The Issue Petitioner's liability for proposed assessment of fuel tax and penalty pursuant to Chapter 206, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Barkett Oil Company, Miami, Florida, is a distributor of motor fuel and a dealer in special fuel licensed by Respondent. During the period 1971 through 1974, it held three licenses for motor fuel and three for special fuel. It owned over 100 fuel service stations during that period. At the time petitioner obtained its licenses, it provided Respondent with a list of its stations' fuel storage tank capacities. However, over the years and prior to 1971, the fuel capacity of 12 stations was increased by the addition of tanks in the total amount of some 57,000 gallons, but Petitioner did not advise Respondent of such changed capacity. (Testimony of Barkett, Respondent's Exhibit 3). In May 1974, D. L. Hunt, Respondent's auditor, conducted an audit of Petitioner's business for the period April 1971 through March 1974. Petitioner made most of its existing records available to the auditor, including purchase and sale invoices, and monthly tax reports which had been timely filed with Respondent during the audit period. Petitioner used Respondent's standard forms for the monthly tax returns which reflected an inventory of fuel at the beginning of the month plus gallons acquired during the month, less nontaxable sales. These computations resulted in net gallonage subject to fuel tax on which the tax was remitted, less a collection fee. Petitioner's standard business practice had been to conduct its monthly inventory in the morning of the last day of the monthly period. However, by this method, sales and deliveries which were made during the remaining portion of the day, and fuel contained in its trucks were reflected in the next month's report. Once the inventory was made, Petitioner recorded the "stick" measurements of fuel on hand at the various stations in its computer and discarded the individual station inventory records. State tax returns were then prepared using the figures derived from the computer "print-out." (Testimony of Hunt, Barkett, Petitioner's Exhibit 1,3). During the course of his audit, Mr. Hunt ascertained that the recorded purchases and sales as reflected on the monthly tax returns were correct. However, he noted that fuel on hand at the end of each month apparently exceeded Petitioner's storage capacity. He therefore asked for inventory records in the form of tank readings, but was informed that they had been destroyed and he was not informed that the readings from the "stick" measurements had been processed by computer and that this stored information was available. Hunt therefore made audit findings that the amount of gallonage on hand at the end of each month over and above Petitioner's storage capacity was taxable, even though there was no showing that the fuel had actually been sold. He also predicated penalties against Petitioner for late payment of tax because sales made during the latter half of the last day of the reporting month were carried over to next month's report. Additionally, he found that certain untaxed sales should have been taxed. In February 1975, a proposed assessment of tax and penalties was issued in the total amount of $375,543.27. A number of informal conferences were held by the parties which resulted in certain adjustments to the proposed assessment, primarily consisting of tax exempt sales. As a result of these conferences, the asserted tax was reduced to $245,652.96, with penalties of $39,405.04, for a total amount of $285,058.00. Thereafter, further reductions were made in the assessment, as reflected in a letter from Respondent's counsel to Petitioner's counsel, dated July 22, 1977. This letter stated that the remaining assessment consisted of tax due in the amount of $27,216.05, with penalties of $63,269.22, for total amount due of $90,485.27. The letter explained that the differences in the penalties consisted of instances where the tax had not been timely paid on fuel which had been sold. For instance, as to license No. 391, the letter showed that although only $2,378.46 in additional tax was due, penalties over the audit period amount to $38,769.19. (Testimony of Hunt, Barkett, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibits 1-2, 5, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). During the course of informal negotiations, Petitioner's counsel, by letter of April 17, 1978, to Respondent's counsel, provided a corrected list of the capacity of twelve of its stations. Respondent's auditor Hunt had checked four of these stations, but was unable to determine the existence of additional tanks at those locations. He also declined to accept the computer printout sheets as a basis for determining inventory because the actual tank reading reports were not available. At the hearing, Petitioner's president, Harry Barkett, established that additional tanks had existed at the four locations during the audit period. (Testimony of Hunt, Barkett, Petitioner's Exhibit 4-8, Respondent's Exhibit 3, 4). A certified public accountant retained by Petitioner testified that he had audited Petitioner's books and had personally reconciled inventory amounts for the fiscal year 1972-73. He further testified that Petitioner's accounting procedures were proper and that even if inventory had been overstated, it had no effect on sales, and that any unreported sales during one monthly period would be overstated in the following month, which would balance out any prior underpayments. He had never found any discrepancy in Petitioner's fuel reports and found no accounting reason for retaining "stick" readings after the information had been placed in the computer. (Testimony of Pfeiffer).
