Findings Of Fact FMCC is a corporation organized and existing under Delaware law. FMCC maintains its principal place of business in Dearborn, Michigan. FMCC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company. FMCC qualified and is authorized to do business in the State of Florida pursuant to the foreign corporation provisions of Chapter 607, Florida Statutes, and has continuously maintained a registered office and agent in this state during the audit years at issue. During the tax years 1980-1982, inclusive, FMCC and Ford filed corporate tax returns in Florida and paid the taxes due thereon under the Florida Income Tax Code; FMCC maintained 7 to 8 branch offices and employed approximately 200 people in Florida; and Ford had contractual relationships with approximately 130 to 150 authorized Ford dealers in Florida. A copy of a representative agreement between Ford and the dealers is Exhibit 3 to this Stipulation. FMCC's principal business is financing the wholesale and retail sales of vehicles manufactured by Ford Motor Company. During the audit period FMCC provided financing for the purchase of vehicles as authorized by Ford dealers from Ford Motor Company. FMCC also: provided financing for the purchase of automobiles by the public from the dealers; and engaged in commercial, industrial and real estate financing, consumer loan financing, and leasing company financing in the State of Florida as well as other states. Attached as Composite Exhibit 4 are sample documents utilized by FMCC in the above financing. The majority of the intangibles in question are accounts receivables held by FMCC and owned by Florida debtors in connection with the purchase of tangible personal property shipped to or located in the State of Florida. FMCC is the holder of security agreements executed by thousands of Florida debtors. These security agreements gave FMCC a lien on tangible personal property located in the State of Florida. The Florida Secretary of State's Office was utilized by FMCC during the assessment period to perfect and protect its liens created under these security agreements with Florida debtors by the filing of U.C.C. financing statements. None of the original notes are stored in Florida. During the assessment period, FMCC utilized or could have utilized the Florida Courts to recover sums due by Florida debtors on delinquent accounts receivable. In addition, FMCC utilizes the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to perfect its liens on motor vehicles pursuant to Chapter 319, Florida Statutes. In 1983, the Department conducted an audit of the FMCC intangible tax returns for tax years 1980 through 1982, inclusive. On June 3, 1983, the Department proposed an assessment of tax, penalty and interest in the total amount of $2,560,379.00. See Exhibit 5. FMCC filed a timely protest. On October 8, 1984, the Department issued a Notice of Decision. See Exhibit 2. On December 12, 1984, the Department acknowledged receipt of FMCC's timely November 8, 1984 Petition for Reconsideration. On February 18, 1985, the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration. See Exhibit 6. FMCC elected to file a Petition for Formal Proceedings, which was received on April 8, 1985. On the basis of the revised audit report, the Department of Revenue imposed the intangible tax on FMCC for the tax years 1980 through 1982, inclusive, in the following categories, and in the taxable amounts listed as follows: 1/1/80 1/1/81 1/1/82 Commercial Finance Receivables-- $342,892,615 $403,061,571 $486,412,164 Retail Commercial Finance Receivables-- 218,591,180 241,993,462 228,303,569 Wholesale Simple Interest Lease Receivables-- 66,345,902 75,978,095 71,315,777 Retail Lease Finance Receivables N/A N/A N/A Capital Loan Receivables 3,112,877 2,064,698 2,419,770 Consumer Loan Receivables 10,144,531 14,122,666 18,578,699 Service Equipment Financing--Dealer I.D. 481,869 368,186 422,108 Receivables Ford Rent-A-Car Receivables 27,825,283 26,179,377 20,362,896 Ford Parts & Service Receivables -0- 10,499,401 10,800,313 (10) Accounts Receivables--Customers & Others 3,452,194 4,581,629 4,952,234 (11) Accounts Receivables--Affiliate 1,617,880 2,914,094 4,438,849 (12) C.I.R. Receivables 23,243,257 27,387,938 24,222,621 TOTAL FLORIDA RECEIVABLES------ 697,707,588 809,151,117 872,229,000 TAX AT 1 MILL---- 697,708 809,151 872,229 LESS ORIGINAL TAX PAYMENT------ 312,703 351,976 339,142 LESS PETITION PAYMENT ON AGREED CATEGORIES------ 51,069 53,567 44,586 TOTAL REMAINING TAX ASSESSED------ $333,936 $403,608 $488,501 TOTAL TAX FOR ALL YEARS----- $1,226,045 REVISED ASSESSMENT FIGURES DOES NOT INCLUDE $1,386.18 OF THE PETITION PAYMENT At the time it filed its petition for a formal hearing, FMCC agreed to and paid the 1 mill tax, but no interest or penalty, on the following amounts. The taxability of these items is no longer in dispute, only penalty and interest. 1980 1981 1982 (8) Ford Rent-A-Car 27,825,283 26,179,377 20,362,896 Receivables (12) CIR 23,243,257 27,387,938 24,222,621 Receivables Capital Loan Receivables (item 5 of paragraph 11) reflect amounts of money owed by Ford dealers to FMCC. The obligation arises from loans made to Ford dealers located in Florida to expand showroom or other facilities and for working capital. The items located as (10) Accounts Receivable - Customers and Others and (11) Accounts Receivables - Affiliates in paragraph 11 reflect only the amount of accrued interest to which FMCC is entitled on notes from non-affiliates and affiliates, respectively, from the last settlement date prior to year end until the end of each respective year. The principal amounts owed on these notes, which are not secured by realty, are included in other categories. The Department does not assess a tax for similar interest when the amount owed is secured by realty. Wholesale and retail intangibles were created and handled in 1980, 1981 and 1982 by FMCC in the manner set forth in Exhibit 7. The Department of Revenue has imposed penalties in the amount of $543,968 composed of $330,051 as the 25% delinquent penalty imposed pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 199.052(9)(a) (1983), and $15,886 as the 15% undervalued Property penalty imposed pursuant to Section 199.052(9)(d)(1983), Florida Statutes. The Department offered abatement of the 15% omission penalty ($198,031) imposed pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 199.052(9)(c) (1983). The closing agreement required pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 213.21 reflecting this reduction of penalty was not signed by petitioner. FMCC's intangible tax returns have been audited on prior occasions. The manner of reporting was identical to the manner in which FMCC reported its intangibles for tax years 1980 through 1982. The 1973-1975 and the 1976-1978 audits were "no change" audits. FMCC's method of reporting receivables generated from Florida sales was challenged by the Department of Revenue. The challenge was dropped because the Department of Revenue did not have the statutory authority to assess sales of tangible personal property with an f.o.b. point other than Florida. Chapter 77-43, Laws of Florida amended Section 199.112, Fla. Stat. to allow tangible personal property (sic) [to be taxed] regardless of the f.o.b. point of sale. This amendment applied to the January 1, 1978 taxable year. There was a 1978-1980 "no change" audit. Ford Motor Company has filed refund claims for certain categories for the tax year 1981 and 1982. Ford Motor Company claims that it inadvertently paid intangible tax on accounts receivable owned by FMCC. As presented in the Notice of Decision, no refund will be made as it will be handled as a credit against taxes due by Ford Motor Company. While not an announced policy, the Department of Revenue drafted and utilized proposed rules relating to compromising penalties. These rules are not final. Attached as Exhibit 8 are the proposed rules. A copy of these rules was provided to Petitioner by letter dated July 28, 1986. In addition, while not an announced policy the Department of Revenue utilized guidelines established by the Internal Revenue Service and federal court for compromising penalties.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether portions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 12D-9.020 and 12D-9.025 constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; (2) whether sections of Modules Four and Six of the 2010 Value Adjustment Board Training are unpromulgated rules; and (3) whether Property Tax Oversight Bulletin 11-01 is an unpromulgated rule.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Turner is the Property Appraiser for Hillsborough County, Florida. Petitioners Crapo, Higgs, and Smith are the Property Appraisers for Alachua, Monroe, and Okaloosa Counties, respectively. Respondent, the Department of Revenue ("DOR"), is an agency of the State of Florida that has general supervision over the property tax process, which consists primarily of "aiding and assisting county officers in the assessing and collection functions." § 195.002(1), Fla. Stat. DOR is also required to prescribe "reasonable rules and regulations for the assessing and collecting of taxes . . . [to] be followed by the property appraisers, tax collectors . . . and value adjustment boards." § 195.027(1). Petitioner-Intervenor Roger A. Suggs is the Clay County Property Appraiser. Petitioner-Intervenor Gary R. Nikolitis is the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser. Petitioner-Intervenor PAAF is a statewide nonprofit professional association consisting of 35 property appraisers in various counties throughout Florida. Petitioner-Intervenor FAPA is a statewide nonprofit professional organization of Florida property appraisers. Respondent-Intervenor FUTMA is a statewide nonprofit association consisting of 46 of the largest property taxpayers in Florida. Ms. Cucchi, the second Respondent-Intervenor, is a property owner and taxpayer in Hillsborough County. Background of Florida's Property Tax System Article VII, Section Four of the Florida Constitution mandates that all property be assessed at "just value," and further requires that the Legislature prescribe, by general law, regulations that "shall secure a just valuation of all property for ad valorem taxation." Pursuant to chapters 192 through 196 of the Florida Statutes, locally elected property appraisers in each of Florida's 67 counties develop and report property assessment rolls. The assessment rolls——which property appraisers prepare each year and submit to DOR by July 1——contain information such as the names and addresses of the property owners, as well as the just, assessed, and taxable values of the properties within each appraiser's respective county. DOR is responsible for reviewing and ultimately approving or disapproving the assessment rolls. § 193.1142, Fla. Stat. Once DOR approves the assessment rolls, the property appraiser mails a "Notice of Proposed Property Taxes and Non-ad Valorem Assessments" (known as a "TRIM" notice) to each property owner. § 200.069, Fla. Stat. The notices advise each owner of his property's assessment for that year, the millage (tax) rate set by the taxing authorities, and the dates of the budget hearing for those authorities. After receiving a TRIM notice, a property owner may request an informal conference with the property appraiser's office to discuss the assessment of his or her property. Alternatively, or in addition to the informal conference, a property owner may challenge the assessment by filing a petition with the county value adjustment board or by brining a legal action in circuit court. § 194.011(3), Fla. Stat.; § 194.171, Fla. Stat. Value Adjustment Boards Pursuant to section 194.015(1), Florida Statutes, each of Florida's 67 value adjustment boards is composed of two members of the county commission, one member of the school board, and two citizen members.1 Of particular import to the instant case, section 194.015(1) requires value adjustment boards to retain private counsel to provide advice regarding legal issues that may arise during value adjustment hearings.2 In counties with populations greater than 75,000, the value adjustment board must appoint special magistrates3 to conduct hearings and issue recommended decisions. § 194.035(1), Fla. Stat. Hearings in counties with 75,000 citizens or fewer may be conducted by either magistrates or the value adjustment board itself. Id. DOR has no involvement in the appointment or removal of board attorneys, magistrates, or the members of value adjustment boards. Should a property owner choose to contest an assessment through the value adjustment board process, the board's clerk schedules an administrative hearing and sends a notice of hearing to the property owner and the property appraiser. § 194.032(2), Fla. Stat. At the hearing, the determinative