Findings Of Fact On or before November 27, 1976, Petitioner did file a claim for refund of Florida corporate income tax for its fiscal year ending July 31, 1973. Such claim stated that a refund of $43,517 was due based on the decision reached in Leadership Housing, Inc., Case No. 74-6878, Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit. The claim referred to in paragraph 1 above was filed on or before the last day such claim could be filed. By letter dated December 6, 1976, Petitioner was notified by Respondent that it could not favorably act upon the claim as the allowability of the claim rested solely upon the validity of a position which Respondent disagreed and was litigating or intended to litigate. Respondent further stated in said letter that it was neither approving nor denying Petitioner's claim at that time. On September 1, 1978, Petitioner submitted another claim for refund for corporate income taxes for its fiscal year ending July 31, 1973. Such claim showed a lower amount of tax due to be refunded in accordance with the decision in S.R.G. Corporation v. Department of Revenue, State of Florida, 365 So.2d 687 (Fla. 1978), with the opinion entered June 30, 1978. On September 1, 1978, Petitioner also filed a claim for refund of corporate income taxes paid for its fiscal year ending February 28, 1977. The facts and circumstances supporting Petitioner's right to refund on the claim referred to in paragraph 5 above are the same as those supporting Petitioner's right to refund the claim which is the subject of this hearing. On October 10, 1978, Petitioner was notified by letter from Respondent that no action would be taken on either of the claims for refund pending review of the Florida Supreme Court of its decision in S.R.G. Corporation. In October, 1977, the Office of the Comptroller refunded the corporate income taxes per Petitioner's claim for refund relating to the fiscal year ending February 28, 1977 with certain adjustments consented to by Petitioner. On January 20, 1980, Petitioner was formally notified of Respondent's intent to deny Petitioner's claim for refund for corporate income taxes paid for fiscal year ending July 31, 1973. The sole question presented here is whether Respondent's denial of Petitioner's claim for refund based upon the grounds that "The claim for refund was not filed within the time limitations set forth in Section 214.16, Florida Statutes," is valid under the provisions of Chapter 120 and Chapter 214, Florida Statutes, as the same were in effect at the times set forth herein. Should it be determined that Petitioner's claim for refund was timely filed in accordance with the statutes herein set forth above, Respondent will not allege further or different reasons for denial of the claim and will forthwith refund to Petitioner the amounts claimed to be due. (The foregoing findings are taken directly from the Stipulation of Facts.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Office of the Comptroller enter a final order approving a refund to the Petitioner of that portion of its corporate income tax overpaid for the fiscal year ending in 1973. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of January, 1981. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1981.
The Issue 1. Whether the Emergency Rules on Sales and Use Tax on Services and Other Transactions adopted by the Respondent effective July 1, 1987, were adopted pursuant to Section 33, Chapter 87-6, l987 Laws of Florida, and Section 120.54(9), Florida Statutes (1987)? 2. Whether Rules 12AER87-31(1)(c), (5), (7)(i)(7)(k), (10), (12) and (13), Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida. It is charged with the responsibility to implement, enforce and collect the taxes levied by the State of Florida, including Chapter 212, Florida Statutes (1987). During the 1987 Legislative Session the Legislature enacted Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 777, which is codified as Chapter 87-6, 1987 Laws of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "Chapter 87-6"). This act, which amended Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, was signed into law by the Governor on April 23, 1987. Section 5 of Chapter 87-6, created Section 212.0594, Florida Statutes. This new Section of Chapter 212 imposed a sales tax on construction services performed on or after July 1, 1987. Section 33 of Chapter 87-6, authorized the Respondent to adopt emergency rules pursuant to Section 120.54(9), Florida Statutes, to implement the new law. In authorizing the adoption of emergency rules, the Legislature determined that the failure to promptly implement the provisions of Chapter 87-6 would present an immediate threat to the welfare of the State because revenues needed for the operation of the State would not be collected. On June 6, 1987, the Legislature enacted Committee Substitute for House Bill 1506, which is codified as Chapter 87-101, 1987 Laws of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "Chapter 87-101"). Chapter 87-101 is commonly known as the Sales Tax Glitch Bill. Chapter 87-101 was passed by the Legislature on June 6, 1987, signed into law by the Governor on June 30, 1987, and was effective beginning July 1, 1987. Section 5 of Chapter 87-101 repealed Section 5 of Chapter 87-6. Section 6 of Chapter 87-101, created a new Section 212.0594, Florida Statutes, taxing construction services, in replace of the Section 212.0594, Florida - Statutes, previously created by Section 5 of Chapter 87-6. Thus the Legislature substantially changed the manner in which sales tax was to be imposed upon construction services. Section 20 of Chapter 87-101 amended Section 33 of Chapter 87-6 but continued the authorization to adopt emergency rules and the justification for doing so. On May 8, 1987, the Respondent published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to hold public meetings and workshops on May 19 and 26, 1987, and June 6, 1987. Proposed rules relating to Chapter 87-6 were to be considered at these meetings and workshops. On May 22, 1987, the Respondent published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to hold public meetings and workshops on May 26, 1987, and June 26, 1987. Proposed rules relating to Chapter 87-6 were to be considered at these meetings and workshops. On May 29, 1987, the Respondent published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to hold a public meeting and workshop on June 6, 1987, to consider proposed rules relating to Chapter 87-6. On June 5, 1987, the Respondent published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to hold a public meeting and workshop on June 12, 1987, to