Recommendation That Respondent proceed to collect the amount of $5,707.50 from Petitioner for unpaid fuel tax under Chapter 206, Florida Statutes, but that the remainder of the proposed assessment be withdrawn. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxie Broome, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Milton J. Wallace, Esquire 2138 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue Was the amendment to Section 12B-5.01, Florida Administrative Code adopted on November 8, 1978, adopted in violation of the procedural requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes? Is the amendment to Section 12B-5.01, Florida Administrative Code an invalid exercise of the Department's delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact Miami Tiresoles, Inc. sells both new and retreaded tires for cars and trucks. The company also sells gasoline and diesel fuel. It is licensed by the Department as a dealer in special fuels. As far as this case is concerned special fuel is number 2 diesel oil. Unless an exemption is met each gallon of special fuel sold by MTS is taxed by the Department at a rate of 8 cents per gallon. The Department has given MTS a revised notice of proposed assessment of tax for the sale of special fuel in the amount of $4,551.88 plus a penalty of $455.48 and interest in the amount of $735.11 (through April 21, 1980). The tax figure on the assessment appears to reflect a typographical error. The Department's records (Exhibit A) indicate that for the period in question 2/ MTS sold 56,936 gallons of special fuel subject to tax according to the Department's interpretation of the law. If a tax at a rate of 8 cents per gallon is due, then the amount due should be $4,554.88 and not $4,551.88. The correct tax figure is reflected on the Department's work sheets but was probably misread when the figure was transferred to the revised Notice of Assessment issued on April 21, 1980. The foregoing assessment is based on MTS' invoices which reflect sales of special fuel to customers in amounts of more than 110 gallons at one time. Those sales were made to MTS customers who have filed with MTS a document called "Purchaser's Exemption Certificate". A typical example of such a certificate states: PURCHASER'S EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE The undersigned hereby certifies that the motor duel (sic) and/or special fuel pur- chased on 1-19-79 is for the following purpose as checked in the space provided. (X) Purchased for home, industrial, com- mercial, agricultural or marine purposes for consumption other than for the propul- sion of a motor vehicle. ( ) Purchased at bulk plant or terminal in volumes of not more than 110 gallons for delivery into a receptacle not connected to the fuel supply system of a motor vehicle for consumption other than for the pro- pulsion of a motor vehicle. Purchaser is aware that if this exemption if (sic) falsely claimed, or if this certi- ficate is not rescinded at the time he fails to quality (sic) for the exemption, he shall be liable for the taxes imposed under Chapter 206, F.S. Furthermore, by issuing this certificate the purchaser also certifies that he does not have any motor vehicles which use special fuel for propulsion. This certificate is to continue in force until revoked by written notice to MIAMI TIRESOLES, INC. Purchaser: Trade Name: A ACME SANDBLASTING, INC. Street Address: 9521 W. Oakmont Dr., Hialeah, Fla. 33015 BY: /s/ The industrial customers of MTS (that is those who have filed an exemption certificate) are engaged in the construction business. They use the diesel fuel to operate bulldozers, front-end loaders, back hoes, sandblasters and similar equipment. None of the fuel is used for the operation of motor vehicles on the public highways of Florida. All the fuel in question is sold on the premises of MTS. At the time of sale it is placed either in the fuel tank of a particular piece of equipment such as a back hoe, or it is placed in a fuel storage tank mounted on the back of a truck. The storage tanks are not connected so they can provide fuel for the propulsion of the truck. They are used to transport fuel to the purchaser's particular job site. The storage tanks have a capacity of between 100 to 300 gallons. MTS does not have delivery trucks of its own and has no facilities for taking fuel to its customers job sites. A single invoice of MTS which indicates a sale of 110 gallons of special fuel to an individual customer is frequently the result of a sale where multiple fuel tanks are filled at one time. For instance, the customer may have a back hoe sitting on the rear of a flat-bed truck. He will fill the fuel tank in his back hoe and then perhaps fill an additional 55 gallon drum or two which would be on the truck. This would occur all in one transaction. The reason why the Department seeks to tax special fuel sold by MTS to its industrial customers in an amount exceeding 110 gallons is because the fuel was placed in the customers' own fuel tanks on the premises of MTS and not on the premises of the customer or at the customer's job site. The amendment to Section 12B-5.01, Florida Administrative Code challenged by Petitioner here was adopted by the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the head of the Department of Revenue, on November 8, 1978. No hearing was held