issue is whether the assessment of the particular property at issue exceeds just value. In the event that a property owner is dissatisfied with the outcome of a value adjustment hearing, an appeal may be taken to the circuit court, where a de novo hearing will be conducted. § 194.036(2) & (3), Fla. Stat. Under certain conditions, the property appraiser may likewise appeal an adverse value adjustment board decision to the circuit court. § 194.036(1).4 2008 Legislative Reforms Prior to 2008, DOR was not charged with the responsibility of training value adjustment boards or their magistrates. However, pursuant to chapter 2008-197, Laws of Florida, the Legislature enacted a series of changes to the VAB process, including a new requirement that DOR "provide and conduct training for special magistrates at least once each state fiscal year." See § 194.035(3), Fla. Stat. Immediately after enactment of the law, DOR initiated rulemaking and developed 2008 interim training for value adjustment boards and special magistrates. Persons required to take the training include all special magistrates, as well as value adjustment board members or value adjustment board attorneys in counties that do not use special magistrates. § 194.035(1) & (3), Fla. Stat. In addition to the new training requirement, chapter 2008-197 mandated that DOR develop a Uniform Policies and Procedures Manual for use by value adjustment boards and magistrates. The Uniform Policies and Procedures Manual ("The Manual"), which is posted on DOR's website and is separate and distinct from DOR's training materials for value adjustment boards, consists of relevant statutes, administrative rules, provisions of the Florida Constitution, as well as forms. The Manual is also accompanied by two sets of separate documents, which are likewise available on DOR's web page: (1) "Other Legal Resources Including Statutory Criteria; and (2) "Reference Materials Including Guidelines," consisting of guidelines and links to other reference materials, including DOR's value adjustment board training materials, bulletins, and advisements. The introduction to the "Reference Materials Including Guidelines" reads in relevant part as follows: The set of documents titled "Reference Materials Including Guidelines," contains the following items: Taxpayer brochure General description and internet links to the Department's training for value adjustment boards and special magistrates; Recommended worksheets for lawful decisions; The Florida Real Property Appraisal Guidelines; * * * 7. Internet links to Florida Attorney General Opinions, Government in the Sunshine Manual, PTO Bulletins and Advertisements, and other reference materials. These reference materials are for consideration, where appropriate, by value adjustment boards and special magistrates in conjunction with the Uniform Policies and Procedures Manual and with the Other Legal Resources Including Statutory Criteria. The items listed above do not have the force or effect of law as do provisions of the constitution, statutes, and duly adopted administrative rules. Revisions to Value Adjustment Board Procedural Rules Pursuant to section 194.011, Florida Statutes, the Legislature charged DOR with the responsibility to prescribe, by rule, uniform procedures——consistent with the procedures enumerated in section 194.034, Florida Statutes——for hearings before value adjustment boards, as well as procedures for the exchange of evidence between taxpayers and property appraisers prior to value adjustment hearings. On February 24, 2010, following a 12-month period of public meetings, workshops, and hearings, the Governor and Cabinet approved the adoption of chapter 12D-9, Florida Administrative Code, which is titled, "Requirements for Value Adjustment Board in Administrative Reviews; Uniform Rules of Procedure for Hearings Before Value Adjustment Boards." As discussed in greater detail in the Conclusions of Law of this Order, Petitioner Turner contends that portions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 12D-9.020, which delineate the procedures for the exchange of evidence between property appraisers and taxpayers, contravene section 194.011. Petitioner Turner further alleges that section 194.011 is contravened by parts of Florida Administrative Code Rule 12D- 9.025, which governs the procedures for conducting a value adjustment hearing and the presentation of evidence. 2010 Value Adjustment Training Materials In 2010, following the adoption of Rule Chapter 12D-9, DOR substantially revised the value adjustment board training materials. After the solicitation and receipt of public comments, the 2010 VAB Training was made available in late June 2010 on DOR's website. The 2010 VAB Training is posted on DOR's website in such a manner that an interested person must first navigate past a bold-font description which explains that the training is not a rule: This training is provided to comply with section 194.035, Florida Statutes. It is intended to highlight areas of procedure for hearings, consideration of evidence, development of conclusions and production of written decisions. This training is not a rule. It sets forth general information of which boards, board attorneys, special magistrates and petitioners / taxpayers should be aware in order to comply with Florida law. (Emphasis in original). The 2010 VAB Training consists of eleven sections, or "modules," portions of two of which Petitioners allege constitute unadopted rules: Module 4, titled "Procedures During the Hearing"; and Module 6, titled "Administrative Reviews of Real Property Just Valuations." While words and phrases such as "must," "should," and "should not" appear occasionally within the materials, such verbiage is unavoidable——and indeed necessary——in carrying out DOR's statutory charge of disseminating its understanding of the law to magistrates and value adjustment board members. Although DOR is required to create and disseminate training materials pursuant to section 194.035, the evidence demonstrates that the legal concepts contained within the 2010 VAB Training are not binding. Specifically, there is no provision of law that authorizes DOR to base enforcement or other action on the 2010 VAB Training, nor is there a statutory provision that provides a penalty in situations where a value adjustment board or special magistrate deviates from a legal principle enumerated in the materials. Further, the evidence demonstrates DOR has no authority to pursue any action against a value adjustment board or magistrate that chooses not to adhere to the legal concepts contained within the training. PTO Bulletin 11-01 On January 21, 2011, DOR issued Property Tax Oversight Bulletin 11-01, titled "Value Adjustment Board Petitions and the Eighth Criterion," to the value adjustment board attorneys for all 67 counties. DOR also disseminated courtesy copies of the bulletin by e-mail to over 800 interested parties. The bulletin, the full text of which is reproduced in the Conclusions of Law section of this Summary Final Order, consisted of a non-binding advisement regarding the use of the eighth just valuation criterion (codified in section 193.011(8), Florida Statutes5) in administrative reviews. The bulletin advised, in relevant part, that the eighth just value criterion: "must be properly considered in administrative reviews"; "is not limited to a sales comparison valuation approach"; and "must be properly considered in the income capitalization and cost less depreciation approaches" to valuation. The bulletin further advised that when "justified by sufficiently relevant and credible evidence, the Board or special magistrate should make an eighth criterion adjustment in any of the three valuation approaches." Although certain interested parties (i.e., a special magistrate in Nassau County, the director of valuation for the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser's Office, and legal counsel for the Broward County value adjustment board) perceived the bulletin to be mandatory, the evidence demonstrates that value adjustment boards and magistrates were not required to abide by the bulletin's contents. As with the training materials, DOR possesses no statutory authority to base enforcement action on the bulletin, nor could any form of penalty be lawfully imposed against a magistrate or value adjustment board that deviates from the legal advice contained within the document. Further, there is no evidence that DOR has taken (or intends to take) any agency action in an attempt to mandate compliance with the bulletin.
The Issue Whether the "Additional Payment" made by Hernando HMA, Inc., d/b/a Brooksville Regional Hospital to Hernando County pursuant to a document entitled Lease Agreement, as amended, constitutes "rent" subject to sales tax under section 212.031, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Hernando HMA, Inc. (HMA) is a for-profit entity which operates Brooksville Regional Hospital, Spring Hill Regional Hospital, and other entities, as successor to an entity that was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings from 1993 to 1998, Regional Healthcare, Inc. (RHI). The Department is an agency of the State of Florida that has been delegated the responsibility to collect sales and use taxes imposed by chapter 212, Florida Statutes. In 1998, as part of RHI's bankruptcy plan, HMA and the County entered into various agreements, including a lease agreement (1998 Lease), regarding the use and operation of several RHI hospital properties and improvements owned by the County, and leased back to RHI. Under the 1998 Lease and other agreements, HMA agreed to continue to operate the hospital facilities for 30 years with possession of the real property and improvements to be returned to the County at the end of the lease term. Section 1.2W. of the 1998 Lease defined "Rental Payment" as follows: "Rental Payment" means all payments due from Lessee to Lessor or otherwise required to be paid by Lessee pursuant to the terms of this lease. The 1998 Lease further provided in section 3.3 under the heading "Rent": The annual rental payment of the Leased Premises for each year of the Lease Term (the "Rental Payment") shall be in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($300,000). This Rental Payment shall be paid to Lessor by Lessee on the Commencement Date and on each anniversary date of the Commencement Date during the Lease Term. The 1998 Lease also provided that HMA, as Lessee, would pay "all taxes, if any, prior to delinquency." Under the 1998 Lease, the County agreed to lease the premises in consideration of HMA’s timely payment of rent and timely performance of the other covenants and agreements required under the lease. It was an “event of default” under the lease if HMA failed to observe and perform any covenant, condition, or agreement on its part which could be cured by a payment of money. Remedies for default under the 1998 Lease included termination of the lease by the County and exclusion of HMA from possession of the leased premises. Even though the leased premises under the 1998 Lease were not subject to ad valorem taxes because they were owned by the County, during public discussions of the proposed 1998 Lease, an issue arose about HMA's responsibility for payment of fire assessments that would have been paid if the property was not immune or exempt from ad valorem taxes. HMA agreed, by separate agreement, to pay the fire assessments and buy a new ambulance to serve the community. The fire assessment agreement was by separate document that was included as part of the closing of the 1998 Lease and other agreements involving the hospital facilities in June 1998. The 1998 Lease was dated June 1, 1998. The 1998 Lease terms included a merger clause in section 15.6 entitled “ENTIRE AGREEMENT,” which provided: This lease may not be modified, amended or otherwise changed orally, but may only be modified, amended or otherwise changed by an agreement in writing signed by both parties. This Lease Agreement and its accompanying guaranty constitute the entire agreement between the parties affecting this Lease. This Lease Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements, and understandings between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter thereof, and no such outside or prior agreements shall be used to interpret or to construe this Lease. There are no promises, covenants, representations or inducements in addition to, or at variance with any of the terms of this Lease Agreement except the Guaranty. In 2001, the County and HMA began negotiations for relocation of the Brooksville Regional Hospital which was part of the leased premises described in the 1998 Lease. During the negotiations, HMA, through its attorney, Steven Mitchell, prepared a proposed comprehensive relocation agreement in consultation with former County