Findings Of Fact Modern Tool and Die, (MTD), is a privately held corporation engaged in manufacturing equipment. In 1965 they started the manufacture of bumper guards which required electroplating. They entered into agreements with MPC pursuant to which MTD erected two buildings adjacent to their plant which they leased to MPC in which to do the electroplating of the bumper guards. MPC is also a privately held corporation and there is no common ownership of these two companies. The two buildings built for MPC's occupancy were partitioned, compartmented and wired as desired by MPC and at its expense. Florida Power Corporation supplied electricity to the complex through the main transformer of MTD. In 1965 and to a lesser extent now, electricity rates per kilowatt-hour (kwh) were lowered with increased usage of electricity. Since both MTD and MPC are large users of electricity they obtain a cheaper rate if all electricity used is billed from the master meter serving MTD. Accordingly, and at the recommendation of the power company, additional transformers and meters were placed at the two buildings occupied by MPC and read monthly at or about the same time the master meter is read by the power company. The kw used at the two buildings is forwarded by MPC to MTD each month. The latter, upon receipt of the power company bill, computes the cost of the power per kwh and in turn bills MPC for its portion of the bill based upon the usage forwarded by MPC to MTD. Upon the commencement of this working agreement between these two companies in 1965 MPC, pursuant to an oral lease, has paid rent to MTD monthly at the rate of approximately $2,400 per month. It has also paid to MTD its pro rata cost for the electricity used each month. The rent is invoiced each month on the first of the month as in Exhibit 3 and paid by the 10th by MPC. Sales tax is added to the rent and remitted to DOR. Electricity usage is also invoiced by MTD to MPC on or about the 20th of the month and paid by MPC on or about the first of the following month. (Exhibit 4). Sales tax on the electricity used is paid by MTD to Florida Power Company who presumably remits this to DOR. During the 15 years these two companies have shared the cost of electric power they have been audited numerous times; the arrangement was made known to the auditors; and no auditor, prior to the present, suggested that the cost of electricity was part of the rent paid by MPC upon which sales tax was due. Notice of Proposed Assessment (Exhibit 1) in the amount of $9,747.34 is based upon the cost of electricity billed to MPC during the period of the audit December 1, 1976 through November 30, 1979 multiplied by 4 percent sales tax plus penalties and interest. The parties stipulated to the accuracy of this amount. They differ only as to whether the tax is owed.
The Issue Whether Petitioners are liable for sales and use tax, penalty, and interest as assessed by the Department of Revenue (the Department)?
Findings Of Fact Salma is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business at 2231 Del Prado Boulevard, Cape Coral, Florida, 33990. Gausia is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business at 11571 Gladiolus Drive, Fort Myers, Florida, 33908. Petitioners are in the business of operating gas stations with convenience stores. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida and is authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida. Petitioners were selected for audit because their reported gross sales were less than the total cost of items purchased (inventory) for the audit period. The Department issued Salma and Gausia each a Notice of Intent to Conduct a Limited Scope Audit or Self-Audit, dated April 26, 2013, for sales and use tax, for the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2013 (collectively referred to as the Notices). The Notices requested that Petitioners provide the Department: (a) a list of all their vendors for alcohol, tobacco, soda, chips, candy, etc.; (b) their total purchases of alcohol and tobacco, by vendor, for the period July 2010 to June 2011; (c) copies of their federal tax returns for the examination period; (d) purchase receipts for all purchases for the last complete calendar month; and (e) daily register (Z tapes) for the last complete calendar month. The Notices gave Petitioners 60 days to gather the requested documents before the audit was to commence. The Notices also requested that Petitioners complete an attached Questionnaire and Self Analysis Worksheet. In response to the Notices, Petitioners requested a 30- day extension of time until July 18, 2013, to provide the requested documents and to designate a Power of Attorney. Petitioners did not provide the Department any books and records for inspection, nor did they complete and return the questionnaire and self analysis worksheets. As a result, the Department's auditor determined the sales tax due based upon the best information available. To calculate an estimated assessment of sales tax, the Department used the purchase data of Petitioners' wholesalers and distributors of alcoholic beverages and tobacco, for July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011; the 2010 National Association of Convenience Stores average markups and in-store sales percentages of alcoholic beverage and tobacco products; and historical audit data. After reviewing the purchase data for July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, and for July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012, the Department's auditor determined that the data was missing a few vendors. As a result, the Department's auditor estimated the amount of Petitioners' cigarette purchases, based on historical audit data that shows that cigarette sales are generally 4.31 times more than beer sales. The Department's auditor and audit supervisor testified that the estimated gross sales seemed reasonable and consistent with the national averages and the purchase data for July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. The Department estimated gross sales (i.e., the retail sale value of the goods sold) by marking up the taxable sales and exempt sales reported on the sales and use tax returns submitted to the Department by Petitioners. For example, for July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, Salma purchased beer from its wholesalers and distributors for $148,826.15, and the Department marked up the purchase price by 27 percent for a retail value of $189,009.21. For July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, Gausia purchased beer from its wholesalers and distributors for $132,138.65, and the Department marked up the purchase price by 27 percent for a retail value of $167,816.09. The Department's markup on the alcoholic beverage and tobacco products is reasonable because the Department's auditor testified that he used a combination of 2010 National Association of Convenience Stores average markups and the competitive pricing and information from audits of other convenience stores. The Department determined that the exemption ratio reported on the sales and use tax returns submitted to the Department by Petitioners was extremely high for their industry. The Department used an exemption ratio of 15 percent, based on historical audit data for the industry, to calculate Petitioners' estimated taxable sales. A review of Petitioners' sales and use tax returns revealed that they did not apply the tax bracket system to their taxable sales transactions, as required under sections 212.12(9) and (10), Florida Statutes. Instead, Petitioners remitted sales tax on their taxable sales based on their gross receipts at a flat tax rate. The Department's auditor testified that this method of reporting tax is inappropriate and does not accurately reflect the sales activity of the business. The Department calculated the average effective tax rate of 6.0856 percent, based on historical audit data for the industry. To calculate the estimated tax due, the Department multiplied the effective tax rate by the estimated taxable sales and gave Petitioners credit for any tax remitted with their tax returns. The Department issued Salma a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, dated August 8, 2013, for audit number 200149872. The Department issued Gausia a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, dated August 8, 2013, for audit number 200149749. The Department assessed Petitioners sales tax on their sales of alcoholic beverages and tobacco. The Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes gave Petitioners 30 days to request