on the amendment's adoption because no person requested one. Notice of the Department's intent to adopt the rule was given in the October 13, 1978 issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly. At the time the notice was published a copy of the amendment was available for inspection and copying by the public. The notice published in the Florida Administrative Weekly stated: DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, DIVISION OF MISCELLANEOUS TAX, MOTOR FUEL TAX Rule 12B-5.01 TITLE: Specific Exemption PURPOSE AND EFFECT: To amend the rule which implements Subsection 206.87(4)(a) & (b), F.S. to clarify interpretation of the law. SUMMARY: Provides specifically the requirements necessary in order for the licensed dealer of special fuel to make an exempt sale for home, industrial, commercial, agricultural, or marine purposes and exempt sales of not more than 110 gallons at his place of business, and by cross reference, the records needed to be maintained by the licensed dealer to substantiate the sale. SPECIFIC LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH THE ADOPTION IS AUTHORIZED AND THE LAW BEING IMPLEMENTED, INTERPRETED OR MADE SPECIFIC: SPECIFIC AUTHORITY: 206.14(1), 206.59, FS. LAW IMPLEMENTED: 206.87(4)(a)(b), FS. ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ON ALL AFFECTED PERSONS: There will be no significant economic impact. IF REQUESTED, A HEARING WILL BE HELD AT: TIME: 10:00 A.M. PLACE: The New Capitol, Lower Level 3 DATE: November 9, 1978 A COPY OF THE PROPOSED RULE AND THE ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT MAY BE OBTAINED BY WRITING TO: L. N. Thomas, Chief, Motor Fuel Tax Bureau, Department of Revenue, Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Individual notices of the proposed rule making were not sent to licensed special fuel dealers in Florida. On October 10, 1978, the Department sent the following items to the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee: A copy of the proposed amendment to Rule l2B-5.01. The notice to appear in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The Economic Impact Statement. The "Summary and Justification Sheet" (apparently the Department's term for the facts and circumstances justifying the proposed rules). The following shows how the Department's amendment adopted on November 8, 1978, changed Section 12B-5.01, Florida Administrative Code. Words stricken were deleted; words underlined were added. 12B-5.01 Specific Exemptions. (1) - (2) - No change. HOMES, INDUSTRIAL. COMMERCIAL, AGRICULTURAL OR MARINE. Any sale of special fuel by a licensed dealer, regardless of quantity, when such fuel is to be consumed exclusively for home, industrial, commercial, agricultural, or marine purposes, is exempt from tax, provided the sale is made by a licensed dealer who delivers the fuel into the customer's storage facility, which must be located on the customer's premises, place of business, or job site. (Cross Reference - Rule 12B-5.03(1). (7)(b) - (6) - No change. (7) SALES OF 110 GALLONS OR LESS. A licensed dealer may deliver, at his place of business, tax free, not more than 110 gallons of special fuel to a person who is not a licensed dealer of special fuel, provided the fuel is placed into a receptacle which is furnished by the purchaser and which is not connected to the fuel supply system of a motor vehicle. (Cross Reference - Rule 12B-5.03(1), (7)(b) Any licensed dealer of special fuel who, at his place of business, delivers more than 110 gallons of special fuel to a person who is not a licensed dealer of special fuel, shall be liable for and shall pay to the state taxes, penalties and interest on the total quantity sold even though the fuel may not be ultimately used to propel a motor vehicle on the highway.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a Citgo Food Mart in Naples at which it sells gasoline and diesel fuel at retail, provides limited motor vehicle service, and sells food and beverage items. Petitioner issued Respondent retail dealer's fuel license #21- 000828, which authorizes Respondent to sell motor fuel at retail and requires Respondent to collect and remit to Petitioner motor fuel taxes. The principal of Respondent is Jack Stellman. He caused Respondent to purchase the business in April 1993 from the fuel wholesaler, which had purchased it from the previous retailer. The previous retailer had suffered business and personal setbacks that necessitated the sale. Mr. Stellman and his wife, Phyllis, who claims not to be an officer or employee of Respondent despite her considerable involvement, have contributed much personal capital and labor to the new business. Immediately after taking over the business, Mr. and Mrs. Stellman discarded outdated inventory, fired a number of dishonest employees, eliminated prostitution that had been taking place on the premises, added new equipment such as a pressure fryer and hood system, and started advertising. Cash flow was a problem for Respondent from the start. The major improvements were completed by the fall of 1994. By early 1994, however, Mr. Stellman had quit taking a salary from Respondent. Over the 19-month period from August 1993 through March 1995, Mr. and Mrs. Stellman borrowed $140,000 from a variety of sources, including from their retirement plan, from relatives, and on property that they own individually. Despite these infusions of cash, Respondent was unable to stay current with certain important creditors, such as their fuel supplier, the Internal Revenue Service, and