consider proposed rules relating to Chapter 87-6. Ultimately, the Respondent held four workshops concerning the emergency rules: May 19 and 26, 1987, and June 6 and 12, 1987. The workshop conducted on June 12, 1987, was conducted to consider Rules 12AER87-31, Florida Administrative Code. The rules considered at the June 12, 1987, workshop had been redrafted to implement Chapter 87-101. The rules considered at the workshop were available for a short period of time before the workshop and during the workshop. Comments were received by the Department at the June 12, 1987, workshop from the public, including representatives of the construction industry. As a result of these comments, changes in the Emergency Rules were made following the workshop. The Emergency Rules took into account the method of taxing construction services provided for in Chapter 87-101 rather than the method previously provided for in Chapter 87-6. The Respondent's emergency rules, including Rule 12AER87-31, Florida Administrative Code, were certified by the Executive Director of the Respondent and delivered to the Secretary of State for publication on June 18, 1987. The Respondent delivered the full text of the emergency rules, a statement of the specific reasons for finding an immediate danger, a statement of the reasons for concluding that the procedure followed to adopt the rules was fair under the circumstances and a summary of the purpose of the rules for publication in the first available issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The emergency rules had to be filed with the Secretary of State no later than June 18, 1987, in order to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly by July 1, 1987, the effective date of Chapters 87-6 and 87-101 and the emergency rules. The full text of the emergency rules was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on June 26, 1987. The text of this notice, which was accepted into evidence as Petitioner's exhibit 4, is hereby incorporated into this Final Order. The Emergency Rules had an effective date of July 1, 1987. Initially the Emergency Rules were to expire January 1, 1988, six months after their effective date, as specified in Chapter 87-101. Pursuant to Section 1, Chapter 87-539, 1987 Laws of Florida, the Emergency Rules are effective through June 30, 1988. Representatives of the Respondent and the Petitioner met between the passage of Chapter 87-101 by the Legislature and June 18, 1987, and discussed the act. The Respondent expended a great deal of time and effort in adopting the emergency rules implementing Chapters 87-6 and 87-101, and in providing information to the public. The method of taxation to be implemented was unique and, therefore, the Respondent was unable to look to other jurisdictions for guidance concerning implementation of the tax. The taxation of construction services was one of a multitude of services taxed. Chapter 87-101, required substantial redrafting of the emergency rules, including Rule 12AER87-31, Florida Administrative Code, within a relatively short period of time. The new tax necessitated the registration of 100,000 to 150,000 new sales tax "dealers" by July 1, 1987. Prior to July 1, 1987, the Respondent received thousands of telephone calls and thousands of written requests seeking information concerning the sales tax on services. The Respondent was extensively involved with the Legislature during the period of time when Chapters 87-6 and 87-101 were adopted. Representatives of the Respondent discussed the acts with Legislative members and staff. Dr. James Francis acted as a liaison between the Respondent and the Legislature. Dr. Francis also served on the Revenue Estimating Conference. In his capacity with the Revenue Estimating Conference, Dr. Francis prepared estimates of tax revenues from the services tax. A revenue impact analysis of the services tax was also provided by the Respondent to the Legislature based upon each amendment and proposed amendment to Chapters 87-6 and 87-101. Representatives of the petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with the method of taxation of construction services contained in Chapter 87-6 because of the required itemization of building material costs on each contract. The Respondent prepared a revenue neutral (no loss of tax revenue previously estimated to be generated by Chapter 87-6) method of imposing the services tax on construction services without requiring itemization of building material costs. Pursuant to this method, a set percentage, generally equal to the average percentage of building material costs, is backed out of "contract price" or "cost price." The remainder is treated as the amount of the "contract price" or "cost price" attributable to the construction services. The revenue estimated by the Respondent and provided to the Legislature, based upon the elimination of an average percentage of building material costs, was based upon the inclusion in "contract price" and "cost price" of all expenditures associated with the construction industry, including the total expenditures for building materials supplied by owners to contractors. The Legislature was aware of this fact before it adopted Chapter 87-101. Fiscal notes for Chapter 87-101, which the Respondent had available prior to the adoption of the Emergency Rules, numerically quantified the estimated revenue to be generated by Chapter 87-101. The Respondent also knew what amounts were included in the estimate of revenue contained in the fiscal notes. These amounts were consistent with the revenue estimates provided by the Respondent to the Legislature. The Emergency Rules represent a contemporaneous administrative construction of Chapters 87-6 and 87-101 by an agency charged with responsibility to administer the acts and which was intimately involved in the adoption of the acts. The Petitioner has challenged the validity of Rules 12AER87-31(1)(c), (5), (7)(i), (7)(k), (10), (12) and (13) Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner withdrew its challenge of other portions of the Emergency Rules. Rule 12AER87-31(7)(i), Florida Administrative Code, defines the terms "contract price" which determines the amount of tax due on construction work performed pursuant to a contract and any speculative construction which is sold within six months of completion. The Petitioner has challenged Rule 12AER87-31(7)(i), Florida Administrative Code, to the extent that contract price is defined to include the fair market value of materials used by a contractor if the value of those materials is not otherwise included in the contract price. The Petitioner's contractor witnesses' understanding of Rule 12AER87- 31(7)(i), Florida Administrative Code, that the fair market value of materials supplied by the owner are to be included in the computation of contract price, is consistent with the Respondent's interpretation of the Rule. Prime contractors often estimate the cost of building materials in their daily business activities. The Respondent's interpretation of Rule 12AER87-31(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, does not require a contractor or subcontractor who uses building materials which are purchased tax free to remit a tax. The rule simply makes it clear that there is not necessarily any link between the question of whether the purchase of building materials and the provision of construction services are tax exempt.