a conference with the auditor or audit supervisor, to dispute the proposed changes. Petitioners did not make such a request. The Department issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment (NOPA) to Salma on March 6, 2014, for tax in the sum of $159,282.26; for penalty in the sum of $39,820.57; and interest as of March 6, 2013, in the sum of $27,772.36. The Department issued a NOPA to Gausia on March 6, 2014, for tax in the sum of $213,754.46; for penalty in the sum of $53,438.62; and interest as of March 6, 2013, in the sum of $36,921.79. Additional interest accrues at $30.55 per day until the tax is paid. The NOPAs became final assessments on May 5, 2014. After filing a request for an administrative hearing, Petitioners completed the Questionnaire and Self Analysis Worksheet and produced the following documents to the Department: (a) a list of all of their vendors for alcohol, tobacco, soda, chips, candy, etc.; (b) a list of vendors for alcohol and tobacco, for the examination period of July 2010 to June 2011; (c) a summary of their taxable sales, for the period February 2010 through December 2012; (d) copies of their federal tax returns, for the tax years 2010 through 2013; (e) copies of its purchase receipts for the months of July 2013; and (f) copies of their daily register (Z-tapes) for the month of July 2013. The Department's auditor testified that aside from being untimely, the records and information provided by Petitioners during these proceedings were not reliable because Petitioners did not provide any source documents that would allow the Department to reconcile the reported figures and confirm the supplied information. In addition, the purchase receipts and Z- tapes were not relevant because they were from outside of the audit period. The Z-tapes are also unreliable because the manager of the convenience store testified at the final hearing that employees purposely and routinely entered taxable sales into the cash registers as tax exempt sales. Petitioners argue that the Department did not use the best information available when estimating the taxes due. Petitioners claim that because their businesses are combination gas station/convenience stores, the national data for standalone convenience stores is inapplicable. However, notably absent from Petitioners' testimony or evidence was any alternative data upon which the Department could have relied for more accurate estimates.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying Petitioners' requests for relief and assessing, in full, the Department's assessments of sales tax, penalty, and interest against both Salma and Gausia. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioner, Gainesville Amateur Radio Society, Inc. (GARS or petitioner), a Florida non-profit corporation, was incorporated on December 31, 1975. Its stated purpose is to promote an interest in amateur radio operation. Among other things, GARS provides preparation for Federal Communication Commission licensing examinations, supports community activities with free communication services, and encourages public awareness of ham radio activities through the publication of a monthly newsletter called the GARS-MOUTH. Respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), is charged with the responsibility of administering and implementing the Florida Revenue Act of 1949, as amended. It has the specific task of collecting sales taxes and enforcing the state tax code and rules. By law, certain transactions are exempt from the state sales and use tax. Among these are sales or lease transactions involving "scientific organizations." In order for an organization to be entitled to an exemption, it must make application with DOR for a consumer's certificate of exemption and demonstrate that it is a qualified scientific organization within the meaning of the law. Once the application is approved, the certificate entitles the holder to make tax exempt purchases that are otherwise taxable under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. In the case of petitioner, a certificate would enable it to save a hundred or so dollars per year. Claiming that it was entitled to a certificate of exemption as a charitable organization, GARS filed an application with DOR on December 21, 1993. After having the application preliminarily disapproved by DOR on the ground it did not expend "in excess of 50.0 percent of the . . . organization's expenditures toward referenced charitable concerns, within (its) most recent fiscal year," a requirement imposed by DOR rule, GARS then amended its application to claim entitlement on the theory that it was a scientific organization. Although DOR never formally reviewed the amended application, it takes the position that GARS still does not qualify for a certificate under this new theory. Is GARS a Scientific Organization? Under Section 212.08(7)(o)2.c., Florida Statutes, a scientific organization is defined in relevant part as an organization which holds a current exemption from the federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. A DOR rule tracks this statute almost verbatim. Accordingly, as a matter of practice, in interpreting this statutory exemption, DOR simply defers to the final determination of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If the IRS grants an organization a 501(c)(3) status based on the determination that it is a scientific organization, then DOR accepts this determination at face value. DOR does not make an independent determination whether the organization is "scientific" or question the decision of the IRS. This statutory interpretation is a reasonable one and was not shown to be erroneous or impermissible. GARS received a federal income tax exemption from the IRS regional office in Atlanta, Georgia by letter dated August 12, 1993. The record shows that GARS was granted an "exempt organization" status as a "charitable organization" and as an "educational organization" under Treasury Regulation Section 1.501(c)(3). However, GARS did not receive an exempt status as a "scientific organization" nor did the IRS make that determination. Therefore, GARS does not qualify as a scientific organization within the meaning of the law. While petitioner submitted evidence to show that it engages in what it considers to be a number of scientific endeavors, these activities, while laudable, are irrelevant under Florida law in making a determination as to whether GARS qualifies for a sales tax exemption as a scientific organization. Therefore, the application must be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent enter a final order denying petitioner's application for a consumer certificate of exemption. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1200 Petitioner: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 5. Rejected as being irrelevant. 6. Rejected as being unnecessary. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 8-9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 13. Rejected as being unnecessary. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Respondent: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. 4. Rejected as being cumulative. 5-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 13-14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 16. Covered in preliminary statement. 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 18-19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 20-21. Rejected as being unnecessary. 