Petitioner. In August 1993, the fuel wholesaler began to demand payment on delivery, instead of in 30 days, as it had done previously. The wholesaler shortened the credit terms on fuel after Respondent fell behind in payments shortly after beginning operations. In any event, the change in credit terms involved monthly volumes of typically 40,000-50,000 gallons. The loss of use of money corresponding to the wholesale purchase of this amount of fuel does not begin to explain the tax deficiencies that Respondent ran up. Respondent's deficiencies on its motor fuel tax also began in August 1993. Returns are filed the month following the month for which the motor fuel tax is due. For August 1993, Respondent filed a return in which it underremitted the motor fuel tax by $62.15. The next month, Respondent filed a return in which it remitted $2000 and left an unremitted balance of $2867.49. The next month, Respondent filed a return, but remitted none of the $6077.28 of motor fuel tax due. For November 1993, the next month, Respondent filed a return and remitted $2000, leaving an unremitted balance of $3278.78. For December 1993 through July 1994, Respondent filed returns but remitted no tax. The total tax deficiency for this eight-month period was $58,300.87, or an average of $7287.61. In the 12-month period ending with the July 1994 return, Respondent had failed to remit a total of $70,586.57. For the August, September, and October 1994 returns, Respondent made partial remittances. For August and September, Respondent left unremitted balances of only $15.34 and $84.30, respectively, remitting a total of $11,315.49. For October, Respondent remitted $4827.90, leaving an unremitted balance of $2623.98. For November 1994, Respondent filed a return, but failed to remit any of the $5983.74 due. In the summer of 1994, the Stellmans finally sold their house in New York, but realized less cash than they had expected. In October 1994, the Stellmans applied for a loan on their Florida residence. During the same month, they began negotiations with Texaco to convert their Citgo convenience store into a Texaco outlet. The Stellmans believed that they would receive $225,000 from Texaco, which would be sufficient to pay their fuel wholesaler and Petitioner, convert their service operation into more store space, and acquire additional inventory and working capital. The record does not permit a finding whether $225,000 would cover all of these items. In any event, the Texaco negotiations did not proceed quickly. The fuel wholesaler threatened litigation over the prospective cancellation of its contract to supply Respondent with fuel and oil. And Petitioner's representatives were increasingly unsatisfied with Respondent's lack of progress in paying back taxes. Repeatedly, the Stellmans promised payments that did not materialize. At the same time, Respondent was not remitting motor fuel taxes currently. For December 1994 through March 1995, Respondent did not even file returns. During this four-month period, motor fuel taxes due and unremitted totalled $32,106.59. The total of unremitted motor fuel taxes for August 1993 through March 1995 was now $111,400.52, exclusive of penalties and interest. Penalties for the underremittances for the period August 1993 through March 1995 totalled $60,284.67. Interest for the same period totalled $14,042.88. The total of tax, penalties, and interest was thus $185,728.07. Respondent later reduced this deficiency by paying a total of $323.48 of penalties and $4154.52 of interest, so the current totals are tax of $111,400.52, penalties of $59,961.19, and interest of $9888.36, for a total of $181,250.07. The interest is current through August 1, 1995, and the daily interest thereafter is calculated by multiplying the tax deficiency by 0.000328767. Mr. and Mrs. Stellman claim that the $185,728.07 deficiency arose due to business setbacks, but the business setbacks that they have shown do not account adequately for the deficiency. The Stellmans clearly began the business badly undercapitalized. Mr. and Mrs. Stellman attribute part of the financial problems to bad debts suffered by Respondent. From August 1993 through the end of 1993, the Stellmans pursued seasonal business by offering liberal credit terms, which eventually resulted in worthless accounts receivable. However, the total bad debt was only $15,000. Although hardly meriting mention, except perhaps to reveal their lack of insight, the Stellmans also complain that they lost cash flow due to ill- advised advertising deals into which they entered where they traded fuel for advertising. Even ignoring the benefits derived from such agreements, Respondent traded only about $4000 worth of fuel under these arrangements. Together, these claimed business setbacks of no more than $20,000 constitute less than 18 percent of the taxes, penalties, and interest owed Petitioner. The amount of motor fuel tax that Respondent would have collected on $20,000 worth of fuel would be around $1500. With more zeal than business acumen, the Stellmans attacked the challenge of a new business. Their lack of business sophistication, not fraud, led the Stellmans to convert the motor fuel taxes from current payables to long- term debt, to underreport the amount of fuel pumped on 12 of 19 returns filed with Petitioner during the period in question, and repeatedly to file returns late, so as to lose the collection allowance normally given retail dealers. The unwillingness of Petitioner to become a long term creditor was manifested dramatically