Attorney Bruce Snow. Section 7.3 of the proposed relocation agreement contemplated revising the 1998 Lease and suggested the following preliminarily negotiated language for rental payments under a revised 1998 Lease: Rental Payments The Lessee shall pay to Lessor on the due date therefore as set forth in the Lease Agreement, the sum of Three Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) per annum. The Lessee shall pay to Lessor on an annual basis, either as rent or by virtue of a payment to Hernando County of the same sum to be used by Hernando County as it deems appropriate, an amount equal to the ad valorem taxes that would have been paid on the New Facility Site as improved with the New Facility if the New Facility Site were not owned by Hernando County but owned by a for-profit entity. In the event the New Facility Site and the New Facility located thereon are subsequently required by law to pay ad valorem taxes then the obligation to pay the amount described in Section 7.3(b) herein shall immediately terminate and Lessee shall be responsible for the payment of the appropriate ad valorem tax. The proposed comprehensive relocation agreement was discussed at public meetings held by the Hernando County Board of Commissioners on September 17 and September 25, 2001. The minutes of the September 25, 2001, meeting indicate that the County Administrator advised that the proposed relocation agreement contemplated that HMA would continue to pay $300,000 annually as rent, and “would make a payment-in-lieu of taxes annually to the County . . . .” The minutes also reflect that, in responding to a question from a commissioner regarding whether there should be language in the agreement that would protect the “payment-in-lieu of taxes” provision in the event the law changed: [Former County Attorney] Snow replied that it was his recommendation that there should be a provision that to the extent that the organic law of the State provided that facilities, such as the new hospital or other hospital under the lease, were taxable for ad valorem tax purposes, that that provision of the organic law would apply to ensure that that provision superseded. He explained that the lease provision to provide for an ad valorem tax payment was only to the extent that the organic law did not otherwise compel it so that the County would be receiving ad valorem tax under either scenario. The minutes from the September 25, 2001, meeting further state: Mr. Snow replied to County Attorney Garth Coller that there had been recent Supreme Court decisions which may have a bearing on the organic law to the extent that a decision of that nature indicated that the facilities were subject to ad valorem tax, notwithstanding the ownership issue, then they were subject to ad valorem tax and the lease would need to clarify that. He suggested that if the FS or Constitution should change, even in the absence of an interpretation of the Supreme Court decision, the change would obligate the payment of ad valorem taxes pursuant to the constitutional or statutory provisions. He explained that organic law pertained to provisions of FS or the Constitution as opposed to a Court decision. Mr. Snow’s reported reference to recent “Supreme Court decisions” regarding ad valorem taxes undoubtedly was referring the decision, among others, in Sebring Airport Authority v. McIntyre, 718 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1998). In that decision, rendered a few months after the County entered into the 1998 Lease, the Supreme Court of Florida stated with regard to municipal (as opposed to county) property: [T]here is nothing in article VII, section 3 that allows the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation municipally owned property or any other property that is being used primarily for a proprietary purpose or for any purpose other than a governmental, municipal or public purpose. To the extent section 196.012(6) attempts to exempt from taxation municipal property used for a proprietary purpose, the statute is unconstitutional. Id. at 298. The Sebring case did not address tax immunity of county property as distinguished from the issue of tax exemptions for the proprietary use of municipal property. The proposed “Rental Payments” language for revisions to the 1998 Lease, however, demonstrates that the drafters of the comprehensive relocation agreement were aware of the possibility that the Sebring rationale could be expanded and applied to county property. The comprehensive relocation agreement was approved by the County, and executed in late 2001. Attached as to that relocation agreement as Schedule C was an unsigned document entitled “First Amendment to Lease Agreement” that was not to be executed until the new facility was completed and transferred to the County. Subsection 3.3 of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement entitled “Rental Payments” provided: Rental Payments The Lessee shall pay to the Lessor on the due date therefore as set forth in the Lease Agreement, the sum of Three Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) per annum. The Lessee shall pay to the Lessor on an annual basis, either as rent or by virtue of a payment to Hernando County of an amount (“Additional Payment”) equal to the sum of the following: An amount equal to that portion of the ad valorem taxes that would have been paid to Hernando County on the Leased Premises (as modified by the substitution of the New Facility Site for the Current Hospital Site) if the Leased Premises were not owned by Hernando County but owned by a for profit entity; and An amount equal to that portion of the ad valorem taxes that would have been paid to the Spring Hill Fire and Rescue District, the Township 22 Fire District and/or any other special taxing district that may be established pursuant to law; and An amount equal to all special assessments levied by Hernando County through any Municipal Service Benefit Unit created by Hernando County pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.01, Florida Statutes; and An amount equal to all ad valorem tax levied by Hernando County through any Municipal Service Taxing Unit created by Hernando County pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.01, Florida Statutes. In no event shall the Additional Payments exceed an amount equal to a full ad valorem tax assessment on the New Facility Site as determined annually by the Hernando County Property Appraiser. In the event the Lessee and/or Lessor is required by law to pay ad valorem taxes on the Leased Premises or any portion thereof, the obligation to pay to Lessor the Additional Payment described in this Section 3.3 shall immediately terminate (and/or be adjusted, whichever is applicable), and Lessee shall be responsible for payment of the appropriate ad valorem tax. The First Amendment to Lease Agreement further provided, “[e]xcept as expressly modified herein, all other terms and conditions set forth in the [1998] Lease Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed.” The new hospital facility was completed and transferred to the County in 2005. On November 15, 2005, the County commission approved documents related to the transfer, including the First Amendment to Lease Agreement in the precise form as attached to the relocation agreement approved in 2001. The approval was obtained on a consent agenda, and the minutes reflect no further discussion by the commission or the public on the documents that were approved. In 2009, the Hernando County School District sued the County Property Appraiser, alleging that the properties subject to the 1998 Lease as amended by the First Amendment to Lease Agreement should not be exempt from ad valorem taxation. In a 13-page Order dismissing the School District’s action, Circuit Judge Daniel B. Merritt, Jr., distinguished the cases disallowing statutory ad valorem tax exemptions for properties owned by special tax districts or cities from the sovereign immunity against ad valorem taxes enjoyed by real estate owned by the State of Florida and its counties. In his ruling, Judge Merritt noted that Florida law specifically makes leasehold interests in governmental property subject to taxation, noting: The Legislature defines leasehold interests as intangible personal property and, hence, assessed by the Florida Department of Revenue, when: (1) rent is due; (2) the property is used for commercial purposes; (3) is not used for agriculture; (4) not financed with revenue bonds, and; (5) the lease is for an initial term of less than 100 years; §§196.199(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), 199.023(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), specifically preserved in Chapter 2006-312, Laws of Florida (2006). However, see below for further analysis with regard to presumed ownership of property leased for 100 years or more as set forth in §196.199(7), Florida Statutes. Judge Merritt also discussed those instances where “leased” property might not qualify as State or county property where lessees are the “equitable owners,” such as leaseholds of 100 years or more or where properties do not revert to the State until the end of a lease term. In his order, however, Judge Merritt noted that the tax immunity of the County was a fundamental attribute of county property and held that “under the terms of the Lease Agreements the Court concludes that HMA has merely the right to use and possession and is not the beneficial owner as a matter of law Hernando County’s immune property and improvements.” Judge Merritt’s Order was affirmed on appeal. School Board of Hernando County v. Mazourek, Case No. H-27-CA-2009-549 (5th Cir. 2009), per curiam aff’d, 2010 WL 4323055 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) In December, 2010, the Department notified the County it had been selected for a tax compliance audit under chapter 212, Florida Statutes, Sales and Use Tax. The audit period was from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2009. The County’s personnel were cordial and receptive during the audit process and the Department’s auditor determined that the books and records kept by the County had adequate internal accounting controls in place and sufficient data integrity. Out of the approximately 19 tax registration accounts the County has with the Department, the Department’s auditor found exception with only tax account #12445797, the tax collected and remitted under its lease with HMA. In her record review, the Department’s auditor noticed invoices and worksheets from the County to HMA, titled “Payment in lieu of taxes.” In examining the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement, Section 3.3 “Rental Payments,” the Department’s auditor determined that the County was not collecting sales tax on a portion of the rent received under that section. The monthly tax return filed by the County under account # 12445797 reflected that it was collecting and remitting the sales tax calculated on the $300,000.00 annual rent payment, but was not collecting and remitting sales tax calculated on the additional payments in lieu of taxes. The Department’s auditor determined the additional payments, required under the lease and made as a condition of occupancy, constituted a taxable transaction as additional rent consideration. The amount of the additional payments, made January 2007 and March 2008, as revealed on the County’s “Payment in lieu of taxes worksheets,” was multiplied by 6.5 percent to arrive at the additional tax amount due of $78,710.17. On December 9, 2010, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, Form DR 1215, advising the County of its audit findings, which included $78,710.17 in taxes due, $14,526.37 in accrued interest through December 9, 2010, and a $19,677.55 late payment penalty. On December 21, 2010, the Department issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment, Form DR 831, showing an assessment of $78,710.17 in tax and $14,707.51 in accrued interest, for a total of $93,417.68 through December 21, 2010, with interest accruing thereafter at the rate of $15.10 per diem. All penalty amounts were waived. At the final hearing, the County argued that the additional payments from HMA under the First Amendment to Lease Agreement were not rent, but rather separate payments to pay for County services. While the actual language used in the First Amendment to Lease Agreement appears to unambiguously indicate that the additional payments were rent, the County offered additional evidence of facts and circumstances beyond the terms of the lease itself in support of its argument that the additional payments were not rent. That evidence was admitted, without objection, and has been considered in determining the intention of the parties to the lease with regard to the additional payments. In addition to evidence that the lease drafters were aware of certain cases decided on the issue of whether the leased premises would be subject to ad valorem taxes, the County offered the testimony of Mr. Mitchell regarding the “Rental Payments” language found in the First Amendment to Lease Agreement. When asked whether there had been much negotiation over the format or wording of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement, Mr. Mitchell recalled: No, there really wasn’t other than, you know, the concept – what this amendment does is what we had agreed to pay rental payment. The rental payment was $300,000. And then, we also had agreed independently just to go ahead and pay the County for certain services that they were providing to us. And then we specified those. Those were independent payments, not part of the rental payment. Mr. Mitchell further testified: [B]asically, this property is free of ad valorem tax. That is why the school board filed their lawsuit because, of course, they were not getting any of the ad valorem taxes. So, the property is free of payment of ad valorem taxes. We’re paying our 300,000. It was very, very clear. However, HMA felt that the County was providing certain services, the fire districts and whatnot. So, independent of the rent, we paid this amount. If you read the section dealing – it’s 3.3.