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 23-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, not supported by the evidence, cumulative, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, Esquire General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Sidney Schmukler, Esquire 3922 N. W. 20th Lane Gainesville, Florida 32605-3565 Olivia P. Klein, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol-Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Findings Of Fact The facts in this cause are essentially undisputed. The Pen Haven Company was a Subchapter "S" corporation for federal income tax purposes and therefore incurred no State income tax liability. It was formed in 1960 and retained its Subchapter "S" status thorough 1976 for federal income tax purposes. In December of 1977, the capital stock of Pen Haven Sanitation Company was sold to the Board of County Commissioners of Escambia County. Inasmuch as the sole corporate stock holder then was no longer an individual, but rather a governmental entity, the corporation Subchapter "S" election for federal income tax purposes was terminated. Escambia County did not wish to own stock in a private corporation so it accordingly liquidated Pen Haven and its assets were distributed to the County's direct ownership. Thereafter the Corporation filed a final corporate income tax return for 1977 which reflected capital gains on the assets of the corporation which had been distributed. Some of those assets had tax bases which had been reduced to zero through reduction by depreciation, most of which had been charged off prior to January 1, 1972, the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax code. All of the depreciation deductions had been taken prior to the termination of the Subchapter "S" status of the Pen Haven Company. On disposition of the Pen Haven assets however, a gain was reported equal to the fair market value or salvage value, less the basis. This gain was accordingly reported on Pen Haven's federal income tax return, and on the 1977 Florida corporate income tax return, albeit under the protest as to the Florida tax return. Inasmuch as Pen Haven had previously deducted depreciation since its inception, and had the benefit thereof for federal tax purposes, it was required by the Internal Revenue Service to recapture the depreciation for federal tax purposes upon its sale and the filing of its tax return in 1977. The same recapture of depreciation treatment was required of West Florida Utilities. Thereafter an application was made by the Petitioner corporations for Florida Corporate Income Tax Refunds asserting that they should have not paid taxes on the amount of gains which represented a recapture of depreciation which had been taken as a deduction prior to the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax on January 1, 1972. In effect the Petitioner is contending that the so- called "income" which is the subject of the tax in question was not realized in 1977, but rather merely "recognized" in that year by the federal tax law and that it represented income actually "realized" during the years when the depreciation was taken as a deduction prior to January 1, 1972. The Petitioners contend that "realization" for federal income tax purposes occurs when the taxpayer actually receives an economic gain. "Recognition" on the other hand refers only to that time when the tax itself becomes actually due and payable. The Petitioners maintain that when the tax became due and payable in 1977 that was merely the point of "recognition" of the subject taxable gain and not "realization" in that the gain was actually realized prior to the Florida Jurisdictional date of January 1, 1972, in the form of the economic benefit derived from those depreciation deductions applied to federal tax liability prior to that date. The Petitioners cite SRG Corporation vs. Department of Revenue, 365 So2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), for the proposition that Florida could not tax those gains accruing to the taxpayer prior to Florida's having the constitutional and statutory power to impose a corporate income tax. The Respondent in essence agrees that the question of when the economic benefit to the Petitioners was received by them or was "realized" is the key question in this cause. The Respondent contends, however, that "realization" of a taxable gain occurred when the assets were disposed of by the Petitioners in 1977, well after the date when Florida's power to tax such a gain was enacted. The underlying facts in the case of West Florida Utilities are substantially similar. This corporation, however, was organized in 1962 and has never been clothed with Subchapter "S" corporate status. The only grounds upon which it can therefore claim a refund is its assertion that Florida does not have authority to tax that portion of the capital gains attributable to recapture of depreciation which was originally charged off as a deduction prior to January 1, 1972. The Department of Revenue and the Comptroller of the State of Florida both denied the refund claim made on behalf of the Petitioners, and thereafter they seasonably petitioned for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witness and pleadings and arguments of counsel it is, therefore RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 3rd day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Thurston A. Shell Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32578 Robert A. Pierce, Esquire General Counsel Department of Revenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Basile, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Office of Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wilson Crump, II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32310
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 18-4475RX, whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.044(5)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in violation of section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.1/ As to DOAH Case No. 18-4992RU, whether the Department of Revenue's ("Department") Standard Audit Plan, Vending and Amusement Machines--Industry Specific, section 1.1.3.3 ("SAP") is an unadopted rule in violation of sections 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Audit Period GBR is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. Gilda Rosenberg is the owner of GBR and a related entity, Gilly Vending, Inc. ("Gilly"). GBR and Gilly are in the vending machine business. At all times material hereto, Amit Biegun served as the chief financial officer of the two entities. The Department is the state agency responsible for administering Florida's sales tax laws pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes. This case concerns the audit period of January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014. GBR's Provision of Vending Machine Services Prior to the audit period, the school boards of Broward and Palm Beach County issued written solicitations through invitations to bid ("ITB"), seeking vendors to furnish, install, stock, and maintain vending machines on school property. The bids required a "full turn-key operation." The stated objectives were to obtain the best vending service and percentage commission rates that will be most advantageous to the school boards, and to provide a contract that will be most profitable to the awarded vendor. The stated goal was that student choices from beverage and snack vending machines closely align with federal dietary guidelines. GBR operates approximately 700 snack and beverage vending machines situated at 65 schools in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade Counties. Of these 65 schools, 43 are in Broward County, 21 are in Palm Beach County, and one is in Miami-Dade County. The snack vending machines are all owned by GBR. Beverage vending machines are owned by bottling companies, such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Of the 700 vending machines, approximately 60 percent of the machines are for beverages and the remaining 40 percent are for snacks. GBR has written vending agreements with some schools. In these agreements, GBR is designated as a licensee, the school is designated as the licensor, and GBR is granted a license to install vending machines on school property in exchange for a commission. Furthermore, GBR is solely responsible to pay all federal, state, and local taxes in connection with the operation of the vending machines. Ownership of the vending machines does not transfer to the schools. However, in some cases the schools have keys to the machines. In addition, designated school board employees have access to the inside of the machines in order to review the meter, monitor all transactions, and reconcile the revenue from the machines. GBR places the vending machines on school property. However, the schools control the locations of the vending machines. The schools also require timers on the machines so that the schools can control the times during the day when the machines are operational and accessible to students. The schools also control the types of products to be placed in the machines to ensure that the products closely align with the federal dietary guidelines. The schools also control pricing strategies. GBR stocks, maintains, and services the vending machines. However, Coca-Cola and Pepsi may repair the beverage machines they own. GBR is solely responsible for repairing the machines it owns. The schools require that any vendor service workers seeking access to the vending machines during school hours pass background checks. GBR route drivers collect the revenue from all of the vending machines and the revenues are deposited into GBR's bank accounts. In exchange for GBR's services, the schools receive from GBR, as a commission, a percentage of the gross receipts. However, neither GBR nor the schools are guaranteed any revenue unless sales occur from the machines. On its federal income tax returns, GBR reports all sales revenue from the vending machines. For the tax year 2012, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $5,952,270. Of this amount, GBR paid the schools $1,363,207, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. For the tax year 2013, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $6,535,362. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $1,122,211, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. For the tax year 2014, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $6,076,255. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $1,279,682, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. Thus, for the audit period, and according to the federal tax returns and general ledgers, GBR's gross receipts or sales were $18,563,887. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $3,765,100, as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. The Department's Audit and Assessment On January 27, 2015, the Department, through its tax auditor, Mary Gray, sent written notice to GBR of its intent to conduct the audit. This was Ms. Gray's first audit involving vending machines at schools. Thereafter, GBR provided Ms. Gray with its general ledger, federal returns, and bid documents. On October 28, 2015, Ms. Gray issued a draft assessment to GBR. The email transmittal by Ms. Gray to GBR's representative states that "[t]he case is being forwarded for supervisory review." In the draft, Ms. Gray determined that GBR owed additional tax in the amount of $28,589.65, but there was no mention of any purported tax on the monies paid by GBR to the schools as a license fee to use real property. However, very close to the end of the audit, within one week after issuing the draft, and after Ms. Gray did further research and conferred with her supervisor, Ms. Gray's supervisor advised her to issue the B03 assessment pursuant to section 212.031 and rule 12A-1.044, and tax the monies paid by GBR to the schools as a license fee to use real property. Thus, according to the Department, GBR was now responsible for tax in the amount of $246,230.93, plus applicable interest. Of this alleged amount, $1,218.48 was for additional sales tax (A01); $4,181.41 was for purchase expenses (B02); $13,790 was for untaxed rent (B02); and $227.041.04 was for the purported license to use real property (B03). Ms. Gray then prepared a Standard Audit Report detailing her position of the audit and forwarded the report to the Department's dispute resolution division. On January 19, 2016, the Department issued the Notice of Proposed Assessment ("NOPA") against GBR for additional tax and interest due of $288,993.31. The Department does not seek a penalty against GBR. At hearing, Ms. Gray testified that the Department's SAP is an audit planning tool or checklist which she used in conducting GBR's audit. Employees of the Department are not bound to follow the SAP, and the SAP can be modified by the auditors on a word document. The SAP was utilized by Ms. Gray during the audit, but it was not relied on in the NOD.4/
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence adduced as well as the factual stipulation filed by the parties, the following facts are found. The Petitioner, International Cruise Shops (ICS), is a subsidiary company of the Greyhound Corporation. ICS, as pertinent hereto, operates gift shops, bars, beauty salons and exercise rooms and like "passenger amenity" type facilities ("shops") on board cruise ships operating out of the Port of Miami. The particular cruise ships of concern in this case are owned by Norwegian Caribbean Lines (NCL). The parties have stipulated that the vessels owned by NCL, to which this proceeding relates, operate exclusively in foreign commerce and that none of their operating mileage involved herein is in intrastate commerce. Because of this, ICS maintains that the transactions or purchases which are the subject of this proceeding are exempt from taxation under Section 212.08(8), Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that the sales tax at issue was not collected by the vendors involved and was not paid on the Items in question. The parties have also stipulated that all of the items in question, purchased in port, were used or consumed on board the NCL vessels involved and that the vessels were operating at the time in foreign commerce. It is also stipulated that ICS recognized at the time of the purchases that they were exempt ones and provided the vendors involved with its export exemption registration number. ICS takes the position that it is exempt from sales and use tax as to these items because the items purchased are "parts of a vessel" within the meaning of the exemption statute set forth at Section 212.08(8), Florida Statutes. It is also stipulated that during the relevant audit period ICS did not furnish the vendors involved in these purchases with the "partial exemption affidavit" described in Section 212.08(8)(b), Florida Statutes, the "partial exemption" statute. The Department in turn argues that ICS is not entitled to the exemption because it is not an "owner, operator or agent of a vessel." ICS maintains, contrarily, that its status as owner, operator or agent of a vessel is not determinative of its entitlement to the exemption, but rather the nature of the goods involved and their use is what is determinative. Be that as it may, the Petitioner maintains that it qualifies as an operator or agent of the vessels involved anyway. The Department also contends that even if ICS is an owner, operator, or agent, it failed to sign the affidavit mentioned above, stating that "the item or items to be partially exempted are [parts of a vessel] and setting forth the extent of such partial exemption." (emphasis supplied) See Section 212.08(8)(b), Florida Statutes. The Department originally served the Petitioner a Notice of Intent (to make sales and use tax audit changes) and a Notice of Proposed Assessment of tax, penalty and interest for the audit period from January 1, 1980, through December 31, 1982. The Department also issued a Notice of Intent to make sales and use tax audit changes, as well as a Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax Penalty and Interest for the supplemental audit period of January 1, 1983, through April 30, 1983. Additionally, it is stipulated that the documents attached to the stipulation, as exhibits C and D respectively, are true and correct copies of an original shop agreement and bar agreement made and entered into as of January 1, 1980, between NCL and ICS. The parties have stipulated that those two documents represent the contractual agreements between NCL and ICS during the relevant audit periods at issue in this proceeding, and fairly reflect the relationship of the parties, although they do not agree that the language in the agreements to the effect that "ICS shall not be considered the agent" of NCL means that ICS is not the agent of NCL for any purpose at all. Those two agreements, as well as the unrefuted evidence of record, reveal that the services of bar operator and concessionaire, gift shop operator, as well as beauty shops and sauna operator, duty-free shop operator, and operations involving the purchasing for and operating of a shipboard duty-free and non-duty free shop for passengers and crew, are regular facets of cruise ship operations. It is the peculiar purpose of cruise ships to transport passengers, but provide all sorts of amenities and shopping services for passengers and crew of the type mentioned above and elsewhere in these agreements. There is no question that the duties ICS personnel were performing aboard NCL ships are integral functions of the operation of a cruise ship, as that relates to the exempt status claimed herein by ICS. The parties have additionally stipulated that exhibit F, attached to the stipulation, in evidence, is a random list of some of the supplies purchased by ICS during the audit period in question, far which no sales tax were paid. This listing is stipulated to be a representative sampling of the kinds of items for which the Department assessed tax under Schedule B of the assessment at issue. Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a petition for reassessment of sales and use tax by ICS dated December 21, 1983. On February 9, 1984, ICS representatives attended a conference with the Department's disposition section personnel in Tallahassee. A Notice of Decision was entered September 30, 1985, by the tax conferee of the Department in response to the December 21, 1983 petition by ICS and as a result of that February 9, 1984 informal conference with the Department. A Petition for Reconsideration was filed by ICS dated October 28, 1985, concerning that notice of decision. On November 20, 1985, ICS representatives attended another informal conference with the Department's disposition section of its Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee. A supplemental petition was then filed by ICS dated February 12, 1986. Thereafter, a Notice of Reconsideration dated July 28, 1986, was executed by the tax conferee, Mark A. Zych, in response to the November 20, 1985 petition and informal conference. Thereafter, ICS filed the petition initiating this proceeding on September 19, 1986. The parties have additionally stipulated to, and the evidence of record reveals, that the items involved in this case were purchased by ICS from vendors for use in its shops and bars in the regular course of operation and business aboard the cruise ships. Those items at issue were stipulated to be used or consumed by ICS on Board NCL'S vessels. The shop and bar employees of ICS were paid on NCL's payroll and ICS would then reimburse NCL. Additionally, NCL negotiated a labor contract which covered the shop and bar employees of ICS, as well as its own employees. While they were on duty on board ship, the ICS personnel wore name tags indicating that they were NCL crew members, bearing the NCL logo. ICS personnel also participated in all safety drills and lifeboat drills like any other crew members. Each had specific stations and passenger safety duties assigned them, including lifeboat stations, just as any NCL employee crew members. ICS personnels' living quarters were in the same location as NCL employees' living quarters and ICS personnel were subject to the same duties, obligations and restrictions as NCL employees while on board the NCL ships, including restricted access to passenger areas and restrictions on mingling with passengers. The shop agreement (exhibit C to the stipulation in evidence) reveals that ICS performance of its shop, bar and other operations on board the cruise vessels was subject to the control of NCL. Numerous references in the shop agreement establish that NCL had pervasive control over ICS employees' performance of their duties on board NCL's cruise ships, as set forth at length in Appendix A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference in these findings of fact. One particularly revealing provision of the agreement is worth quoting. Section 16 of the Agreement requires ICS to designate a specific employee to act as supervisor of ICS employees on board the ships. This supervisor must agree to take orders from the master and ship's officers: ... and such qualified NCL personnel as shall be designated by the masters at all times and shall be under the control and direction and report directly to whomever the masters designate on board the vessels. ICS' supervisory personnel are to give prompt obedience to the instructions and orders of the NCL designee in regard to the operation of the shop concession. (emphasis supplied) The bar agreement, in evidence as exhibit D to the stipulation, contains a virtually identical provision. That bar agreement, for purposes of this proceeding, is essentially equivalent to the shop agreement. Additionally, the policy and procedures manual, in evidence as exhibit to the Stipulation, depicts numerous provisions which establish that, for all practical purposes, except for the reimbursement of NCL by ICS for salary for its employees, that ICS employees were considered as a part of the regular crew of the NCL cruise ships and subject to the direction and control of the ships' officers the same as any other crew member. This extended even to direction and control concerning how displays in the shops were set up, and how the shops and bars, were operated. In summary, that policy and procedures manual further demonstrates the pervasive control of NCL over the ICS employees and operations aboard the cruise ships, even to the extent of regulating vacation of ICS employees when they were ashore between cruises, etc. The testimony of ICS witnesses at the hearing confirms the existence of NCL's authority over ICS and its employees and demonstrates clearly that NCL fully exercised that right of control in the normal day to day operations of its cruise vessels. Sonia Jensen, district manager for ICS, has worked for ICS continuously since 1975. She established that NCL personnel supervise, direct and control ICS employees as to safety procedures, lifeboat drills and lifeboat station assignments, and as to all rules and regulations applying to crew members and their behavior. ICS employees on the ships are considered crew members. The testimony of Linda Loddo, district manager for ICS since 1973, corroborated that of Ms. Jensen in establishing that the authority of the NCL ships' officers extends to ICS employees as crew members, whether they are actually aboard ship or on land. Additionally, Ms. Jensen established that, based upon her considerable experience working in the cruise ship industry, that the shops and bars operated by ICS aboard the NCL cruise ships are an integral functioning part of, and appropriate to the operation of, a cruise vessel and a cruise line, in the normal course of its business and operations. Thus, ICS contends that it fits within the Department's interpretation of the relevant exemption statute, Section 212.08(8), Florida Statutes, because ICS is clearly both an "agent" of NCL and an "operator" of cruise ships. Its operations aboard the cruise ships are an integral and necessary function and part of the cruise ships operations in providing for the comfort and recreation of the passengers. ICS contends however, that the exemption, and entitlement to it, is determined by the nature of the items purchased, as that relates to what are considered "parts of vessels" for purposes of the exemption provision and that the exemption is not directly applicable to a particular class of people. The Petitioner argues that the sentence containing the phrase "owner, operator or agent" merely creates a presumption with regard to which items will constitute "parts of a vessel," but that the scope of the exemption, is not limited to purchases by only those three classes of persons.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, stipulations and unrefuted evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the State of Florida, Department of Revenue enter a final order withdrawing and abating the assessment of sales and use taxes, interest and penalties against International Cruise Shops, Inc., in the particulars, and for the reasons, found and discussed above. It is further, Recommended, that the penalty sought to be imposed against International Cruise Shops by the Respondent, concerning the "bar sales assessment," be abated for the reasons delineated above. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of December, 1988. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 8th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3769 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Rejected as constituting, in large part, a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's proposed findings of fact The Respondent incorporates by reference the factual stipulation as its proposed findings of fact. Those findings of fact stipulated to have been accepted, of course, by the Hearing Officer, although not necessarily for the material import Respondent asserts they should be accorded through it's proposed recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert W. Hanula, Esquire The Greyhound Tower, Station 1701 Phoenix, Arizona 85077 Linda G. Miklowitz, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Katie D. Tucker, Esquire Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 William D. Townsend, Esquire Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue should assess Heftler Construction Company ("Taxpayer") for Florida corporate income taxes on a claim that: Taxpayer realized a gain under the Florida Income Tax Code when an asset acquired in 1971 (on liquidation of a joint venture) was sold in 1975 in satisfaction of an outstanding debt; and Taxpayer's losses created by the subtraction of foreign source income cannot operate to create or increase the Florida portion of the net operating loss carryover.