when, on May 4, 1995, Petitioner issued an emergency order suspending Respondent's retail dealer's fuel license. The emergency suspension took place after a meeting of Petitioner's Emergency Response Group, which, after reviewing the facts, determined that this was the best course of action to prevent the loss of motor fuel tax. The Stellmans complain that Petitioner did not give them enough time to try to pay the tax deficiencies. However, the record does not justify the Stellmans' demand that Petitioner share their confidence in their ability to take care of this substantial debt. As late as mid-February 1995, the Stellmans were still making unfulfilled promises to pay, as when they assured a Naples employee of Petitioner that Respondent would pay $10,000 by mid-April. This sum was not paid, nor were the motor fuel taxes that Respondent collected at the time even paid currently. In other words, Respondent was still taking the motor fuel tax that it was collecting from customers and applying it to other debts. The Stellmans never told Petitioner what they expected to net from the Texaco agreement. They never explained why the negotiations took so long to conclude. In early 1995, Petitioner's representatives justifiably saw: 1) new financing never resulted in any reduction of the outstanding deficiencies and 2) the outstanding deficiencies continued to grow as Respondent continued to collect motor fuel tax and apply it to other purposes. The record is not entirely clear as to the status of Respondent with respect to unremitted or unpaid taxes in April 1995 and following. Respondent owed $34,861.20 in unremitted sales tax, as of May 1, 1995. However, it appears more likely than not that, during at least part of the period subsequent to May 1, 1995, Respondent remitted and paid to Petitioner its currently accruing tax obligations. With the cessation of fueling operations, these obligations arose from sales of convenience store items, as these sales were unaffected by Petitioner's action against Respondent's retail dealer's fuel license. Since the suspension of the license, the Stellmans have supplied Petitioner with accurate, current information concerning Respondent's tax liabilities, at least to the extent that they possess such information. Respondent's financial condition is precarious, at best. Even assuming that the Stellmans were willing to continue to contribute more money to Respondent, there is nothing in the record to suggest that they have the financial resources to contribute substantial sums beyond a large fraction of the total currently due Petitioner in this case. Such a payment would probably come from a combination of the Stellmans' assets and the assets of friends and family. Their obvious failure to prepare and follow a feasible business plan does not bode well for Respondent's future ability to operate and, at the same time, retire what has become a substantial financial liability owed to Petitioner.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order: 1) suspending Respondent's retail dealer's fuel license for the lesser of six months from the date of the final order or until Respondent pays the sums described in paragraphs 38 and 39 and executes a promissory note with the conditions set forth in paragraphs 38 and 39 and 2) revoking Respondent's retail dealer's fuel license at the expiration of six months from the date of the final order unless Respondent has paid the above-described sums and entered into the above-described promissory note. ENTERED on October 27, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on October 27, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5-7: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9-10: rejected as subordinate. 11: adopted or adopted in substance. 12-18: rejected as subordinate. 19-21: adopted or adopted in substance. 22-23: rejected as subordinate. 24-26: adopted or adopted in substance except the taxpayer is Respondent, not Mr. Stellman individually. 27: rejected as subordinate. 28: adopted or adopted in substance. 29-35: rejected as subordinate. 36-37: adopted or adopted in substance. 38: rejected as subordinate. 39: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 40-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 44: rejected as recitation of evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance, although the "great expense" in paragraph 7 is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 8-10: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The financial problems were minor. 11: adopted or adopted in substance to the extent relevant. 12-13: rejected as subordinate. 14: rejected as speculative. 15: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 16: rejected as irrelevant. 17: adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as subordinate. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence except that the filings is rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Francisco Negron, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Christian B. Felden Felden and Felden 2590 Golden Gate Parkway Suite 101 Naples, FL 33942