[2], or whatever it is, which I’ll read it to you, it talks about, at the very end – and they did it for whatever reason the property became taxable, you know, it effectively became taxable and we had to pay full ad valorem taxes on the property, then the specialties – these additional payments we called, you know, would go away and they, effectively, be part of rent. That's why it talks about it as such, and it was either additional payment and/or rent. Contrary to Mr. Mitchell’s recollection, section 3.3.2 of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement does not speak in terms of “additional payment and/or rent” but rather states that another payment would be made “either as rent or by virtue of a payment to Hernando County of an amount ('Additional Payment') . . .". Mr. Mitchell makes a valid point regarding the fact that HMA was concerned about having to pay both the additional payment and ad valorem taxes. Consistent with this concern, the lease amendment made it clear that HMA would not have to pay the additional amount if the property ever became subject to ad valorem taxes. Mr. Mitchell’s testimony in support of the County’s contention that HMA’s payment in lieu of taxes under the First Amendment to Lease Agreement was not rent, however, is unpersuasive. Considering the extrinsic evidence offered by the County, especially evidence of the parties concern that the subject County property might someday be subject to ad valorem taxes, together with the 1998 Lease, language negotiated for the proposed relocation agreement, and the actual terms of the First Amendment to Lease Agreement, it is found that the parties intended the language under the "Rental Payments" section to assure that HMA did not have to pay the additional amount twice. The extrinsic evidence offered by the County, however, was insufficient to support a finding that the parties intended to differentiate between “rent” and the “additional payment” or that, however characterized, the payment in lieu of taxes was not rent subject to assessment by the Department. If the parties had wanted to provide language that designated the payment in lieu of taxes as a payment for services instead of rent they could have, as they did in the Second Amendment to Lease Agreement entered into on September 13, 2011, just ten days prior to the final hearing in this case.2/ That Second Amendment to Lease Agreement changed the name of section 3.3 from “Rental Payments,” as found in the First Amendment, to “Rent and Additional Payment for County Services.” Pertinent subsections of the Second Amendment further provided: 3.3.2 Additional Payment for County Services. The Lessee shall pay to Lessor on an annual basis, as an additional payment (“Additional Payment”) for services provided by Hernando County [in its role as a service provider and local taxing authority], . . . * * * The Additional Payment is not intended to constitute “rent” and is not intended to create an event subject to Florida sales tax – but rather is intended to constitute a separate payment for the provision of services, payable to the local taxing authority, as provided in § 212.031(1)(c), Florida Statutes (which allow parties by contractual arrangement to distinguish between payments which are intended to be taxable and payments which are intended to be nontaxable), as this section may be amended or renumbered from time to time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, consistent with the Notice of Proposed Assessment dated December 21, 2010, and this Recommended Order, the Department of Revenue enter a final order finding that Petitioner owes tax and interest due totaling $93,417.68 through December 21, 2010, with interest accruing thereafter at the rate of $15.10 per diem, without penalties. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2011.
The Issue The issues in this bid protest are, first, whether, as Petitioner alleges, Intervenor's failure to attach copies of "occupational licenses" to its proposal was a deviation from the requirements of the Request for Proposal; second, whether any such deviation was material; and third, whether Respondent's preliminary decision to award Intervenor the contract at issue was clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact On September 18, 2009, Respondent Department of Transportation ("Department") issued Request for Proposal No. RFP-DOT-09/10-4007FS (the "RFP"). Through the RFP, which is entitled, "Treasure Coast Road Ranger Service Patrol," the Department solicited written proposals from qualified providers who would be willing and able to perform towing and emergency roadside services on Interstate 95 in Martin County, St. Lucie County, and Indian River County. The Department intended to award a three-year contract to the "responsive and responsible Proposer whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Department." The Department anticipated that the contract would have a term beginning on December 1, 2009, and ending on November 31, 2012. The annual contract price was not to exceed $1.59 million. Proposals were due on October 13, 2009. Four firms timely submitted proposals in response to the RFP, including Petitioner Sunshine Towing @ Broward, Inc. ("Sunshine") and Intervenor Anchor Towing and Marine of Broward, Inc. ("Anchor"). An evaluation ensued, pursuant to a process described in the RFP, during which the Department rejected two of the four proposals for failing to meet minimum requirements relating to technical aspects of the project. As a result, Sunshine and Anchor emerged as the only competitors eligible for the award. Sunshine offered to perform the contractual services for an annual price of $1,531,548. This sum was less than the price that Anchor proposed by $46,980 per year. Despite Sunshine's lower cost, Anchor nevertheless edged Sunshine in the final score, receiving 92.86 points (out of 100) from the Department's evaluators, to Sunshine's 87.75. On November 30, 2009, the Department duly notified the public of its intent to award the contract to Anchor. Sunshine promptly initiated the instant protest, whereby Sunshine seeks to have Anchor's proposal disqualified as nonresponsive, in hopes that the Department will then award the contract to Sunshine as the highest-ranked (indeed the sole) responsive proposer. Sunshine alleges that Anchor's proposal failed to conform strictly to the specifications of the RFP, principally because Anchor did not attach copies of its "occupational licenses" to the proposal. Anchor insists that its proposal was responsive but argues, alternatively, that if its proposal deviated from the specifications, the deviation was merely a minor irregularity which the Department could waive. Anchor further contends that Sunshine's proposal contains material deviations for which it should be deemed nonresponsive. The Department takes the position that Anchor's failure to attach "occupational licenses" was a minor irregularity that could be (and was) waived.1 The RFP includes a "Special Conditions" section wherein the specifications at the heart of this dispute are located. Of particular interest is Special Condition No. 8, which specifies the qualifications a provider must have to be considered qualified to perform the services called for under the contract to be awarded. Special Condition No. 8 provides as follows: QUALIFICATIONS General The Department will determine whether the Proposer is qualified to perform the services being contracted based upon their proposal demonstrating satisfactory experience and capability in the work area. The Proposer shall identify necessary experienced personnel and facilities to support the activities associated with this proposal. Qualifications of Key Personnel Those individuals who will be directly involved in the project should have demonstrated experience in the areas delineated in the scope of work. Individuals whose qualifications are presented will be committed to the project for its duration unless otherwise excepted by the Department's Project Manager. Where State of Florida registration or certification is deemed appropriate, a copy of the registration or certificate should be included in the proposal package. Authorized To Do Business in the State of Florida In accordance with sections 607.1501, 608.501, and 620.169, Florida Statutes, foreign corporations, foreign limited liability companies, and foreign limited partnerships must be authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Such authorization should be obtained by the proposal due date and time, but in any case, must be obtained prior to the posting of the intended award of the contact. For authorization, [contact the Florida Department of State].[2] Licensed to Conduct Business in the State of Florida If the business being provided requires that individuals be licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, such licenses should be obtained by the proposal due date and time, but in any case, must be obtained prior to the posting of the intended award of the contract. For licensing, [contact the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation]. References and experience must entail a minimum of three (3) years of experience in the towing industry in Florida. NOTE: Copies of occupational licenses must also be attached to the back of Form 'F'. (Boldface in original.) Special Condition No. 19, which defines the term "responsive proposal," provides as follows: RESPONSIVENESS OF PROPOSALS Responsiveness of Proposals Proposals will not be considered if not received by the Department on or before the date and time specified as the due date for submission. All proposals must be typed or printed in ink. A responsive proposal is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Request for Proposal in accordance with all the requirements of this Request for Proposal and receiving fifty (50) points or more on the Technical Proposal.