The Issue The amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded to Jerry Ann Winters (Petitioner) based on the Order of the Second District Court of Appeals dated November 8, 2002, and pursuant to Subsection 120.595(5), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner retained attorneys Mark F. Kelly and Robert F. McKee to represent her in an administrative proceeding challenging the proposed termination of her employment by USF and in the appeals that followed the issuance of the Final Orders by USF. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is an invoice dated December 18, 2002, submitted to the Petitioner by her legal counsel. The invoice contains charges billed to the Petitioner for the period between January 17, 2001, and November 22, 2002. The invoice indicates a total of 339.75 hours expended on her behalf. The invoice contains duplicated entries for November 14, 2002. Discounting the duplication reduces the total hours expended to 339.50. The practice of the Petitioner's counsel is to bill in quarter-hour increments and to round up. According to the invoice, the Petitioner was billed at a rate of $275 per hour. Mark F. Kelly graduated from Vanderbilt Law School in 1976. Since then he has practiced labor and employment law in Florida before state and federal agencies and has a substantial appellate practice. He was previously awarded fees in the range of $250 approximately four years ago. Robert F. McKee graduated from Stetson University College of Law in 1979. He received a Master of Laws degree in Labor and Employment Law from Georgetown University Law Center in 1981. Since then he has practiced labor and employment law in Tampa, Florida. He was previously awarded fees in the range of $250 approximately four years ago. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Steven Greg Wenzel. Mr. Wenzel has practiced law in Florida for more than 30 years and is board-certified in Labor and Employment Law. He has extensive trial experience. He has previously provided expert testimony related to the reasonableness of attorneys' fees in approximately 12 cases. Mr. Wenzel is familiar with the fees charged by attorneys representing employees in employment-related cases in central Florida. Mr. Wenzel's testimony related to the experience, reputation, and ability of Petitioner's attorneys. It also indicated that they have substantial experience in the area of labor and employment law and are well-regarded by their peers. No credible evidence to the contrary was presented during the hearing. Mr. Wenzel's testimony adequately addressed the applicable factors set forth in Rule 4-1.5(b)1 of the Florida Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct to be considered in determining the reasonableness of fees. Mr. Wenzel opined that based on their knowledge and experience, the type and complexity of the case, and the aggressive nature of the litigation; a reasonable hourly rate was $290 ranging to $310. Mr. Wenzel's testimony in this regard is credited. The invoiced rate of $275 per hour is reasonable. Mr. Wenzel also opined that the quarter-hour billing practice was reasonable and, in fact, conservative related to other practices with which he was aware. Mr. Wenzel's testimony in this regard is credited. At the same time that the Petitioner was challenging the proposed employment termination, a civil case involving the Petitioner, a number of the basketball players, and USF was proceeding. In that case, different legal counsel represented the Petitioner. Review of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 indicates that the invoice includes charges related to persons and activities involved in the civil case. Neither Mr. Kelly nor Mr. McKee had any official involvement in the civil case. Mr. Kelly participated apparently unofficially in mediation efforts to resolve the pending disputes. The invoice contains daily total charges for billed activity. On some days, activity was recorded for both the administrative case and the civil case. Charges related to the civil case are not reimbursable in this proceeding. Because the invoice precludes an accurate separation of time spent on the administrative case from the civil case, all billings for dates upon which charges were incurred related to the civil case have been excluded from consideration in this Order. The charges related to conversations with John Goldsmith, who represented the Petitioner in the civil case, are excluded. These charges occurred on March 14, 2001; April 2, 2001; April 6, 2001; September 21, 2001; October 19, 2001; and May 13, 2002, and total 8.25 hours. The charges related to conversations with Jonathon Alpert, who represented the basketball players in the civil case, are excluded. The charges occurred on April 10, 2001, and April 11, 2001, and total 6.75 hours. The charge related to a conversation with Tom Gonzalez, who represented USF in the civil case, is excluded. This charge occurred on April 23, 2002, for .50 hours. The charges related to conversations with Mary Lau, who was a mediator assigned to the civil case, are excluded. These charges occurred on April 24, 2002, and May 8, 2002, and totaled 1.25 hours. The invoice includes a charge for May 15, 2002, related to a telephone conference with "Judge Scriven" regarding settlement. Judge Scriven is otherwise unidentified. The charge, for .25 hours, is excluded. The invoice includes a charge for Mr. McKee's attendance at mediation on May 16, 2002, related to the civil case, for 2.5 hours. This charge is excluded. The sum of the excluded time set forth above is 19.50 hours. Deduction of the 19.50 hours from the properly invoiced total of 339.50 results in a total of 320 hours. Based on Mr. Wenzel's testimony that the invoiced hours were reasonable given the nature and complexity of this case, it is found that the reduced level of 320 