Findings Of Fact On January 13, 1983, an inspector from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services drew a sample of the gasoline in one of the pumps at the station of K & S Imports, Inc., in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and submitted the sample for laboratory testing. This test determined that the evaporation rate for the sample was too high, having a 10 percent evaporated temperature of 155 degrees, instead of less than the allowable 140 degrees. Based on these test results, the Petitioner issued its stop-sale order to the Respondent on January 14, 1983. The tested sample came from a tank containing Cam 2 racing fuel. This is a special product distributed by Sun Oil Company, and it is not generally available to the public at gasoline stations. Cam 2 racing fuel performs well in engines designed for racing because racing cars often are pushed off in order to start the engines. However, the high evaporation rate of this fuel lessens the starting power of ordinary engines. The racing fuel tested at the Respondent's station came from a pump which was in the same location as the pumps containing other gasolines for sale to the public, and there was no obvious identification on the pump notifying purchasers that the product was a racing fuel not generally suitable for use in standard-use cars. Subsequent to the issuance of the stop-sale order, Sun Oil Company delivered another load of product, and added to the subject tank enough gasoline with a lower evaporation temperature to bring the sample at the pump down to an acceptable level. During the two to three month period prior to the issuance of the stop- sale order on January 14, 1983, the Respondent had sold 645 gallons of the Cam 2 racing fuel at a price of $3.50 per gallon. The Respondent contends that it informed the office of Consumer Services when it decided to market the Cam 2 fuel, and was advised that this fuel could be sold if the pump dispensing it was separated from other pumps, and if this pump was clearly marked to show that the fuel therein was sold as racing fuel not generally suitable for use in ordinary engines. However, there is not sufficient credible evidence to support a finding of fact that this instruction was implemented.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the request of K & S Imports, Inc., for a return of the $1,000 bond posted by it to secure the release of the fuel confiscated by the Department, be DENIED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 24 day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 24 day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Klein, President K & S Imports, Inc. 3955 North Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is licensed as a dealer of special fuel pursuant to Florida Statutes 206 and has been assigned license Number 1627. The pertinent sections of Florida Statutes which are applicable to this case are ss206.86(1), (6), (8), 206.87, 206.89, 206.93, 206.94 and Ch. 212. The pertinent rules of the Department of Revenue applicable to special fuels sales involved herein is 12A-2.03. The deposition of Albert Colozoff and all answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for admissions are admissible as evidence and are to be made a part of the record in this cause. The Petitioner sold special fuels to Zamora Truck and Car Services, Roberts Equipment Company and Florida Petroleum, Inc. Petitioner was assessed by the Respondent for tax on 1,979,201 gallons of special fuel sold by it and paid tax and interest as set forth in the letter attached hereto as Exhibit A. That no penalty paid on any of the tax paid pursuant to that letter. That Petitioner did not remit taxes that were due during the month the sales of special fuel were reported on any of the sale to Zamora, Roberts or Florida Petroleum or the remaining 1,417,263 gallons sold. Zamora and Roberts represented to Belcher that they were purchasing all special fuel from Belcher for exempt agricultural use. Due to past dealings and delivery of the special fuel to a farm, Belcher believed and relied upon the facts represented to it by Zamora and Roberts. However, Belcher did not obtain written documentation of this agricultural use from Zamora or Roberts and did not furnish the Department with any such written documentation. Belcher did not obtain resale certificates or exemption certificates or dealer license numbers from Zamora, Roberts or Florida Petroleum. Nor did the report forms filed by Belcher contain resale certificates, exemption certificates or dealer license numbers from Zamora, Roberts or Florida Petroleum. An employee of the Department advised Belcher that Zamora and Roberts were under investigation for fraudulent failure to report taxes. Belcher paid sales tax on sales of special fuel in the amount of $18,589.53 on the sale of 538,030 gallons of special fuel. Zamora is not a licensed dealer of special fuels. Florida Petroleum is not a licensed dealer of special fuel. Roberts is not a licensed dealer of special fuel. Belcher did not fraudulently file incorrect monthly special fuels reports. The Department of Revenue audited Belcher and computed tax, penalty and interest due as set forth in the documents attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Department of Revenue advised Belcher of its duties regarding reporting requirements in the letters from L. N. Thomas attached as Exhibit C.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's assessment be upheld with respect to Petitioner's tax deficiency, penalty and interest as set forth in the assessments with adjustments to be made for payments paid by Petitioner under the "sales tax" theory. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James R. McCachren, Jr., Esquire Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William D. Townsend, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the assessment of $767.27 as a bond was proper.