[3] Proposals found to be non-responsive shall not be considered. Proposals may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A proposal may be found to be irregular or non-responsive by reasons that include, but are not limited to, failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, conditional proposals, incomplete proposals, indefinite or ambiguous proposals, and improper and/or undated signatures. (Emphasis and boldface in original.) In the "General Instructions to Respondents" section of the RFP there appears the following reservation of rights: 16. Minor Irregularities/Right to Reject. The Buyer reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids, or separable portions thereof, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if the Buyer determines that doing so will serve the State's best interests. The Buyer may reject any response not submitted in the manner specified by the solicitation documents. Anchor did not attach copies of any "occupational licenses" to the back of Form 'F' in its proposal. Anchor contends that it did not need to attach such licenses because none exists. This position is based on two undisputed facts: (1) The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("DBPR") does not regulate the business of providing towing and emergency roadside assistance; therefore, neither Anchor nor Sunshine held (or could hold) a state-issued license to operate, and neither company fell under DBPR's regulatory jurisdiction. (2) The instrument formerly known as an "occupational license," which local governments had issued for decades, not for regulatory purposes but as a means of raising revenue, is presently called (at least formally) a "business tax receipt," after the Florida Legislature, in 2006, amended Chapter 205 of the Florida Statutes, changing the name of that law from the "Local Occupational License Tax Act" to the "Local Business Tax Act." See 2006 Fla. Laws ch. 152. Sunshine asserts that the terms "occupational license" and "business tax receipt" are synonymous and interchangeable, and that the RFP required each offeror to attach copies of its occupational licenses/business tax receipts to the proposal. Sunshine insists that Anchor's failure to do so constituted a material deviation from the specifications because, without such documentation, the Department could not be sure whether an offeror was authorized to do business in any given locality. Sunshine presses this argument a step further based on some additional undisputed facts. As it happened, at the time the proposals were opened, Anchor held a local business tax receipt from the City of Pembroke Pines, which is the municipality in which Anchor maintains its principal place of business. Anchor had not, however, paid local business taxes to Broward County when they became due, respectively, on July 1, 2008, and July 1, 2009. Anchor corrected this problem on December 14, 2009, which was about two weeks after the Department had posted notice of its intent to award Anchor the contract, paying Broward County a grand total of $248.45 in back taxes, collection costs, and late penalties. As of this writing, all of Anchor's local business tax obligations are paid in full. Sunshine contends, however, that during the period of time that Anchor's Broward County business taxes were delinquent, Anchor was not authorized to do business in Broward County and hence was not a "responsible" proposer eligible for award of the contract. In support of this proposition, Sunshine relies upon Section 20-15 of the Broward County, Florida, Code of Ordinances ("Broward Code"), which states: Pursuant to the authority granted by Chapter 205, Florida Statutes, no person shall engage in or manage any business, profession or occupation, as the same are contemplated by Chapter 205, Florida Statutes, unless such person first obtains a business tax receipt as required by this article, unless other exempt from this requirement . . . . On this latter point regarding Anchor's authority to operate in Broward County, Sunshine appears to be correct, at least in a narrow legal sense. It is abundantly clear, however, and the undersigned finds, that, as a matter of fact, Anchor was never in any danger of being shut down by the county. Indeed, even under the strict letter of the local law, Anchor was entitled to continue operating in Broward County unless and until the county took steps to compel the payment of the delinquent taxes. Broward Code Section 20-22, which deals with the enforcement of the business tax provisions, provides: Whenever any person who is subject to the payment of a business tax or privilege tax provided by this article shall fail to pay the same when due, the tax collector, within three (3) years from the due date of the tax, may issue a warrant directed to the Broward County Sheriff, commanding him/her to levy upon and sell any real or personal property of such person liable for said tax for the amount thereof and the cost of executing the warrant and to return such warrant to the tax collector and to pay him/her the money collected by virtue thereof within sixty (60) days from the date of the warrant. . . . The tax collector may file a copy of the warrant with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Broward County[, which shall be recorded in the public records and thereby] become a lien for seven (7) years from the due date of the tax. . . . Any person subject to, and who fails to pay, a business tax or privilege tax required by this article, shall, on petition of the tax collector, be enjoined by the Circuit Court from engaging in the business for which he/she has failed to pay said business tax, until such time as he/she shall pay the same with costs of such action. There is no evidence suggesting that the county ever sought to enjoin, or that a court ever issued an injunction prohibiting, Anchor from engaging in business, nor does it appear, based on the evidence, that a tax warrant ever was issued, filed, or executed to force Anchor to pay its back taxes. Given the relatively small amount of tax due, the likelihood of such enforcement actions being taken must reasonably be reckoned as slim to none. While paying taxes when due is certainly the obligation of a good corporate citizen, it would not be reasonable, based on the facts established in this case, to infer that Anchor is a scofflaw for failing to timely pay a local tax amounting to about $80 per year. Anchor, in short, was a responsible proposer. Sunshine's other argument has more going for it. The RFP clearly and unambiguously mandated that "occupational licenses" be attached to a proposal. If, as Sunshine maintains, the terms "occupational license" and "business tax receipt" are clearly synonymous, then Anchor's proposal was noncompliant. For reasons that will be explained below, however, the undersigned has concluded, as a matter of law, that the term "occupational license" does not unambiguously denote a "business tax receipt"——at least not in the context of Special Condition No. 8. The specification, in other words, is ambiguous. No one protested the specification or otherwise sought clarification of the Department's intent. The evidence shows, and the undersigned finds, that the Department understood and intended the term "occupational license" to mean the instrument now known as a "business tax receipt." The Department simply used the outdated name, as many others probably still do, owing to that facet of human nature captured by the expression, "old habits die hard." The Department's interpretation of the ambiguous specification is not clearly erroneous and therefore should not be disturbed in this proceeding. Based on the Department's interpretation of Special Condition No. 8, the undersigned finds that Anchor's failure to attach copies of its occupational licenses was a deviation from the requirements of the RFP. That is not the end of the matter, however, for a deviation is not necessarily disqualifying unless it is found to be material. The letting authority may, in the exercise of discretion, choose to waive a minor irregularity if doing so will not compromise the integrity and fairness of the competition. There is no persuasive direct evidence in the record that the Department made a conscious decision to waive the irregularity in Anchor's proposal. Documents in the Department's procurement file show, however, that the Department knew that Anchor's proposal lacked copies of occupational licenses, and in any event this was a patent defect, inasmuch as nothing was attached to the back of Anchor's Form 'F'. It is therefore reasonable to infer that the Department elected to waive the irregularity, and the undersigned so finds. Necessarily implicit in the Department's action (waiving the deficiency) is an agency determination that that the irregularity was a minor one. The question of whether or not Anchor's noncompliance with Special Condition No. 8 was material is fairly debatable. Ultimately, however, the undersigned is unable to find, for reasons more fully developed below, that the Department's determination in this regard was clearly erroneous. Because the Department's determination was not clearly erroneous, the undersigned accepts that Anchor's failure to submit occupational licenses was a minor irregularity, which the Department could waive. The Department's decision to waive the minor irregularity is entitled to great deference and should be upheld unless it was arbitrary or capricious. The undersigned cannot say that waiving the deficiency in question was illogical, despotic, thoughtless, or otherwise an abuse of discretion; to the contrary, once it has been concluded that the irregularity is minor and immaterial, as the Department not incorrectly did here, waiver seems the reasonable and logical course of action. The upshot is that the proposed award to Anchor should be allowed to stand. The foregoing determination renders moot the disputed issues of fact arising from Anchor's allegation that Sunshine's proposal was nonresponsive. It is unnecessary, therefore, for the undersigned to make additional findings on that subject.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order consistent with its preliminary decision to award Anchor the contract at issue. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 6th day of April, 2010.
Findings Of Fact In the original corporate income tax report submitted by Florida Power Corporation for the 1973 tax year the tax was computed using the federal income tax base. This included various depreciation methods and schedules in which accelerated depreciation had been claimed for federal tax purposes by Petitioner in years prior to 1972 and the initiation of the Florida Corporate Income Tax Law. By using accelerated depreciation schedules authorized by the federal tax laws, higher depreciation is allowed in the early years of an asset's useful life, leaving a lesser amount of depreciation to be charged off for tax purposes in the latter years of an asset's life. Essentially, Petitioner here contends that depreciable assets acquired prior to the effective date of the Florida Corporate Income Tax law were depreciated on accelerated schedules for federal tax purposes, but upon the effective date of the Florida Corporate Income Tax Law had value in excess of that shown on the federal tax schedule. By requiring taxpayers to use the same depreciation schedules for Florida taxes that are required for federal taxes Petitioner contends it is being penalized for the accelerated depreciation taken before the Florida income tax became constitutional. As an example of Petitioner's position it may be assumed that a depreciable asset was acquired for $100,000 with a useful life of 10 years, three years before the Florida Income Tax Law was passed. Also assume that during this three-year period from acquisition a double declining balance depreciation was taken for computing federal income taxes. Depreciation taken for the first year would be $20,000, for the second year $16,000 and for the third year $12,800, leaving a basis for further depreciation of $41,200 for this asset with seven years useful life remaining. For federal tax purposes Petitioner takes depreciation each year based upon initial cost less accumulated depreciation. Because this value decreased rapidly for the first three years in the assumed example and the excess depreciation thereby generated was not usable in reducing Florida taxes, Petitioner contends it is discriminated against in being required to, in effect, use the book value for federal tax purposes in computing its Florida income tax. Petitioner presented additional examples of reported income for federal income tax purposes which it claims should be exempt from Florida Income Tax. The specific deductions from which the $619,697 refund was computed were not broken down to show how much resulted from the accelerated depreciation schedules which commences prior to January 1, 1972, and how much was derived from these additional examples, some of which were given simply as an example of deferring income for tax purposes. Prior to January 1, 1972, Petitioner purchased some of its bonds prior to maturity and at a discount. As an example if Petitioner purchases $1,000,000 face value of these bonds for $800,000, it has realized a $200,000 gain which it must report as income for federal income tax purposes. These same federal tax rules allow Petitioner to elect to pay the income tax in the year received or spread it equally over the succeeding ten year period. Petitioner elected to spread the income over the succeeding ten year period and each year add $20,000 to its reported income for federal income tax purposes. Since the income was realized before January 1, 1972, Petitioner contends this is not subject to federal tax purposes. With respect to overhead during construction of depreciable assets the taxpayer is allowed to charge these costs off as an expense in the year incurred or capitalize these expenses. If the taxpayer elects to capitalize these expenses they are added to the cost of the constructed asset and recovered as depreciation as the asset is used. Petitioner elected to charge these expenses in the year incurred rather than capitalize them. Had they been capitalized originally, Petitioner would, in 1973, have been entitled to recover these costs in its depreciation of the asset. In its amended return it seeks to treat these costs as if they had been capitalized rather than expenses prior to January 1, 1972. Although apparently not involved in the amended return, Petitioner also presented an example where changes in accounting procedures can result in a gain to the taxpayer which is treated as income to the taxpayer, which he may elect to spread over future years in equal increments until the total gain has been reported.