hours set forth in the invoice and directly applicable to the administrative case is a reasonable expenditure of time. The invoice also sets forth costs that were billed to the Petitioner. The invoice includes numerous routine office expenses (postage, copying, telephone, and facsimile costs) that are not properly recoverable costs in this proceeding. Other billed costs are set forth without sufficient information to determine the relationship of the cost to the administrative proceeding. A filing fee with the District Court of Appeal was billed on January 15, 2001, preceding the administrative hearing in this case. Further the billed charges include witness fees for several witnesses, only one of which testified in the administrative hearing. The invoice also includes service fees for subpoenas that appear to have been charged subsequent to the completion of the administrative hearing. Based on review of the invoice, properly recoverable costs of $307 are found. This sum includes the following items: witness fee and mileage for Paul Griffin ($7) dated April 5, 2001; service fee for subpoena for Paul Griffin ($50) dated April 11, 2001; and filing fee-clerk, District Court of Appeal ($250) dated October 5, 2001. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 is a "Retainer and Fee Agreement" executed by the Petitioner and her counsel which provides as follows: Partial contingency fee. Client will pay for services rendered at the reduced rate of $110 per hour. To compensate attorney for this reduced rate and the risk involved in undertaking a case on these terms, in addition to the $110 hourly rate, attorney will be entitled to 25% of any settlement money or judgment. In the event attorney's fees are awarded to the client by any court or tribunal and collected, attorney will be entitled to such fee (less any amount paid by client, which will be reimbursed pro rata) or the partial contingency fee, whichever is greater. Attorney requires a retainer deposit from client in the amount of $2,500, to be replenished from time-to-time as required to cover outstanding fees and costs. The Retainer and Fee Agreement is dated December 2, 2002, and the Order of the District Court of Appeal for the Second District, which granted the Petitioner's Motion for fees and costs, is dated November 8, 2002. It is unclear whether a written agreement between the Petitioner and legal counsel existed prior to the December 2, 2002, agreement.
Findings Of Fact Respondent DeBellonia is president of Respondent CGFS, Inc. At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondents were business consultants who assisted their clients with the preparation and presentation of information for private lenders who were interested in making business loans. Their business offices were located at North Rocky Point Drive, Suite 800, Tampa, Florida. In late July or early August 1989, Constance J. Jones responded by telephone to an advertisement placed by Respondents in the Tampa Tribune newspaper. The ad communicated to her that the Respondent CGFS, Inc. was interested in providing business financing to new and established businesses. Upon receipt of the telephone call, a secretary at CGFS, Inc. scheduled an appointment for Mrs. Jones with Respondent DeBellonia for August 7, 1989. Mrs. Jones was excited about the appointment because the seller of commercial real property purchased by her and her husband had recently filed a foreclosure action to recover the property. The suit occurred because she and her husband had been unable to make the final balloon payment on the property. The seller had agreed to forebear the possibility of such a suit the year before when Mrs. Jones gave him twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) and the promise that she would obtain financing within a year's time and pay the outstanding balance in full. At the close of the year, Mrs. Jones had not been successful in her attempts to acquire the money to pay for the property. This appointment renewed her hopes that she could minimize her losses, settle the suit, and preserve her interest in the property. Prior to arranging her appointment with Respondent DeBellonia, Mrs. Jones had made applications for a loan at several banks. Her requests had been turned down because the banks had determined that the present value of the property was insufficient to provide the collateral needed for the secured loan she was seeking. When Mrs. Jones attended her meeting with Respondent DeBellonia, she voluntarily presented him with a copy of her agreement for deed, a property appraisal, and her owner's title insurance policy. Having submitted herself to a number of loan requests at various banks prior to this appointment, she assumed he would want to see the same documents that had been requested during those loan reviews. Respondent DeBellonia allowed Mrs. Jones to present her situation and her documentation to him in her own manner. He made copies of all of the papers offered to him and returned the originals. At the close of Mrs. Jones' presentation, Respondent DeBellonia agreed to be her business consultant and to assist her in her search for funding. Although Mrs. Jones originally stated that she needed to acquire $94,000.00, this amount was reduced to $20,000.00 when she was informed that the Respondents charge a professional service fee of ten percent of the loan amount ultimately accepted by the clients. To begin work on the funding project, the Respondents requested a non-refundable professional service fee of $1,900.00. Although Mrs. Jones did sign the business consultant agreement, she did not have the money with her to pay the non-refundable fee. When she informed Respondent DeBellonia that she did not have the money, he told her he needed the money as soon as possible so that he could go ahead and work on the transaction. He indicated that he could accomplish a fast transaction for the $20,000.00 in about three days time. According to Mrs. Jones, the seller of the commercial property was willing to forebear on the foreclosure for a while if she could give him $20,000.00 now and if she was actively pursuing a loan which would pay off the balance due. This proposal was another reason she changed her request from $94,000.00 to the $20,000.00 amount. Later that evening, Mrs. Jones telephoned Respondent DeBellonia and told him she needed a new document so that her husband could be on the agreement as well. When the second document was sent, the secretary mistakenly sent out the original agreement with a funding goal of $94,000.00 instead of the reduced request for $20,000.00. Mr. Jones' name had been placed on the