Findings Of Fact On May 21, 1986, the samples of fuel were taken at Hicks' Gulf Station, U.S. 19 South and Hicks' Gulf Station, U.S. 19 North in Perry, Florida. Using ASTM D86, it was determined that the samples of Good Gulf regular leaded gasoline taken at the Hicks' Service Stations contained contaminants that caused their evaporative end points to exceed 437/0F, the acceptable maximum set by Florida Statute and Rule 5F-2.01, Florida Administrative Code. These results were confirmed at the main laboratory in Tallahassee on June 5, 1986. Stop sales notices were issued on May 21, 1986. On May 23, 1986, a bond of $767.27 was posted by Morris Petroleum, Inc., in lieu of the Department confiscating 1,754 gallons of the contaminated fuel. Delivery and sales records allowed the Department to determine that 791 gallons of contaminated fuel had been sold to the public at the two stations at 97 per gallon since the last delivery from the wholesaler. Nancy Fischer, chemist for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, testified regarding the Department policy. The Department tests motor fuels at terminals and wholesalers. However, the Department does not levy fines against wholesalers and terminals. In cases where fuels being held by terminals and wholesalers are found to be contaminated, the Department issues a stop sale order. When establishing the amount of bond to be paid by a retailer for contaminated fuel, the Department uniformly bases the bond on the retail value of the substandard product sold to retail customers at the retail price. The Respondent, Morris Petroleum, Inc., is a wholesale distributor of motor fuels. Morris Petroleum sold the motor fuels in question in this case for 81.5 per gallon to Hicks' Service Stations in Perry, Florida. It is common practice for wholesalers to pay the bonds levied against retailers in order to maintain the business of the retailers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department be affirmed and the bond of $767.27 be retained. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of December 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Harris, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 514, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John M. Morris, Jr. Morris Petroleum, Inc. Post Office Box 495 Monticello, Florida 32344 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Ware Oil and Supply Company, Inc. (hereafter "Petitioner" or "Ware Oil"), is a wholesale and retail dealer of petroleum products. Ware Oil is a licensed dealer of special and motor fuels. Special fuels are primarily diesel and are used to operate off-highway equipment such as boats, farm tractors and industrial machinery. Beginning March 1980, the Department conducted a special fuels tax audit of the records of the Petitioner for the period January 1, 1977, through January 31, 1980. The special fuels tax audit resulted in a levy of a tax deficiency pursuant to Part II, Chapter 206, Florida Statutes. The taxes assessed together with penalty and interest are $6.868.06, with interest accruing at $1.70 per day from April 14, 1980. The assessment was based in sales of special fuels made by the Petitioner to four customers; Hoxie Brothers Circus, Jackson United Shows, Tommy Lynn and Pace's 66 Marina. The assessment relative to the sales of special fuel to Hoxie Brothers Circus and Jackson United Shows was due to the absence of a purchaser's affidavit of exemption from these customers and the Department's belief that they were dual users of special fuel due to the nature of their businesses. The assessment relative to Tommy Lynn was based on the Department's conclusion that Mr. Lynn was a dual user of special fuel and was an unlicensed dealer at the time the sales were made. The assessment relative to Pace's 66 Marina was based on Pace's resale of special fuels for which a dealer's license is required at the time of purchase. The taxes assessed by the Department are derived from the number of gallons of special fuel which was sold by the Petitioner to Hoxie Brothers Circus, Jackson United Shows, Tommy Lynn and Pace's 66 Marina, on which the $.08 per gallon tax was not collected. During 1977 Petitioner sold 550 gallons of special fuel to Hoxie Brothers Circus for purposes of generating electricity in order to operate circus rides and lights. The Petitioner did not have an exemption certificate from Hoxie relative to this sale although the sale invoice indicated that the fuel was for "off-road use". Sales tax of $.04 per gallon was collected by the Petitioner from Hoxie. No testimony or documentary evidence was produced to demonstrate that Hoxie in fact used the special fuel for an exempt purpose, that the special fuel was not placed into a receptacle connected to the fuel supply system of a motor vehicle and that the special fuel was not purchased for resale or far a dual use. In 1978, the Petitioner sold 300 gallons of special fuel to Jackson United a circus which generates its own electricity for circus rides and lights. The Petitioner has no exemption certificates for this sale; however, like Hoxie, the sales invoice has the term "off-road use" noted on its face. No testimony or documentary evidence was introduced to demonstrate that Jackson in fact used the special fuel for an exempt purpose, that the special fuel was not placed into a receptacle to the fuel supply system of a motor vehicle and that the special fuel was not purchased for resale or for a dual use. In 1977 the Petitioner sold 11,200 gallons of special fuel to Tommy Lynn. At that time