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue should assess Heftler Construction Company ("Taxpayer") for Florida corporate income taxes on a claim that: Taxpayer realized a gain under the Florida Income Tax Code when an asset acquired in 1971 (on liquidation of a joint venture) was sold in 1975 in satisfaction of an outstanding debt; and Taxpayer's losses created by the subtraction of foreign source income cannot operate to create or increase the Florida portion of the net operating loss carryover.
Findings Of Fact Formation and Liquidation of Joint Venture; Subsequent Sale of Asset Taxpayer is a New Jersey corporation, authorized to transact business in Florida. Heftler Realty Company ("Realty") is a Florida corporation, and is a subsidiary of Taxpayer. Taxpayer, for all years material to these proceedings, filed consolidated income tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service of the United States ("IRS") . Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"), Taxpayer included in the income and expenses of its consolidated income tax returns the income and expenses of its operations in Puerto Rico. Taxpayer, for all years material to these proceedings, timely filed with the Department consolidated income tax returns. In 1969, Realty formed a joint venture with a company known as GACL, Inc., for the purpose of developing real property Realty, in accordance with its Joint Venture Agreement with GACL, Inc., prior to 1971, contributed to the joint venture the following assets with the following cost basis to Taxpayer on the date of contribution: ASSET DATE CONTRIBUTED TO JOINT VENTURE COST BASIS TO TAXPAYER ON DATE CONTRIBUTED Cash 3-5-69 $250,000 Land 3-5-69 2,000,000 In 1971, prior to the effective date of the Florida Income Tax Code ("Florida Code"), Chapter 220, Florida Statutes, the joint venture between Realty and GACL, Inc., was liquidated effective as of January 1, 1971. Pursuant to the plan of liquidation, Realty received, in liquidation of the joint venture, the assets as described in the attached Appendix. These assets had a then cost basis to the joint venture as described in the Appendix. The assets acquired by Realty in liquidation of the joint venture were subject to the debts described in the Appendix. Pursuant to the plan of liquidation of the joint venture, Realty agreed to acquire the assets and assume the attendant debts (itemized in the Appendix) as of January 1, 1971. At the time of the liquidation of the joint venture, Realty had a cost basis for its interest in the joint venture of a negative $285,749. (Realty had a negative basis in the assets because it sustained joint venture losses in excess of its contributions to the joint venture.) The net gain to Realty as' reported upon the federal income tax return of Taxpayer, after adjustment for depreciation, as a result of the liquidation was $1,238,37l. In 1971, Realty reduced its tax basis in the assets acquired in the liquidation. This adjustment (reduction) in the tax basis of the assets acquired by Taxpayer occurred prior to the effective date of the Florida Code. An asset acquired by Realty in 1971, pursuant to the plan of liquidation of the joint venture, was conveyed by Realty in 1975 to a creditor of Realty in satisfaction of debt. After adjusting the tax basis of the asset, a comparison of its book basis (to the joint venture) with the tax basis to Taxpayer after liquidation, reflects the following: Adjusted Basis as of Jan. 1, Tax Basis to Tax- Book Basis to payer or After Joint Venture Liquidation Difference 1971 $4,466,764 $3,055,722 $1,411,042 Accumulated Depreciation to Date of Sale (587,212) (414,541) (172,671) Adjusted Basis $3,879,552 $2,641,181 $1,238,371 For purposes of its Federal Income Tax, Taxpayer reported the transaction as a sale and computed the gain thereon as follows: $3,951,708 Expense of Sale $2,713,337 3. Total Gain $1,238,371 Gross Sale Price Cost or Other Basis and (The difference between the gross sales price and the adjusted basis referred to in paragraph 13 of $72,156 is an increase to the price due to escrow funds deposited with a mortgagee and assigned to the purchaser of the asset by Realty without Realty receiving reimbursement.) In computing the Florida income tax, pursuant to the Florida Code, for the fiscal year ending July 31, 1976, Taxpayer took as a subtraction an adjustment on line 8, Schedule II, page 2 of its income tax return. The subtraction was in the amount of the capital gain received upon the sale of the asset received in liquidation in the amount of $1,238,371. Taxpayer subtracted the gain, contending that it was realized prior to the effective date of the Florida Code. When acquired, the asset received in liquidation had a cost basis to the joint venture Of approximately $4,500,000. When the asset was distributed to Taxpayer, after the reduction by Taxpayer to the tax basis referred to in paragraph 11, the basis to Taxpayer of the asset was approximately $3,000,000. The tax basis in the amount of $3,000,000 was evidenced by the debts assumed by Taxpayer upon the liquidation; such assumption of debt is referred to in paragraph 7. Department contends that the gain on the sale of the asset acquired in liquidation was both realized and recognized in 1975 when the property was sold in satisfaction of a debt; it has issued a proposed assessment on that basis. Taxpayer contends that the gain was realized by Taxpayer for federal income tax purposes prior to the effective date of the Florida Code and that only the recognition of the gain occurred after the effective date of the Florida Code. II. 1975 Loss Created by Subtraction of Foreign Source Income; Attempt to Carryover Loss to Subsequent Years Taxpayer, in addition to the adjustment referred to above, in reporting income for its fiscal years ending July 31, 1976, July 31, 1977, and July 31, 1978, deducted a net operating loss carry-forward which included an item of $335,037 from its 1975 return (fiscal year ending July 31, 1976) and an item of $916,030 for fiscal year ending July 31, 1978, represented by a subtraction resulting from income earned in Puerto Rico. The subtraction resulted in losses during each of such years, which losses were carried forward by Taxpayer to the next ensuing year. Department contends that the losses created by the subtraction of foreign source income cannot be carried over to subsequent years to determine income and has issued a proposed assessment on that basis. Taxpayer contends that it is not the intent of the Florida Legislature to tax income derived from sources outside the United States and that the effect of a denial of the subtraction will result in the taxation, by Florida, of foreign source income received by Taxpayer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department's proposed assessment of Taxpayer for corporate income tax deficiencies be issued. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner's business records for the period July 1, 1985, through June 30, 1990. Respondent determined a deficiency in sales tax of $174,823.96, including penalty and interest through August 22, 1990. Petitioner objected to the deficiency. Respondent reviewed the audit, and made audit changes that are the subject of this proceeding. The audit changes determined a deficiency in use tax of $76,035.60, including tax ($47,910.10), penalty ($11,977.68), and interest through March 12, 1991 ($16,147.60). Interest accrues daily in the amount of $15.75. A First Revised Notice Of Intent To Make Sales Tax Changes, for the reduced assessment of $76,035.60, was issued on March 21, 1991. A Notice Of Proposed Assessment was issued on July 2, 1991. The Notice Of Proposed Assessment became a Final Assessment on August 31, 1991. Respondent made a prima facie showing of the factual and legal basis for the use tax assessment. Section 120.575(2), Florida Statutes. 1/ The audit and assessment are procedurally correct. Tax, interest, and penalty are correctly computed. Formation Petitioner was incorporated in Florida, in January, 1983, by Mr. B. Theodore Troy, president and sole shareholder. Petitioner's principal place of business is 101 Wymore Road, Suite 224, Altamonte Springs, Florida. Petitioner conducted business as American Advertising Distributors of Central Florida. Mr. Troy and his wife operated the business until liquidating Petitioner's assets in 1992. Operation Petitioner sold direct mail advertising to Florida businesses. Petitioner operated pursuant to a franchise agreement with American Advertising Distributors, Inc., of Mesa, Arizona ("AAD"). AAD was Petitioner's franchisor until AAD filed for bankruptcy in 1990. Petitioner solicited orders from Florida businesses 2/ for advertising coupons designed and printed by AAD in Arizona. AAD mailed the advertising coupons to addressees in Florida who were potential customers for Florida businesses. Florida businesses placed orders with Petitioner on written contracts, or sales agreements, labeled "advertising orders." AAD was not a party to advertising orders. Advertising orders identified "AAD" as American Advertising Distributors of Central Florida, and were imprinted with the name and address of "AAD" in Central Florida. Advertising orders specified the total charges, color and stock of paper, number of addressees, and areas of distribution. Petitioner assisted businesses with rough layout for art work. The rough layout was forwarded to AAD. AAD prepared finished art work and sent copies back to Petitioner for approval by Florida businesses. AAD then printed, collated, and mailed advertising coupons to addressees in Florida, without charge to addressees. Florida businesses paid non-refundable deposits when placing advertising orders. The remaining balance was paid upon approval of final art work. AAD did not submit invoices to Florida businesses. AAD submitted invoices to Petitioner for the amount due from Petitioner. 3/ Petitioner paid AAD 10 days before advertising coupons were mailed. Some advertising coupons were produced by Laberge Printers, Inc., in Orlando, Florida ("Laberge"). Coupons from Laberge were designed, printed, and distributed in the same manner as coupons from AAD. Two types of advertising coupons were provided by AAD and Laberge. The majority of coupons were distributed in coop mailings, or "bonus express" envelopes, containing coupons for up to 20 businesses. Bonus express envelopes were mailed approximately eight times a year. Advertising coupons were also distributed in "solo" mailings. A solo mailing was an individualized, custom printed coupon, or flyer, mailed to individual addressees. The total charges stated in advertising orders included the cost of services provided by Petitioner, AAD, and Laberge. Services included typesetting, art work, printing, inserting envelopes, and mailing. Florida imposed a tax on services, from July 1, 1987, through December 31, 1987. Petitioner collected and remitted tax imposed on the cost of services included in the total charges stated on advertising orders. Except for the services tax, neither Petitioner, AAD, nor Laberge collected and remitted sales or use tax to Florida or to Arizona. Petitioner never utilized resale certificates for any tax other than the tax on services. Collectibility Petitioner was financially able to pay the use tax assessment during 1990 and 1991. No later than August 22, 1990, Mr. Troy knew of the sales tax deficiency of $174,823.96. By March 21, 1991, Mr. Troy knew of the reduced use tax assessment of $76,035.60. During 1990 and 1991, Petitioner made discretionary payments to Mr. Troy of $110,389. Petitioner reported federal taxable income of $58,279 in 1990 and 1991. 4/ In arriving at taxable income, Petitioner deducted payments to Mr. Troy of $59,430 for compensation to officers, management fees, and salary. 5/ From taxable income of $58,279, Petitioner paid approximately $50,959 to Mr. Troy in nondeductible shareholder loans. 6/ Discretionary payments of $110,389, 7/ made to Mr. Troy in 1990 and 1991, were more than adequate to pay the use tax assessment of $76,036.60. At the end of 1991, Petitioner reported fixed assets with a book value of $14,933, a customer list valued at $104,447.72, and retained earnings of $102,605. The book value of intangible assets was $82,943, comprised primarily of the franchise, valued at $35,000, and goodwill of $45,000. Termination Of Operations But Continued Existence AAD petitioned for bankruptcy in 1990. Petitioner subsequently determined that its franchise and goodwill were worthless. In 1992, Petitioner reported a loss of $99,726 for federal tax purposes. All of Petitioner's assets, including its customer lists, were sold or transferred for $1,330 to Florida Mail, Inc. ("Florida Mail"). Florida Mail is a Florida corporation wholly owned by Mr. Troy. Florida Mail sells direct mail advertising; and shares Petitioner's principal place of business. Since 1992, Petitioner has been a shell corporation with $579 in assets.