Findings Of Fact Formation and Liquidation of Joint Venture; Subsequent Sale of Asset Taxpayer is a New Jersey corporation, authorized to transact business in Florida. Heftler Realty Company ("Realty") is a Florida corporation, and is a subsidiary of Taxpayer. Taxpayer, for all years material to these proceedings, filed consolidated income tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service of the United States ("IRS") . Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"), Taxpayer included in the income and expenses of its consolidated income tax returns the income and expenses of its operations in Puerto Rico. Taxpayer, for all years material to these proceedings, timely filed with the Department consolidated income tax returns. In 1969, Realty formed a joint venture with a company known as GACL, Inc., for the purpose of developing real property Realty, in accordance with its Joint Venture Agreement with GACL, Inc., prior to 1971, contributed to the joint venture the following assets with the following cost basis to Taxpayer on the date of contribution: ASSET DATE CONTRIBUTED TO JOINT VENTURE COST BASIS TO TAXPAYER ON DATE CONTRIBUTED Cash 3-5-69 $250,000 Land 3-5-69 2,000,000 In 1971, prior to the effective date of the Florida Income Tax Code ("Florida Code"), Chapter 220, Florida Statutes, the joint venture between Realty and GACL, Inc., was liquidated effective as of January 1, 1971. Pursuant to the plan of liquidation, Realty received, in liquidation of the joint venture, the assets as described in the attached Appendix. These assets had a then cost basis to the joint venture as described in the Appendix. The assets acquired by Realty in liquidation of the joint venture were subject to the debts described in the Appendix. Pursuant to the plan of liquidation of the joint venture, Realty agreed to acquire the assets and assume the attendant debts (itemized in the Appendix) as of January 1, 1971. At the time of the liquidation of the joint venture, Realty had a cost basis for its interest in the joint venture of a negative $285,749. (Realty had a negative basis in the assets because it sustained joint venture losses in excess of its contributions to the joint venture.) The net gain to Realty as' reported upon the federal income tax return of Taxpayer, after adjustment for depreciation, as a result of the liquidation was $1,238,37l. In 1971, Realty reduced its tax basis in the assets acquired in the liquidation. This adjustment (reduction) in the tax basis of the assets acquired by Taxpayer occurred prior to the effective date of the Florida Code. An asset acquired by Realty in 1971, pursuant to the plan of liquidation of the joint venture, was conveyed by Realty in 1975 to a creditor of Realty in satisfaction of debt. After adjusting the tax basis of the asset, a comparison of its book basis (to the joint venture) with the tax basis to Taxpayer after liquidation, reflects the following: Adjusted Basis as of Jan. 1, Tax Basis to Tax- Book Basis to payer or After Joint Venture Liquidation Difference 1971 $4,466,764 $3,055,722 $1,411,042 Accumulated Depreciation to Date of Sale (587,212) (414,541) (172,671) Adjusted Basis $3,879,552 $2,641,181 $1,238,371 For purposes of its Federal Income Tax, Taxpayer reported the transaction as a sale and computed the gain thereon as follows: $3,951,708 Expense of Sale $2,713,337 3. Total Gain $1,238,371 Gross Sale Price Cost or Other Basis and (The difference between the gross sales price and the adjusted basis referred to in paragraph 13 of $72,156 is an increase to the price due to escrow funds deposited with a mortgagee and assigned to the purchaser of the asset by Realty without Realty receiving reimbursement.) In computing the Florida income tax, pursuant to the Florida Code, for the fiscal year ending July 31, 1976, Taxpayer took as a subtraction an adjustment on line 8, Schedule II, page 2 of its income tax return. The subtraction was in the amount of the capital gain received upon the sale of the asset received in liquidation in the amount of $1,238,371. Taxpayer subtracted the gain, contending that it was realized prior to the effective date of the Florida Code. When acquired, the asset received in liquidation had a cost basis to the joint venture Of approximately $4,500,000. When the asset was distributed to Taxpayer, after the reduction by Taxpayer to the tax basis referred to in paragraph 11, the basis to Taxpayer of the asset was approximately $3,000,000. The tax basis in the amount of $3,000,000 was evidenced by the debts assumed by Taxpayer upon the liquidation; such assumption of debt is referred to in paragraph 7. Department contends that the gain on the sale of the asset acquired in liquidation was both realized and recognized in 1975 when the property was sold in satisfaction of a debt; it has issued a proposed assessment on that basis. Taxpayer contends that the gain was realized by Taxpayer for federal income tax purposes prior to the effective date of the Florida Code and that only the recognition of the gain occurred after the effective date of the Florida Code. II. 1975 Loss Created by Subtraction of Foreign Source Income; Attempt to Carryover Loss to Subsequent Years Taxpayer, in addition to the adjustment referred to above, in reporting income for its fiscal years ending July 31, 1976, July 31, 1977, and July 31, 1978, deducted a net operating loss carry-forward which included an item of $335,037 from its 1975 return (fiscal year ending July 31, 1976) and an item of $916,030 for fiscal year ending July 31, 1978, represented by a subtraction resulting from income earned in Puerto Rico. The subtraction resulted in losses during each of such years, which losses were carried forward by Taxpayer to the next ensuing year. Department contends that the losses created by the subtraction of foreign source income cannot be carried over to subsequent years to determine income and has issued a proposed assessment on that basis. Taxpayer contends that it is not the intent of the Florida Legislature to tax income derived from sources outside the United States and that the effect of a denial of the subtraction will result in the taxation, by Florida, of foreign source income received by Taxpayer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department's proposed assessment of Taxpayer for corporate income tax deficiencies be issued. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1982.
Findings Of Fact On January 22, 1986, American Aviation Resources, Inc., sold an airplane to Munur Yurtsever, a resident of Brazil. This aircraft was a Hansa jet model HFB-320 with U.S. registration number N71DL (the subject aircraft). On January 28, 1986, Mr. Yurtsever transferred title of the subject aircraft to Petitioner, Selcuk Yetimoglu. At the time of the transfer, the subject aircraft was in the State of Florida undergoing repairs. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Yetimoglu resided at 20530 Jacaranda Road, Cutler Ridge, Miami, Florida, in a residence owned by Mr. Yurtsever. The aircraft bill of sale dated January 28, 1986, reflects that Mr. Yetimoglu was the purchaser of the subject aircraft and that Mr. Yurtsever was the seller. The bill of sale recited that the consideration paid was $20.00 and other good and valuable consideration. While the bill of sale reflects that Mr. Yetimoglu resided in Miami, Florida, the bill of sale does not state that the sale occurred in the State of Florida. On January 29, 1986, Mr. Yetimoglu applied to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the registration of the subject aircraft in his name. On March 13, 1986, Mr. Yetimoglu wrote to the FAA regarding the registration and stated, in pertinent part, as follows: Mr. Munur Yurtsever sold the aircraft to me on January 28, 1986, five days after he bought the aircraft from American Aviation Resources, Inc. when he found out that the government of Brazil did not give him a (sic) permission to import the aircraft and that he could not register the aircraft in the United States because he was not a citizen of the United States. By letter dated May 15, 1986, Mr. Yetimoglu provided the FAA proof that the subject aircraft had not been registered in Brazil. Mr. Yetimoglu was the record owner of the subject aircraft between January 28, 1986, and March 13, 1987. On March 13, 1987, Mr. Yetimoglu sold the subject aircraft back to Mr. Yurtsever. The bill of sale identifies the purchaser as being: Munur Yurtsever Rico Taxi Aereo Ltda. Av. Mal. Camara 160-GR. Rio de Janeiro - RJ Brazil On April 8, 1987, Mr. Yetimoglu wrote the FAA and stated, in pertinent part: ... I request cancelation of U.S. registra- tion for the aircraft ... because I sold the