Mr. Lynn was an independent logger who used all the special fuel purchased from the Petitioner for his logging equipment in the field and for off-road use. At the time of his purchases from the Petitioner, Mr. Lynn was a dual user of special fuels in that he used special fuel for both on and off road equipment. Mr. Lynn bought his off-road special fuels exclusively from the Petitioner and his on-road special fuel from another dealer. When audited by the Department, Petitioner did not have an exemption certificate for Mr. Lynn on file in its records. The Department in the past accepted exemption certificates obtained after sales were made. Mr. Lynn executed two after the fact exemption certificates. The first certificate was erroneously executed and a second drafted and signed in which Mr. Lynn stated that his purchases were for off-road use. The second certificate corroborates Mr. Lynn's direct testimony that the special fuel purchased from the Petitioner was used solely for off-road use. Neither of these certificates demonstrates that Mr. Lynn was a licensed dealer in special fuels. During 1977, 1978 and 1979 the Petitioner sold 52,484 gallons of special fuel to Pace's 66 Marina. Pace's used this special fuel for resale to users of commercial and pleasure boats and therefore, no sales tax was collected. The location of the special fuel pumps at Pace's make it virtually impossible to use the fuel for purposes other than boating. At the time of the fuel's purchase, Pace's presented an exemption certificate to the Petitioner. At that time, Pace's was not a licensed dealer of special fuels and its dealer's license number did not appear on the exemption certificate furnished to the Petitioner. Petitioner was unaware that Tommy Lynn and Pace's 66 Marina were required to be licensed as dealers and the exemption certificates provided by them should have that contained their dealer's license numbers and therefore, had no knowledge that the exemption certificates of Mr. Lynn and Pace's were incomplete. The sales were made by Petitioner in reliance on the certificates supplied by these two customer. The Department imposed the assessment against Hoxie and Jackson due to the lack of appropriate exemption certificates. The assessment was levied against Tommy Lynn and Pace's due to improperly completed exemption certificates which failed to reflect the dealer's license number. The Department did not consider whether the involved special fuels were in fact used for exempt purposes. The unrebutted testimony and documentary evidence regarding the sales to Tommy Lynn and Pace's 66 Marina supports Petitioner's position that the fuels sold to these two customers were in fact used for exempt purposes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order upholding the tax assessment against the Petitioner, Ware Oil and Supply Company. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of August 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicholas Yonclas, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson Post Office Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeff Kielbasa, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LLO4 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On November 18, 1991, Douglas & Sons, Inc. was operating a commercial vehicle on SR 9 (1-95) when it stopped at a Department of Transportation weigh station in Flagler Beach, Florida. The vehicle was checked by a DOT inspector who determined that the vehicle displayed a Florida decal outside the truck, but that the identification number on the fuel use cab card in the truck varied by one digit from the vehicle identification number on the North Carolina apportioned license registration. The DOT inspector issued a temporary fuel use permit for a $45.00 fee, which he collected to allow the vehicle to proceed on its way; and he collected a $50.00 civil penalty for violation of Chapter 207, Florida Statutes, as provided in Section 316.545(4), Florida Statutes. The Respondent produced evidence that the owner of the vehicle had purchased and returned six fuel use cards, which the Respondent did not use. These cards consist of a decal displayed on the outside of the truck and a card which is carried in the truck. Patricia Lloyd stated that the fuel use card in the inspected vehicle had the wrong vehicle identification number typed in by a clerk in the Respondent's office. The Respondent showed, by introducing the unused fuel use cards, that it had not attempted to violate the statute prohibiting switching fuel use cards between two vehicles. The fuel use cards are ordered by owners of out-of-state commercial vehicles who are responsible for filling out the cards with the vehicles' identification numbers. The fuel use cards may be bought in any quantity. The cost is $4.00 per card per year. The owner is statutorily responsible for the proper use of the card, and transfer of the card is prohibited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the penalty of $50.00 and the $45.00 be remitted to the Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3 day of April, 1992. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esq. Assistant General Counsel Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3 day of April, 1992. Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Ms. Patricia M. Lloyd Douglas & Sons, Inc. Route 5, Box 238 Statesville, NC 28677 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner Thornton J. Williams, Esq. General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