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order upholding the assessment of tax and interest and waive all of the penalty included in the assessment. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of June, 1994. DANIEL MANRY 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 2nd day of June, 1994.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Anne E. Carr is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0268356. In 1988 Helen B. Moser and her husband, John J. Moser, Jr., obtained their real estate salesman licenses. In 1989 they became real estate brokers. Upon becoming licensed brokers, they decided that they would like to open their own real estate office. They began contacting various real estate brokers seeking advice on how to open and operate a real estate business. Respondent was one of the brokers the Mosers contacted for advice. She and the Mosers already knew each other from previous professional activities. At the time, Respondent was the broker and sole stockholder of Carr Real Estate, Inc. She also was spending a substantial amount of time selling luxury condominiums for a particular developer, which required her to be on-site at the development. Respondent suggested to the Mosers that they join Carr Real Estate, Inc., and run the office for her rather than opening their own office, which would give them immediate access to her listings and many clients and allow her to devote her time to sales for the large real estate development. The Mosers agreed that was a good opportunity for all concerned and joined Carr Real Estate, Inc., as broker/salesmen in October of 1989. The Mosers began running the business for Respondent at her request, providing Respondent with monthly accountings. During 1990 the Mosers earned approximately $90,000 as a result of the listings they took over from Respondent and as a result of the listings Respondent referred to them. Throughout that year Carr Real Estate, Inc., remained a major presence in the Highland Beach area where Respondent was well known both for her flamboyant fashions and her ability to list and sell luxury ocean-front and water-front properties. During the first week of December 1990 Respondent advised the Mosers that due both to financial problems she was experiencing and pressure on her from the developer to devote full time to his sales she would be closing the business on December 31 unless the Mosers wanted to purchase the company from her. They advised Respondent they were interested in doing so and that they would draft the documents for Respondent's signature. Many discussions took place between Respondent and the Mosers over the next several weeks formulating the terms of the sale of the business, and the Mosers submitted to Respondent a number of drafts of documents. While the negotiations were on-going, Respondent filled out and executed on December 12, 1990, the documents necessary for her to file for personal bankruptcy. On December 15 she faxed written instructions to her attorney to not file the bankruptcy petition because she was selling her company. On December 20, 1990, Respondent and the Mosers executed a Purchase and Sale Agreement and a Bill of Sale. It is noted that those documents also involved the sale of Respondent's interest in two other corporations to the Mosers but that portion of the transaction raises no issues involved in this proceeding. The Purchase and Sale Agreement provided that its effective date would be January 1, 1991. The Agreement specifically represented that Carr Real Estate, Inc., was being sold free of any liabilities and encumbrances and that the corporation did not own any tangible assets. The Agreement further provided that Respondent would indemnify the Mosers from all obligations and liabilities incurred by Carr Real Estate, Inc., prior to January 1, 1991. The Agreement provided for no money to change hands as a result of the Mosers' purchase of Respondent's business; rather, the purchase price for the corporation was five percent of all sales commissions received by the corporation for a period of two years. On December 29, 1990, Respondent executed the Seller's Affidavit given to her by the Mosers. The portion of the Seller's Affidavit pertinent to this dispute is that Respondent attested that there were no actions or proceedings then pending in any state or federal court in which "the Affiant or Corporations" are parties, including bankruptcy. It was very clear in Respondent's mind that what she was selling under the Purchase and Sale Agreement and the Bill of Sale and what she was attesting to in the Seller's Affidavit was in regard to the corporation and not her personally. It never occurred to Respondent that she was representing to the Mosers that she personally had no bills and no assets. Respondent had no intention of defrauding the Mosers. Supporting this intent is the clear language contained in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Bill of Sale, and the Seller's Affidavit that she would personally indemnify and hold harmless the Mosers from any liabilities incurred by the corporation prior to the effective date of the sale. In mid-January 1991, approximately two weeks after the effective date of the sale, the Mosers discovered that a bankruptcy petition had been filed on behalf of Respondent as an individual. Although that petition did not involve the corporation, John Moser immediately contacted Respondent who did not know that her attorney had filed the petition contrary to Respondent's instructions. On January 23, 1991, Respondent wrote to Helen Moser apologizing for the erroneous filing of her bankruptcy petition and assuring her that it would be corrected. Respondent immediately contacted her attorney to ascertain how the petition could be dismissed. She was advised by her attorney that the only way she could dismiss the petition was to not attend the first meeting of creditors which would cause the petition to automatically be dismissed. Respondent did fail to attend the first meeting of creditors. Due to her failure to attend, her bankruptcy petition was dismissed. She immediately contacted Helen Moser to advise her of the dismissal. On February 1, 1991, John Moser called Respondent to inform her that a statement for a monthly automobile lease payment in the name of Carr Real Estate had been received. Respondent immediately sent the Mosers a note indicating that she had contacted G.M.A.C. but that company refused to allow her to transfer responsibility for her automobile lease payments from the corporation to herself. She acknowledged that she was responsible for any of the lease payments and requested that the Mosers acknowledge that the automobile was not an asset of the corporation. At the time Respondent knew that she was responsible for the lease payments because she signed the lease agreement as an individual. Respondent's contact with G.M.A.C. was unnecessary since her automobile had been leased to her as an individual in June of 1988, a date which preceded the existence of Carr Real Estate, Inc. The automobile was insured in Respondent's individual name and was registered in the name of G.M.A.C. at Respondent's address. The Bill of Sale executed by Respondent and the Mosers does not list the automobile as an asset of the corporation that was conveyed. The automobile leased by Respondent was not an asset of the corporation. The only relationship between Respondent's leased automobile and Carr Real Estate, Inc., concerns the deduction of automobile expenses as business expenses on the tax return for Carr Real Estate, Inc. On February 6, 1992, Helen Moser asked Respondent for a copy of the 1990 corporate tax return for Carr Real Estate, Inc., and Respondent provided a copy to her that same day. The return had been prepared in August or September of 1991 by Mary Dorak, a person enrolled with the Internal Revenue Service. It contained an entry entitled "loan from shareholder" in the sum of $107,060. Respondent had been the sole shareholder of the corporation. On February 26, 1992, the Mosers obtained an opinion letter from an attorney advising them that the corporation was not liable to Respondent for any debts. Neither the Mosers nor their accountant ever contacted Dorak or Respondent about the information contained in that tax return. Instead, the Mosers filed an amended corporate tax return for 1990 for Carr Real Estate, Inc. They removed the automobile as a corporate asset while leaving the shareholder's loan because it benefited them tax-wise. Instead of amending the return, the Mosers could have filed a 1991 return showing Respondent's stock exchange for the basis that was left of the stock in the corporation because the transaction took effect on January 1 of that year. Doing so would have caused no adverse tax consequences to the Mosers. Respondent typically provided Dorak with a listing of Respondent's income and expenses for the year and would then simply sign the return after Dorak had prepared it without reviewing the return first. Without any input from Respondent, Dorak had listed the automobile and some personal debts of Respondent on the 1990 corporate tax return because Respondent could take advantage of certain business deductions. That action had no adverse tax consequences for the Mosers. The Mosers never requested a tangible property tax return which would have reflected if there were any assets in the corporation. Had they made this request, they would have been told that there was none in existence because the corporation had no assets. At the time that Respondent and the Mosers executed the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Bill of Sale, and the Seller's Affidavit in December, all three believed that the corporation had no assets or liabilities and that any assets and liabilities of Respondent were hers personally. As of January 1, 1991, the effective date of the sale, the corporation had no assets or liabilities. There were no tax consequences to the Mosers because of the listing of the shareholder loan in the 1990 corporate tax return because in that Subchapter S corporation the person ultimately adversely affected by the sale would be Respondent since she owned all of the shares in 1990. On the other hand, the filing of an amended 1990 corporate tax return by the Mosers without Respondent's knowledge and consent has resulted in adverse tax consequences to her, an unnecessary result. In November 1988 Respondent was involved in the sale of a condominium unit owned by Mr. and Mrs. Roy Heinz. Due to extended negotiations, the buyer's decision to not purchase the unit, and instructions from Heinz who was her client, Respondent delayed in placing the buyer's deposit check in her escrow account. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent only and not also against Carr Real Estate, Inc., since that corporation was not yet in existence. After a formal evidentiary hearing, a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings specifically cleared Respondent of any intentional wrongdoing and of any culpable negligence. Respondent was found guilty, however, of what was specifically characterized to be a technical violation of failure to immediately place the deposit check into her escrow account. The minimum penalty permissible was assessed against Respondent. Respondent was also dismissed from the civil lawsuit filed by Roy Heinz which emanated out of the same circumstances for which the administrative action was brought. The Mosers knew about the disciplinary action and the civil lawsuit pending against Respondent individually prior to their execution of the December 1990 documents transferring Carr Real Estate, Inc., from Respondent's ownership to theirs effective January 1, 1991. The "Roy Heinz matter" was specifically raised by John Moser during the negotiations among the Mosers and Respondent. In April of 1991 Respondent sent Helen Moser a copy of the Recommended Order finding Respondent not guilty of any dishonest conduct or culpable negligence, and Helen Moser failed to even read the entire Order since she considered it unimportant and because she knew the transaction involved occurred prior to the formation of Carr Real Estate, Inc. The Mosers continue to operate Carr Real Estate, Inc. The business has been diminishing, however, since 1991 due to the reduction in the number of salespersons affiliated with the business, John Moser's inability to attract listings and retain clients, and the amount of time the Mosers have been devoting to John Moser's computer business. Respondent's actions and/or inactions have not been the cause of the decline in Carr Real Estate, Inc.'s, business. Moreover, the Mosers have not been harmed financially or in any other way due to any statements contained in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Bill of Sale, or Seller's Affidavit executed by Respondent. The sale of Carr Real Estate, Inc., by Respondent to the Mosers benefited all three of them. In her negotiations surrounding that sale, Respondent agreed to the terms desired by the Mosers, acted honestly, and did not knowingly or intentionally misrepresent any material fact. Those misrepresentations alleged by the Mosers and Petitioner to be contained in the closing documents, such as any statement that Respondent personally had no assets or liabilities, were not material to the sale and purchase of the corporation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and dismissing that Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4, 6-11, 13, 15, 18, and 19 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5, 16, and 17 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 12 and 14 have been rejected as being subordinate. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-29, 31, and 33-36 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 30 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 32 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Theodore R. Gay, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Harold M. Braxton, P.A. Suite 400, One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7815