aircraft back to Rico Taxi Aereo Ltda. ... On January 11, 1988, Respondent issued to Petitioner a "Notice of Delinquent Tax Penalty and Interest Due and Assessed" (Notice of Assessment) based on the transaction involving Mr. Yetimoglu, Mr. Yurtsever, and the subject aircraft. The Notice of Assessment contained the following statement: "This Department has information that you purchased the following aircraft. However, there is no evidence of payment of Florida Sales and/or Use Tax". The Notice of Assessment reflected that Respondent had, pursuant to Section 212.12(5)(b), Florida Statutes, estimated the value of the aircraft as being $320,000 and assessed the following taxes, interest, and penalties: Florida State Sales/Use Tax 5% $16,000.00 (Estimated) Per 212.06(8), F.S. Penalty 5% per month; Maximum 25% of 4,000.00 (25%) Tax Due Per Section 212.12(2), F.S. Additional Penalty 11,840.00 (50%) Per 212.12(2)(a), F.S. Interest = 1% per month from date of 3,680.00 (23%) Purchase To Date of Payment Per Section 212.12(3), F.S. Less Tax Paid ----------------- TOTAL DUE WITH THIS NOTICE $35,520.00 Respondent requested that Mr. Yetimoglu provide it information and documentation as to the value of the aircraft. Mr. Yetimoglu contends that he paid Mr. Yurtsever nothing for the aircraft, that the title was transferred to him and registered in the FAA in his name so that the aircraft could be test flown after it was repaired, and that Mr. Yurtsever had paid $100,000 for the aircraft. There was no evidence as to the sales price that Mr. Yetimoglu paid for the aircraft other than Mr. Yetimoglu's testimony. Respondent estimated that the reasonable value of the subject aircraft on January 28, 1986, was $320,000. This estimate was based on an appraisal prepared for Respondent and assumed that the aircraft was in a scrapped or junked condition. Respondent generally uses a standard reference work on the value of aircraft to assist it in estimating the value of the subject aircraft. Because of its age and model, the subject aircraft is no longer listed in this standard reference. In support of his contention that Mr. Yurtsever paid $100,000 for the aircraft, Mr. Yetimoglu provided Respondent with a copy of a wire transfer of funds from Mr. Yurtsever to American Aviation Resources, Inc. in the amount of $100,000. However, there was no documentation provided that established that the $100,000 constituted the entire purchase price paid by Mr. Yurtsever. The dispute between the parties as to the value of the aircraft is resolved by finding, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that the reasonable value of the aircraft at the times pertinent to this proceeding was $320,000.00. In December 1986, while Mr. Yetimoglu was the record owner, the subject aircraft engaged in international flight between the Turks and Caicos Islands and the State of Florida. Respondent's Notice of Redetermination, dated February 26, 1990, upheld the Notice of Assessment on the basis that the underlying transaction was subject to use tax pursuant to Section 212.06(8), Florida Statutes. The issue to be resolved was framed by the Notice of Redetermination as being: "The only issue involved pertains to a use tax assessment upon an aircraft brought into this country". This determination was based, in part, upon a letter to Respondent from an attorney who was representing Mr. Yetimoglu at the time the letter was written. 1/ The letter implied that the aircraft was brought into Florida after the title was transferred to Mr. Yetimoglu, and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The transferor of the aircraft, Munur Yurtsever, is a nonresident alien. His inten- tion is to deliver the plane to a purchaser outside the country. Mr. Yurtsever advises that the F.A.A. will not allow the plane to be flown in this country unless it is owned by a U.S. resident. As it was imperative to fly the plane here in order to prepare it for its flight outside the country, Mr. Yurtsever transferred the plane to his partner, Selcuk Yetimoglu, who is a resident of the United States. ... At the formal hearing, Mr. Yetimoglu established that the aircraft was in Florida undergoing repairs at the time the title was transferred to him. Prior to and at the formal hearing, Respondent asserted the position that use taxes, interest, and penalties were due for this transaction. In its post- hearing submittal, Respondent, for the first time in this proceeding, contends that sales taxes, interest and penalties are due for this transaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which withdraws the subject assessment. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of March, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 11th day of March, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to a stipulation, the following facts are found. Petitioner is a West Virginia corporation, organized under the laws of that state on January 4, 1958. Prior to June 1, 1962, it operated an automobile dealership in Huntington, West Virginia. On June 1, 9162, Petitioner exchanged assets of its automobile dealership for fifty (50 percent) percent of the capital stock of Dutch Miller Chevrolet, Inc., a West Virginia corporation organized to succeed the automobile dealership formerly operated by the Petitioner. Prior thereto, in 1961, the Petitioner had acquired one hundred percent (100 percent) of the capital stock in Palm Beach Motors (the name of which was changed on August 10, 1961 to Roger Dean Chevrolet, Inc.). Roger Dean Chevrolet, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Petitioner which operated on property owned by the Petitioner. The years involved herein are the fiscal years ending December 31, 1972 and 1973, during which years the Petitioner's principal income (except for the gain involved herein) consisted of rents received from Roger Dean Chevrolet, Inc. Petitioner and its subsidiary filed consolidated returns for the years involved. During the fiscal year ending December 31, 1972, Petitioner sold its stock in Dutch Miller Chevrolet, Inc. to an unrelated third party for a gain determined by the Respondent to be in the amount of $349,217.00, which, although the sale took place out of the State of Florida, the Respondent has determined to be taxable under the Florida Income Tax Code* (Chapter 220, Florida Statutes). In the fiscal years ending December 31, 1972 and 1973, Petitioner included in Florida taxable income, the amounts of $76.00 and $6,245.00, respectively, from the sale of property on April 23, 1971, such gain being reported for federal income tax purposes on the installment method under Section 453 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Roger H. Dean, individually or by attribution during the years involved herein, was the owner of one hundred (100 percent) percent of the stock of Roger Dean Enterprises, Inc. and seventy-five (75 percent) percent of the stock of Florida Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. The remaining twenty-five (25 percent) percent of Florida Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. was owned by Robert S. Cuillo, an unrelated person. The Respondent disallowed the $5,000.00 exemption to the Petitioner in computing its Florida corporate income tax for each of the years in question on the theory that the two corporations were members of a controlled group of corporations, as defined in Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. By letter dated April 13, 1976, the Respondent advised Petitioner of its proposed deficiencies for the fiscal years ending December 31, 1972 and 1973, in the respective amounts of $19,086.25 and $1,086.79. Within sixty (60) days thereafter (on or about May 10, 1976), Petitioner filed its written protest in response thereto. By letter dated May 27, 1976, the Respondent rejected the Petitioner's position as to the stock sale gain and exemption issues. Thereafter on September 17, 1976, a subsequent oral argument was presented at a conference held between the parties' representatives in Tallahassee, and by letter dated September 23, 1976, Respondent again rejected Petitioner's position on all pending issues raised herein. The issues posed herein are as follows: Whether under the Florida Corporate income tax code, amounts derived as gain from a sale of intangible personal property situated out of the State of *Herein sometimes referred to as the Code. Florida are properly included in the tax base of a corporation subject to the Florida code. Whether amounts derived as installments during tax years ending after January 1, 1972, from a sale made prior to that date are properly included in the tax base for Florida corporate income tax purposes. Whether two