document in order to obtain his signature. Both agreements given to Mrs. Jones clearly state that Respondent CGFS, Inc. is not a mortgage broker. Before Mrs. Jones returned a fully executed agreement to the Respondents with the non-refundable fee, she decided to call the Comptroller's Office in Tallahassee to get a business rating to see if this was a good-rated business for her own protection. Although nothing negative was stated by the Comptroller's Office, Mrs. Jones did not get the assurances she was seeking. After that, she decided not to retain the Respondents to provide their business consultant services. Without Mrs. Jones' presumption that the Respondents would eventually seek a mortgage on the real property she intended to purchase, there is no reliable circumstantial evidence which demonstrates that the Respondents were seeking to act as a mortgage broker under the set of facts presented at hearing. Even if the circumstantial evidence and ill-conceived presumptions were considered reliable, the evidence is outweighed by the clear statement within the consultant agreement that Respondent CGFS, Inc. is not a mortgage broker. In addition, if the Respondents had intended to see a mortgage for Mrs. Jones, they would have required her to have her husband sign the agreement because she was an equitable owner of the property in a tenancy by the entirety. Instead, it was Mrs. Jones who later requested that her husband's name be included on the agreement. Respondent DeBellonia clearly manufactured Respondents' Exhibit number E. If this proceeding had turned on his credibility versus the credibility of others, he would not have prevailed in the factual determination. Based upon the facts presented at hearing, the Department initially had reason to believe that the Respondents were violating or about to violate the law by acting as a mortgage broker and mortgage broker business without a license. However, the formal hearing process revealed that Mrs. Jones' impressions of what occurred during her meeting with Respondent DeBellonia were faulty. Documentary evidence prepared during the interview and Mrs. Jones' admissions during the cross-examination resolved the case in Respondent's favor. The actions taken by the Department in filing the Cease and Desist Order were proper, and were not harassment of the Respondents.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: That the cease and desist order issued by the Department on February 20, 1990, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED IN CASE NO. 90-1720 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO number 1. Accepted. Reject the date of the interview. The rest is accepted. See HO number 2-number 6. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 5. Accepted. See HO number 9 and number 10. Accept the first two sentences. See HO number 9. Reject the third sentence. Contrary to fact. Reject the fourth sentence. Irrelevant. 8. Accepted. See HO number 11 and number 12. 9. Accepted. See HO number 15 and number 18. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen M. Christian, Esquire Office of the Comptroller Regional Service Center 1313 North Tampa Street, Ste. 615 Tampa, Florida 33602-3394 Michael C. Mone, Esquire 111 Eighth Street Belleair Beach, Florida 33535 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner is a "small business party" as the term is defined at section 57.111(3)(d). On June 21, 2010, the Petitioner applied to acquire an existing alcoholic beverage "quota" license from another licensee. The Petitioner had to pay a fee to transfer the license pursuant to section 561.32(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), which provides as follows: Before the issuance of any transfer of license herein provided, the transferee shall pay a transfer fee of 10 percent of the annual license tax to the division, except for those licenses issued pursuant to s. 565.02(1) and subject to the limitation imposed in s. 561.20(1), for which the transfer fee shall be assessed on the average annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the 3 years immediately preceding transfer and levied at the rate of 4 mills, except that such transfer fee shall not exceed $5,000; in lieu of the 4-mill assessment, the transferor may elect to pay $5,000. Further, the maximum fee shall be applied with respect to any such license which has been inactive for the 3-year period. Records establishing the value of such gross sales shall accompany the application for transfer of the license, and falsification of such records shall be punishable as provided in s. 562.45. All transfer fees collected by the division on the transfer of licenses issued pursuant to s. 565.02(1) and subject to the limitation imposed in s. 561.20(1) shall be returned by the division to the municipality in which such transferred license is operated or, if operated in the unincorporated area of the county, to the county in which such transferred license is operated. (emphasis added). License transfer applicants are required to provide gross sales records pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-5.010(2)(b), which provides as follows: An applicant for a transfer of a quota liquor license shall provide records of gross sales for the past 3 years or for the period of time current licensee has held license in order that the division may compute the transfer fee. An applicant may, in lieu of providing these records, elect to pay the applicable transfer fee as provided by general law. The gross sales records provided to the Respondent by the Petitioner were for the five-month period between January 21 and June 21, 2010, and totaled $573,948.94 for the period. To compute the transfer fee, the Respondent divided the reported gross sales ($573,948.94) by five to estimate an average monthly gross sales figure of $114,789.79.2/ The Respondent multiplied the estimated average monthly gross sales by 12, to estimate annual gross sales of $1,377,477.48. The Respondent then applied the 4-mill rate to the estimated annual gross sales and determined the transfer fee to be $5,509.91. The Respondent also calculated the transfer fee through a formula set forth on a form that had been challenged as an unadopted rule by an applicant in a 2008 proceeding. While the 2008 rule challenge was pending, the Respondent commenced to adopt the form as a rule, but the dispute was ultimately resolved without a hearing, after which the Respondent discontinued the process to adopt the rule. According to the formula on the form, the transfer fee was $5,599.50. Because both of the Respondent's calculations resulted in transfer fees in