Findings Of Fact In 1962, the Corporation decided to relocate its corporate offices from Newark, New Jersey, to the State of Florida. Implementing this decision, the Corporation secured a twenty year leasehold interest of an entire floor in the Universal Marion Building in Jacksonville, Florida, under which it was obligated to pay an annual rental of $52,000.00. Within a few months during the year 1962, the decision to relocate was rescinded. During the tax year in question, the Corporation retained a part-time employee in Florida for the sole purpose of attempting to either locate a purchaser of the leasehold interest or to avoid further obligations under the lease by negotiations and settlement with the landlord. This part-time employee received his directions from the corporate offices in Newark, New Jersey. Other than these efforts to relieve the burden of the unused leased premises, the Corporation conducted no commercial activities in the State of Florida during the tax year 1973. Although the Corporation's headquarters were ultimately moved to Jacksonville, in January 1976, the Corporation has never occupied the leased premises in question. In fact, in 1974, the Corporation entered into a sublease with the State of Florida for the duration of the lease. Pursuant to audit, DOR assessed the Corporation an additional $12,616.89 in income tax for the year ended December 31, 1973, using the three-factor formula method of apportionment.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to a stipulation, the following facts are found. Petitioner is a West Virginia corporation, organized under the laws of that state on January 4, 1958. Prior to June 1, 1962, it operated an automobile dealership in Huntington, West Virginia. On June 1, 9162, Petitioner exchanged assets of its automobile dealership for fifty (50 percent) percent of the capital stock of Dutch Miller Chevrolet, Inc., a West Virginia corporation organized to succeed the automobile dealership formerly operated by the Petitioner. Prior thereto, in 1961, the Petitioner had acquired one hundred percent (100 percent) of the capital stock in Palm Beach Motors (the name of which was changed on August 10, 1961 to Roger Dean Chevrolet, Inc.). Roger Dean Chevrolet, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Petitioner which operated on property owned by the Petitioner. The years involved herein are the fiscal years ending December 31, 1972 and 1973, during which years the Petitioner's principal income (except for the gain involved herein) consisted of rents received from Roger Dean Chevrolet, Inc. Petitioner and its subsidiary filed consolidated returns for the years involved. During the fiscal year ending December 31, 1972, Petitioner sold its stock in Dutch Miller Chevrolet, Inc. to an unrelated third party for a gain determined by the Respondent to be in the amount of $349,217.00, which, although the sale took place out of the State of Florida, the Respondent has determined to be taxable under the Florida Income Tax Code* (Chapter 220, Florida Statutes). In the fiscal years ending December 31, 1972 and 1973, Petitioner included in Florida taxable income, the amounts of $76.00 and $6,245.00, respectively, from the sale of property on April 23, 1971, such gain being reported for federal income tax purposes on the installment method under Section 453 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Roger H. Dean, individually or by attribution during the years involved herein, was the owner of one hundred (100 percent) percent of the stock of Roger Dean Enterprises, Inc. and seventy-five (75 percent) percent of the stock of Florida Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. The remaining twenty-five (25 percent) percent of Florida Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. was owned by Robert S. Cuillo, an unrelated person. The Respondent disallowed the $5,000.00 exemption to the Petitioner in computing its Florida corporate income tax for each of the years in question on the theory that the two corporations were members of a controlled group of corporations, as defined in Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. By letter dated April 13, 1976, the Respondent advised Petitioner of its proposed deficiencies for the fiscal years ending December 31, 1972 and 1973, in the respective amounts of $19,086.25 and $1,086.79. Within sixty (60) days thereafter (on or about May 10, 1976), Petitioner filed its written protest in response thereto. By letter dated May 27, 1976, the Respondent rejected the Petitioner's position as to the stock sale gain and exemption issues. Thereafter on September 17, 1976, a subsequent oral argument was presented at a conference held between the parties' representatives in Tallahassee, and by letter dated September 23, 1976, Respondent again rejected Petitioner's position on all pending issues raised herein. The issues posed herein are as follows: Whether under the Florida Corporate income tax code, amounts derived as gain from a sale of intangible personal property situated out of the State of *Herein sometimes referred to as the Code. Florida are properly included in the tax base of a corporation subject to the Florida code. Whether amounts derived as installments during tax years ending after January 1, 1972, from a sale made prior to that date are properly included in the tax base for Florida corporate income tax purposes. Whether two corporations one of whose stock is owned 100 percent by the same person who owns 75 percent of the stock in the other, with the remaining 25 percent of the stock in the second corporation being owned by an unrelated person, constitute members of a control group of corporations as defined by Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Many states, in determining corporate income tax liability, utilize a procedure generally referred to a "allocation" to determine which elements of income may be assigned and held to a particular jurisdiction, where a corporation does business in several jurisdictions. By this procedure, non- business income such as dividends, investment income, or capital gains from the sale of intangibles are assigned to the state of commercial domicile. This approach was specifically considered and rejected when Florida adopted its corporate income tax code. Thus, in its report of transmittal of the corporate income tax code to the legislature, at page 215, it was noted: "The staff draft does not attempt to allocate any items of income to the commercial domicile of a corporate taxpayer. It endeavors to apportion 100 percent of corporate net income, from whatever source derived, and to attribute to Florida its apportionable share of all the net income." Additional evidence of the legislature's intent in this area can be seen by noting that when the corporate income tax code was adopted, Florida repealed certain provisions of the Multi-state Tax Compact (an agreement for uniformity entered into among some twenty-five states). Thus, Article IV, Section (6)(c), a contained in Section 213.15, Florida Statutes, 1969, which previously read: "Capital gains and losses from sales of intangible personal property are allocable to this state if the taxpayer's commercial domicile is in this state", was repealed by Chapter 71-980, Laws of Florida, concurrently with the adoption of the Corporate Income Tax Code. This approach has survived judicial scrutiny by several courts. See for example, Johns-Mansville Products Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue Administration, 343 A.2d 221 (N.H. 1975) and Butler v. McColgan, 315 U.S. 501 (1942). Respecting its constitutional argument that amounts derived as installments during tax years subsequent to January 1, 1972, from a sale made prior to the enactment of the Florida Corporate Income Tax Code, the Petitioner concedes that the Code contemplates the result reached by the proposed assessment. However, it argues that in view of the constitutional prohibition which existed prior to enactment of the Code, no tax should now be levied based on pre-Code transactions. The Florida Supreme Court in the recent case of the Department of Revenue v. Leadership Housing, So.2d (Fla. 1977), Case No. 47,440 slip opinion p. 7 n. 4, cited with apparent approval the decision in Tiedmann v. Johnson, 316 A.2d 359 (Me. 1974). The court in Tiedmann, reasoned that the legislature adopted a "yard-stick" or measuring device approach by utilizing federal taxable income as a base, and reasoned that there was no retroactivity in taxing installments which were included currently in the federal tax base for the corresponding state year even though the sale may have been made in a prior year. The Respondent denied the Petitioner a $5,000.00 exemption based on its determination that the two corporations herein involved were members of a controlled group of corporations as defined in Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code. Chapter 220.14(4), Florida Statutes, reads in pertinent part that: "notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, not more than one exemption under this section shall be allowed to the Florida members of a controlled group of corporations, as defined in Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to taxable years ending on or after December 31, 1972, filing separate returns under this code." Petitioner's reliance on the case of Fairfax Auto Parts of Northern Virginia, 65 T.C. 798 (1976), for the proposition that the 25 percent ownership of an unrelated third party in one of the corporations precluded that corporation and the Petitioner from being considered a "controlled group of corporations" within the meaning of Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code, is misplaced in view of the recent reversal on appeal by the Fourth Circuit. Fairfax Auto Parts of Northern Virginia v. C.I.R., 548 F.2d 501 (4th C.A. 1977). Based thereon, it appears that the Respondent correctly determined that the Petitioner and Florida Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., were members of the same controlled group of corporations as provided in Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code and therefore properly determined that Petitioner was not entitled to a separate exemption. Based on the legislature's specific rejection of the allocation concept and assuming arguendo, that Florida recognized allocation income for the sales of intangibles, it appears that based on the facts herein, Petitioner is commercially domiciled in Florida. Examination of the tax return submitted to the undersigned revealed that the Petitioner has no property or payroll outside the state of Florida. Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that the proposed deficiencies as established by the Respondent, Department of Revenue, be upheld in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: E. Wilson Crump, II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Division, Northwood Mall Tallahassee, Florida 32303 David S. Meisel, Esquire 400 Royal Palm Way Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Thomas M. Mettler, Esquire 340 Royal Poinciana Plaza Palm Beach, Florida 33480