corporations one of whose stock is owned 100 percent by the same person who owns 75 percent of the stock in the other, with the remaining 25 percent of the stock in the second corporation being owned by an unrelated person, constitute members of a control group of corporations as defined by Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Many states, in determining corporate income tax liability, utilize a procedure generally referred to a "allocation" to determine which elements of income may be assigned and held to a particular jurisdiction, where a corporation does business in several jurisdictions. By this procedure, non- business income such as dividends, investment income, or capital gains from the sale of intangibles are assigned to the state of commercial domicile. This approach was specifically considered and rejected when Florida adopted its corporate income tax code. Thus, in its report of transmittal of the corporate income tax code to the legislature, at page 215, it was noted: "The staff draft does not attempt to allocate any items of income to the commercial domicile of a corporate taxpayer. It endeavors to apportion 100 percent of corporate net income, from whatever source derived, and to attribute to Florida its apportionable share of all the net income." Additional evidence of the legislature's intent in this area can be seen by noting that when the corporate income tax code was adopted, Florida repealed certain provisions of the Multi-state Tax Compact (an agreement for uniformity entered into among some twenty-five states). Thus, Article IV, Section (6)(c), a contained in Section 213.15, Florida Statutes, 1969, which previously read: "Capital gains and losses from sales of intangible personal property are allocable to this state if the taxpayer's commercial domicile is in this state", was repealed by Chapter 71-980, Laws of Florida, concurrently with the adoption of the Corporate Income Tax Code. This approach has survived judicial scrutiny by several courts. See for example, Johns-Mansville Products Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue Administration, 343 A.2d 221 (N.H. 1975) and Butler v. McColgan, 315 U.S. 501 (1942). Respecting its constitutional argument that amounts derived as installments during tax years subsequent to January 1, 1972, from a sale made prior to the enactment of the Florida Corporate Income Tax Code, the Petitioner concedes that the Code contemplates the result reached by the proposed assessment. However, it argues that in view of the constitutional prohibition which existed prior to enactment of the Code, no tax should now be levied based on pre-Code transactions. The Florida Supreme Court in the recent case of the Department of Revenue v. Leadership Housing, So.2d (Fla. 1977), Case No. 47,440 slip opinion p. 7 n. 4, cited with apparent approval the decision in Tiedmann v. Johnson, 316 A.2d 359 (Me. 1974). The court in Tiedmann, reasoned that the legislature adopted a "yard-stick" or measuring device approach by utilizing federal taxable income as a base, and reasoned that there was no retroactivity in taxing installments which were included currently in the federal tax base for the corresponding state year even though the sale may have been made in a prior year. The Respondent denied the Petitioner a $5,000.00 exemption based on its determination that the two corporations herein involved were members of a controlled group of corporations as defined in Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code. Chapter 220.14(4), Florida Statutes, reads in pertinent part that: "notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, not more than one exemption under this section shall be allowed to the Florida members of a controlled group of corporations, as defined in Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to taxable years ending on or after December 31, 1972, filing separate returns under this code." Petitioner's reliance on the case of Fairfax Auto Parts of Northern Virginia, 65 T.C. 798 (1976), for the proposition that the 25 percent ownership of an unrelated third party in one of the corporations precluded that corporation and the Petitioner from being considered a "controlled group of corporations" within the meaning of Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code, is misplaced in view of the recent reversal on appeal by the Fourth Circuit. Fairfax Auto Parts of Northern Virginia v. C.I.R., 548 F.2d 501 (4th C.A. 1977). Based thereon, it appears that the Respondent correctly determined that the Petitioner and Florida Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., were members of the same controlled group of corporations as provided in Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code and therefore properly determined that Petitioner was not entitled to a separate exemption. Based on the legislature's specific rejection of the allocation concept and assuming arguendo, that Florida recognized allocation income for the sales of intangibles, it appears that based on the facts herein, Petitioner is commercially domiciled in Florida. Examination of the tax return submitted to the undersigned revealed that the Petitioner has no property or payroll outside the state of Florida. Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that the proposed deficiencies as established by the Respondent, Department of Revenue, be upheld in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: E. Wilson Crump, II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Division, Northwood Mall Tallahassee, Florida 32303 David S. Meisel, Esquire 400 Royal Palm Way Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Thomas M. Mettler, Esquire 340 Royal Poinciana Plaza Palm Beach, Florida 33480
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is liable for corporate income and excise taxes that have been assessed by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a subsidiary of PBS Building Systems America, Inc. (PBS- A). PBS-A and Petitioner filed consolidated Florida income and excise tax returns during the time in question. During the years in question, PBS-A had no tax nexus with Florida, but incurred losses that were available to offset gross income. During the years in question, Petitioner had nexus with Florida and incurred taxable income. The filing of the consolidated return reduced the taxable income of Petitioner by the losses of PBS-A. On December 19, 1990, Respondent issued two notices of proposed assessment for years ending December 31, 1985, through March 31, 1989. One notice identifies $8273 of unpaid corporate excise tax, plus $2798 of interest through September 15, 1990. The notice states that interest would continue to accrue at the daily rate of $2.27. The second notice of proposed assessment identifies $55,480 of unpaid corporate income tax, plus $20,254 of interest through September 15, 1990. The notice states that interest continues to accrue at the daily rate of $15.20. Petitioner filed a notice of protest dated February 15, 1991. By notice of decision dated October 17, 1991, Respondent rejected the protest and sustained the proposed deficiencies. The claimed deficiency for unpaid corporate income tax, however, was revised to $75,039. A notice of reconsideration dated July 21, 1992, restates the conclusions of the notice of decision. By petition for formal hearing dated September 16, 1992, Petitioner requested a formal hearing concerning the tax liabilities in question and specifically the conclusion that PBS- A was ineligible to file a consolidated return in Florida due to the absence of tax nexus with Florida. The September 16 letter recites facts to establish tax nexus with Florida through the establishment of financing relationships. However, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of these factual assertions because they represent mere allegations. Petitioner failed to produce any evidence in the case and, when noticed for a corporate deposition, failed to appear. Additionally, Petitioner's failure to respond to requests for admission results in admissions that, during the relevant period, PBS-A was not a bank, brokerage house, or finance corporation and did not lend money to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining the above-described assessments against Petitioner. ENTERED on February 12, 1993, 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 this 12th day of February, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James Zingale, 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 Attorney Lisa Raleigh Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Kathryn M. Jaques Arthur Andersen & Co. Suite 1600 701 B Street San Diego, CA 92101-8195