excess of $5,000, the Respondent required the Petitioner to pay the statutory maximum of $5,000. The Petitioner paid the $5,000 transfer fee under protest. The Petitioner asserted that the appropriate transfer fee should have been $765.27. The Petitioner's calculation used the reported five months of gross sales ($573,948.94) as the total annual gross sales for the licensee. The Petitioner divided the $573,948.94 by three to determine a three-year average of $191,316.31 and then applied the 4-mill rate to the three-year average to compute a transfer fee of $765.27. On March 17, 2011, the Petitioner filed an Application for Refund of $4,234.73, the difference between the $5,000 paid and the $765.27 that the Petitioner calculated as the appropriate fee. The Application for Refund was filed pursuant to section 215.26, Florida Statutes, which governs requests for repayment of funds paid through error into the State Treasury, including overpayment of license fees. Section 215.26(2) requires that in denying an application for a tax refund, an agency's notice of denial must state the reasons for the denial. As authorized by section 72.11(2)(b)3, Florida Statutes, the Respondent has adopted rules that govern the process used to notify an applicant that a request for refund has been denied. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61-16.002(3) states as follows: Any tax refund denial issued by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation becomes final for purposes of Section 72.011, Florida Statutes, when final agency action is taken by the Department concerning the refund request and taxpayer is notified of this decision and advised of alternatives available to the taxpayer for contesting the action taken by the agency. By letter dated May 9, 2011, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that the request for refund had been denied and stated only that "[w]e reviewed the documentation presented and determined that a refund is not due." The Respondent's notice did not advise that the Petitioner could contest the decision. On May 16, 2011, the Petitioner submitted a Request for Hearing to the Respondent, asserting that the Respondent improperly calculated the transfer fee by projecting sales figures for months when there were no reported sales. On August 4, 2011, the Respondent issued a letter identified as an "Amended Notice of Denial" again advising that the Petitioner's refund request had been denied. The letter also stated as follows: The Division cannot process your refund application due to the fact that the transferee has not provided the Division records which show the average annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the three years immediately preceding the transfer. On September 14, 2011, the Respondent forwarded the Petitioner's Request for Hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH Case No. 11-4637). By letter dated October 10, 2011, the Respondent issued a "Second Amended Notice of Denial" which stated as follows: We regret to inform you that pursuant to Section 561.23(3)(a), Florida Statutes, your request for refund . . . in the amount of $4,234.73 is denied. However, the Division has computed the transfer fee and based upon the records submitted by you pursuant to Rule 61A-5.010(2)(b), F.A.C., the Division will issue the Applicant a refund in the amount of $2,704.20. The records referenced in the letter were submitted with the original application for transfer that was filed by the Petitioner on March 17, 2011. The Respondent's recalculated transfer fee was the result of applying the 4-mill levy directly to the reported five months of gross sales reported in the transfer application, resulting in a revised transfer fee of $2,295.80 and a refund of $2,704.20. On October 11, 2011, the Respondent filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Amended Notice of Denial, which was granted, over the Petitioner's opposition, on October 21, 2011. DOAH Case No. 11-4637 was resolved by execution of a Consent Order wherein the parties agreed to the refund of $2,704.20 "solely to preclude additional legal fees and costs," but the Consent Order also stated that the "Petitioner expressly does not waive any claim for attorneys' fees in this matter pursuant to F.S. 57.111." The Petitioner is seeking an award of attorney's fees of $8,278.75 and costs of $75, for a total award of $8,353.75. The parties have stipulated that the amount of the attorney's fees and costs sought by the Petitioner are reasonable. The Respondent failed to establish that the original calculation of the applicable transfer fee was substantially justified. The evidence fails to establish that there are special circumstances that would make an award unjust.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner's application for licensure should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Financial Services, is the state agency responsible for the licensure of insurance agents in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2003). On November 11, 2003, Petitioner filed an on-line application with Respondent seeking licensure as a Resident Legal Expense Sales Representative. Petitioner answered "no" to the following question on that application: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or pled guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a crime punishable by imprisonment of one (1) year or more under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered? At the end of the on-line application, immediately above a space for the applicant's signature and in a section of the application titled "Applicant Affirmation Statement," appears the following language: I do solemnly swear that all answers to the foregoing questions and statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. . . . * * * Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing application for license and that the facts stated in it are true. I understand that misrepresentation of any fact required to be disclosed through this application is a violation of The Florida Insurance and Administrative Codes and may result in the denial of my application and/or the revocation of my insurance license(s). Pursuant to the instructions on the on-line form, Petitioner printed the "Applicant Affirmation Statement," signed it on November 28, 2003, and mailed it to Respondent. The criminal history records obtained by Respondent during the application process revealed that on August 4, 1987, Petitioner was arrested and charged with one felony count of Cultivation of Marijuana. A two-count information was filed against Petitioner in a case styled State of Florida v. Jody E. Jackson, Case No. 87-1871F, in the Manatee County Circuit Court. Petitioner ultimately pled nolo contendere to one felony count of Cultivation of Marijuana on January 27, 1988, and was placed on eighteen months of probation. In a letter to Respondent following denial of his application, Petitioner asserted that he misunderstood the question on the application because of the language "imprisonment of one (1) year" included in the question. Petitioner indicated that because he did not serve any time in prison, he thought he was justified in answering "no" to the question.