beverages on licensed premises. The audits covered the period of July 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991, for both Respondents, and were performed during the period of early July through August 2, 1991. Alcoholic beverage licensees are afforded an opportunity to elect to report and pay the surcharge by either the purchase method or the sales method. Under the purchase method, a licensee pays the surcharge on alcoholic beverages purchased from authorized distributors. Under the sales method, licensees pay the surcharge on alcoholic beverages sold for consumption on the premises. Each Respondent submitted Petitioner's form DBR 44-005E, reflecting their election of the sales method. Form DBR 44-005E also requires disclosure of the licensee's inventory of alcoholic beverages on hand prior to opening of business on July 1, 1990. A licensee's reporting under the sales method is audited by the Sales Depletion Method. Under this methodology, a beginning inventory is ascertained. Second, purchases made by the licensee for the audit period are computed. Third, an ending inventory for the audit period is ascertained. Fourth, Gross Gallonage Available For Sale is computed by adding the beginning inventory to the purchases made during the audit period and then subtracting the ending inventory. Fifth, the Net Gallonage Available For Sale during the audit period is calculated by subtracting from the Gross Gallonage an allowance for spillage and a cooking adjustment. The end result is termed the Adjusted Sales Gallonage from which amount the amount of surcharge owed for the audit period is determined. Respondents' beginning inventory figures were provided by their employee, Heather Scrape. This finding is further supported by the identification of Scrape's handwriting on Respondents' exhibit number 2 at the final Hearing by Respondent's president as being that of Scrape. The figures written on the exhibit by Scrape correspond to figures earlier provided by Respondents to Petitioner on Form DBR 44-005E and corroborate testimony of Petitioner's auditor that Scrape provided Petitioner's audit personnel with beginning inventory information for Respondents. Scrape, no longer employed by Respondents, still lives and works in the area although she did not testify at the final hearing. Distributor invoices at each Respondent location were used to determine alcoholic beverage purchases by each Respondent for the audit period. The ending inventory for the audit period for each Respondent was provided to Petitioner's auditor by Respondents. The auditor considered a spillage allowance of 10 percent for draft beer and five percent for liquor, bottled or canned beer, wine coolers and wine. The spillage allowance is enunciated in Emergency Rule 7AER 90-5, effective July 1, 1990, and also codified in Rule 7A- 4.063, Florida Administrative Code. Respondents provided no documentation for cooking adjustment amounts. The audit for Respondent Southeast Central, Inc., revealed a deficiency in surcharge reporting and payment of $3,294.15 with a late penalty due in the amount of $827.65. The audit for Respondent Central Restaurants, Inc., revealed a deficiency of $84.24 with a late penalty of $16.85 which, after adjustment for spillage allowance, totalled $96.72. At request of Respondents, Petitioner's auditor returned to the premises of each licensee and re-conducted the audit. No substantial corrections were made as a result of this effort with the minor exception of discovery of additional invoices on the premises of Respondent Southeast Central Inc., which increased, by a minor sum, the surcharge amount and penalty to the current amounts. The deficiency for Respondent Southeast Central, Inc., represents 55 percent of the total surcharge due for the audit period. The deficiency for Respondent Central Restaurants represents 14 percent of the total surcharge due for the audit period. Petitioner's Form DBR 44-005S states that the surcharge is to be calculated on gallons and/or ounces by reporting licensees. A conversion calculation sheet is provided on the back of the form to assist retailers in converting alcoholic beverage measurements into gallons. Respondents' cash registers record the price and number of alcoholic beverages sold in terms of units, i.e., three glasses of beer, two bottles of beer, one glass of wine, etc. Respondents predetermined how many ounces of an alcoholic beverage should be in a particular drink. Respondents then used this ideal measurement or standard in calculating the surcharge due. The calculation involved multiplying the ideal standard or measurement by the units recorded through the cash registers as sold. There is no actual record made of the amount of alcoholic beverage in a unit sale. Sometime after August 2, 1991, Respondents provided Petitioner's auditor with a copy of a beginning July 1, 1990 inventory report for Respondent Southeast Central, Inc., derived from application of the ideal measurement or standard as a multiplier of units of recorded sales. This action by Respondents followed completion of Petitioner's initial audits and notice to Respondents of delinquency in surcharge payment amounts. Respondents presented no explanation as to why this inventory was not provided to Petitioner's auditor in the course of her initial audit. The inventory document was also not authenticated in accordance with Section 90.901, Florida Statutes, and is not credited at this time for establishing a beginning inventory for Respondent Southeast Central, Inc., at variance with the beginning inventory reported for this Respondent on Petitioner's form DBR 44-005E. Petitioner permits vendors a period of 30 days within which to remit delinquent surcharge payments following notice of delinquency. Neither Respondent complied with Petitioner's demands to remit delinquent surcharge payments discovered as the result of Petitioner's audit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring payment by Respondent in Case No. 93-0322 in the amount of $4,121,80, the amount of total tax and liabilities claimed by Petitioner to be due; and requiring payment by Respondent in Case No. 93-0329 of the amount of $96.72, the amount of the total tax and liabilities claimed by Petitioner to be due in that case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 4th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-0322 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-5. Accepted, not verbatim. 6.-7. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 8.-13. Accepted, not verbatim. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-7. Accepted, not verbatim. 8.-12. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Rejected, not relevant although this is a duty of the auditor. Accepted. Rejected, argumentative. Rejected, no evidence presented as to theft or overpouring. Further, Respondents were given benefit of spillage allowance. 17.-18. Rejected, weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert Domin, President Southeast Central, Inc. Central Restaurants, Inc. 4359 Roosevelt Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Jack McCray General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 George Stuart, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 John Harris, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