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner violated Subsections 626.041(1) and 626.041(5), Florida Statutes (2003), and denying Petitioner's application for licensure, without prejudice for him to reapply as of February 5, 2005, as provided by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(4). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana M. Wiehle, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Jody Jackson 13327 Upper Manatee River Road Bradenton, Florida 34212 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact On December 31, 1997, the Department of Insurance issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Cease and Desist Order against Petitioner, alleging that Petitioner is engaged in the legal expense insurance business in the State of Florida without being licensed. The Department alleges that Petitioner is in violation of several statutory provisions requiring licensure. Petitioner timely requested an evidentiary proceeding regarding the allegations contained within that Notice of Intent to Issue Cease and Desist Order. Jurisdiction over the matter was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 28, 1998, to conduct the evidentiary proceeding. The matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 98-0442. By Notice of Hearing entered February 17, 1998, that cause was scheduled for final hearing on June 15 and 16, 1998, and the parties have engaged in extensive discovery. By agreement of the parties that cause was re-scheduled several times and then was placed in abeyance. On February 24, 1999, Petitioner filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings its Petition for Administrative Determination of Invalidity of Existing Rule and Unpromulgated Rule. That Petition was assigned DOAH Case No. 99-0771RX, was consolidated with DOAH Case No. 98-0442, and is the subject of this Final Order. The Petition asserts the invalidity of the Department's Rule 4-201.003, Florida Administrative Code, and the invalidity of an alleged unpromulgated rule consisting of a statement by the Department that the amount of the membership fee Petitioner charges its members will determine whether Petitioner is a legal expense insurance corporation subject to regulation under Chapter 642, Florida Statutes. The existing Rule and the alleged unpromulgated rule are the subject of the Petitioner's Motion for Summary Final Order and the Department's Cross Motion for Summary Final Order. Petitioner alleges that Rule 4-201.003, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because (a) it enlarges, modifies, and contravenes specific provisions of the statute it purports to implement; (b) the Department exceeded its rulemaking authority; and (c) the Department materially failed to follow the requirements set forth in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, by failing to repeal a rule for which there was no legislative rulemaking authority. Petitioner argues that the Department's alleged unpromulgated rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because (a) the statement is an unpromulgated rule; (b) the statement enlarges, modifies, and contravenes specific provisions of the statute it purports to implement; and (c) the statement is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for the Department's decisions, and vests unbridled discretion in the agency. The Department's Cross Motion for Summary Final Order alleges that Petitioner lacks standing to assert its challenges, that the challenge to the existing Rule is moot, and that the alleged unpromulgated rule does not exist. Rule 4-201.003, Florida Administrative Code, relates to exemptions from the statutory definition of "legal expense insurance." The Department's Notice of Intent to Issue Cease and Desist Order does not allege that Petitioner has violated that Rule and does not even cite to that Rule as a basis for the Department's action against Petitioner. Since Petitioner is not charged with violating that Rule, Petitioner cannot show that it is substantially affected by the Rule. Further, the Department has now commenced the repeal of that Rule and has filed in this cause an affidavit from the Department's Bureau Chief of Specialty Insurers that Rule 4-201.003, Florida Administrative Code, has not been and will not be used against Petitioner in DOAH Case No. 98-0442 or in any other enforcement proceeding. As to the alleged unpromulgated rule, the record in this cause reveals that the Department in both correspondence and conversations with Petitioner raised a concern about the amount of Petitioner's membership fees in re-considering whether Petitioner is a lawyer referral service or a legal expense insurer. However, Petitioner does not allege that the amount of the membership fee has been considered as to any entity other than Petitioner. Conversely, the Department has filed affidavits from the Bureau Chief of Specialty Insurers and from the employee charged with handling licensure of legal expense insurers on a day-to-day basis that they have never heard of a Department policy in which the price of a legal service plan determines whether that plan is legal expense insurance. Those affidavits further state that no such policy has been applied by the Department and that the first time the Department heard of such a policy is when Petitioner asserted that such a policy existed. Accordingly, since it has not been shown that such a policy exists, it cannot be shown that the alleged policy constitutes an unpromulgated rule.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's certificate of registration to collect sales tax should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact In 1996, the Respondent and Lance Arnette were engaged in a dissolution of marriage action in the circuit court, Case No. 96-1185-FD. On June 20, 1997, the business known as Giff’s Sub Shop was awarded to Respondent, Linda Arnette. The circuit court transferred the business to Respondent free of any and all liabilities. Later, Respondent discovered that there was an undisclosed sales tax liability. The amount of that liability was not clear from the record. However, the Department was not a party to the Arnette’s dissolution of marriage action. On March 3, 1998, Respondent filed an application for a certificate of registration with the Department. The reason for the application was due to the change of ownership from Respondent’s ex-husband to Respondent. The application reflected an opening date for the business of June 1, 1997. Linda Arnette was reflected as the owner of the business. Respondent was the only person who signed the application. No other person was listed as having an interest in the sub shop. The certificate of registration was issued to Respondent and she became the registered dealer for the sub shop. As such, she was under a legal duty to collect and remit all taxes collected by the sub shop to the Department. She was also responsible to file tax returns for the business with the Department. Her first return would have been due on July 20, 1997. A tax warrant or lien for unpaid taxes was filed against Respondent on October 26, 2005. It is unclear what happened with the 2005 warrant. Department records reflect that the sub shop did not file returns for November 2006, December 2006, January 2007, and February 2007. A second tax warrant for unpaid taxes was filed against Respondent on April 4, 2007. The warrant covered the period from August 2003 to February 2007. The amount of tax due under the warrant was $14,658.07, plus interest and penalties. The 2003 date was well after Respondent had taken over operation of the sub shop from her ex-husband. The evidence did not show that the amount included any taxes which may have been due prior to her award of the sub shop in 1997 or prior to the August 2003 date. Moreover, the warrant did not include months for which Respondent had timely paid the tax due. Data from the Department revocation worksheet showed that Respondent owed only interest for the months of August 2003 and March through August, 2006. The fact she owed only interest in those months indicates that the taxes were paid late. The Department’s data showed the month of December 2005 with zero tax due and zero interest due. It is not clear from the evidence why the Department claimed the month of December 2005 was out of compliance. However, even without the month of December 2005, the Department’s data showed 30 months of noncompliance by Respondent either by not filing timely or not paying the tax. On March 2, 2007, the Department sent Respondent a notice of its intent to revoke her certificate of registration. An informal meeting was scheduled for April 17, 2007. The purpose of the meeting was to permit Respondent to present evidence on why her certificate of registration should not be revoked and to show that the amount of taxes due was incorrect. Respondent attended the meeting on April 17, 2007. The Department waived the penalties due on her tax liability. Interest due totaled $2,857.68. Respondent did not raise any issue regarding her ex-husband’s past tax liability or any payments she had allegedly made thereon. Indeed, Respondent’s argument regarding payment on her ex-husband’s past tax liability did not make sense and was not borne out by the evidence. Respondent did file her tax returns for November 2006, December 2006, January 2007, and February 2007. It was unclear, if Respondent brought her account books for the sub shop to the meeting. Respondent’s own books reflect that she reported tax liability for the period August 2003 through August, 2006 in the amount of $25,133.97, and through December 2006, she owed $27,620.97. Respondent’s records did not reflect the return amounts for 2007. Her records also reflect that for the period August 2003 through August 2006, she paid $13,311.68 and through December 2006, she paid $16,029.68 to the Department. Returns filed with the Department for 2007 totaled $1,379.78 though February 2007. In 2007, Respondent’s records reflect that through April 2007, she paid $1,912.08 to the Department. In short, Respondent’s own records reflect that for the period August 2003 through August 2006, she owed past due taxes in the amount of $11,822.19 and through December 2006, she owed past due taxes in the amount of $11,591.29. Her own records reflect she had repeatedly not complied with the requirements of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, to timely remit and pay taxes. More importantly, Respondent entered into a compliance agreement with the Department at the April 17, 2007, meeting. In the agreement, Respondent admitted she owed taxes in the amount of $14,658.07, plus interest in the amount of $2,857.68, for a total of $17,515.75, to the Department. She admitted she had not complied with Sections 212.14(1), 212.14(2) and 212.15(1), Florida Statutes, regarding timely filing of returns and timely payment of taxes. These failures were repeated. Additionally, Respondent agreed to timely file all tax returns for the period April 2007 through March 2008, timely pay all tax due for the same period, as well as, comply with the payment schedule for the past due amount referenced above. Failure to abide by the terms of the compliance agreement would permit the Department to initiate revocation of the Respondent’s certificate of registration and the use of the compliance agreement to establish the facts of the earlier noncompliance with Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Respondent made the payments required under the payment schedule in the compliance agreement, but did not make such payments timely. Her most current return was late. Respondent also paid the current taxes due each month, but did not timely pay those taxes. Thus, Respondent has accrued $2,519.96 in interest and $214.22 in penalties through July 18, 2007, in addition to the amount she agreed was due in the compliance agreement. Given this history, Respondent has clearly not complied with the requirements of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and her certificate of registration should be revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order revoking Respondent’s certificate of registration pursuant to Section 212.18, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Warren J. Bird, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 101 Revenue Litigation Bureau Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Glen M. Swiatek, Esquire 5 Clifford Drive Shalimar, Florida 32579 Marshall Stranburg, General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Lisa Echeverri, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
