The Issue Whether the agency has an unpromulgated statement of general applicability that imposed a requirement not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule, and which has been utilized against Petitioners to their detriment.
Findings Of Fact On March 24, 1994, the Department of Revenue (Department) issued a Notice of Reconsideration (NOR) that claimed the Petitioners, Terry and Donna Ernst, had willfully failed to collect sales tax. Petitioners' assertion of an exemption in connection with the sales tax assessment was denied. The NOR provided that the Petitioners are the president and vice- president of Hussh, Inc., a retail apparel store in Palm Beach, Florida and that such company made sales to customers for delivery in the store and for shipment outside of the State of Florida. At issue were the alleged shipments to out of state destinations. Pertinent to this case is the language in the NOR found at page two which provided: Due to the inadequacy and volume of Hussh's records, the auditor sampled the available records, and assessed Hussh for asserted out of state sales that were improperly documented. According to the auditor, many of the sales receipts or invoices of asserted out of state shipments were missing the top portion of the invoice. Significantly, this portion of the invoice would contain the names, addresses, and asserted export destination information on each sale. Other invoices were stamped, "out of state shipped," but no destination information was present on the invoice. [Emphasis added.] The Petitioners maintain that the portions of the NOR emphasized in the foregoing paragraph constitute an agency statement of general applicability and is, therefore, an unpromulgated rule. The Department does not have a rule which lists all documentation which might establish an exemption for sales tax assessment. Similarly, the Department does not have a rule that lists the type of documentation which would be inadequate to establish an exemption for sales taxes. The Department's existing rule, Rule 12A-1.064, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in part: (1)(a) Sales tax is imposed on the sales price of each item or article of tangible personal property, unless otherwise exempt, when the property is delivered to the purchaser or his representative in this state. However, the tax does not apply to tangible personal property irrevocably committed to the exportation process at the time of sale, when such process has been continuous or unbroken. (b) Intent of the seller and the purchaser that the property will be exported is not sufficient to establish the exemption; nor does delivery of the property to a point in Florida for subsequent transportation outside Florida necessarily constitute placing the property irrevocably in the exportation process. Tangible personal property shall be deemed committed to the exportation process if: The dealer is required by the terms of the sale contract to deliver the goods outside this state using his own mode of transportation. The dealer must retain in his records trip tickets, truck log records, or other documentation reflecting the specific items and export destination; The dealer is required by the terms of the sale contract to deliver the goods to a common carrier for final and certain movement of such property to its out of state destination. Sales by a Florida dealer are exempt when the dealer delivers the merchandise to the transportation terminal for shipment outside this state and secures a dock or warehouse receipt and a copy of the bill of lading. On shipments to points outside the United States, a shipper's export declaration shall also be obtained; [Emphasis added.] Rule 12A-1.093, Florida Administrative Code, requires taxpayers to maintain and preserve records. This rule provides, in part: (2) Each dealer defined in Chapter 212, F.S., each licensed wholesaler, and any other person subject to the tax imposed by Chapter 212, F.S., shall keep and preserve a complete record of all transactions, together with invoices, bills of lading, gross receipts from sales, RESALE CERTIFICATES, CONSUMER EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES and other pertinent records and papers as may be required by the Department of Revenue for the reasonable administration of Chapter 212, F.S., and such books of account as may be necessary to determine the amount of tax due thereunder. The terms "bill of lading," "dock or warehouse receipt," and "invoice" are common terms used in the business community. Each connotes that, at the minimum, certain information will be retained on the face of the document. For example, according to Petitioners' witness, the minimum information expected on a bill of lading would be: the name of the person that the item is being shipped to, the item being shipped, the cost of the shipment, and the terms of the shipment with the value of the item being shipped. Similarly, the minimum information which is expected on an "invoice" would be: a description of the item sold, the amount of the sale, and the name of the person to whom the item was sold. The terms "bill of lading," "dock or warehouse receipt," and "invoice" are not defined by rule. The Department determined whether an exemption was documented based upon the results of this audit.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's certificate of registration to collect sales tax should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact In 1996, the Respondent and Lance Arnette were engaged in a dissolution of marriage action in the circuit court, Case No. 96-1185-FD. On June 20, 1997, the business known as Giff’s Sub Shop was awarded to Respondent, Linda Arnette. The circuit court transferred the business to Respondent free of any and all liabilities. Later, Respondent discovered that there was an undisclosed sales tax liability. The amount of that liability was not clear from the record. However, the Department was not a party to the Arnette’s dissolution of marriage action. On March 3, 1998, Respondent filed an application for a certificate of registration with the Department. The reason for the application was due to the change of ownership from Respondent’s ex-husband to Respondent. The application reflected an opening date for the business of June 1, 1997. Linda Arnette was reflected as the owner of the business. Respondent was the only person who signed the application. No other person was listed as having an interest in the sub shop. The certificate of registration was issued to Respondent and she became the registered dealer for the sub shop. As such, she was under a legal duty to collect and remit all taxes collected by the sub shop to the Department. She was also responsible to file tax returns for the business with the Department. Her first return would have been due on July 20, 1997. A tax warrant or lien for unpaid taxes was filed against Respondent on October 26, 2005. It is unclear what happened with the 2005 warrant. Department records reflect that the sub shop did not file returns for November 2006, December 2006, January 2007, and February 2007. A second tax warrant for unpaid taxes was filed against Respondent on April 4, 2007. The warrant covered the period from August 2003 to February 2007. The amount of tax due under the warrant was $14,658.07, plus interest and penalties. The 2003 date was well after Respondent had taken over operation of the sub shop from her ex-husband. The evidence did not show that the amount included any taxes which may have been due prior to her award of the sub shop in 1997 or prior to the August 2003 date. Moreover, the warrant did not include months for which Respondent had timely paid the tax due. Data from the Department revocation worksheet showed that Respondent owed only interest for the months of August 2003 and March through August, 2006. The fact she owed only interest in those months indicates that the taxes were paid late. The Department’s data showed the month of December 2005 with zero tax due and zero interest due. It is not clear from the evidence why the Department claimed the month of December 2005 was out of compliance. However, even without the month of December 2005, the Department’s data showed 30 months of noncompliance by Respondent either by not filing timely or not paying the tax. On March 2, 2007, the Department sent Respondent a notice of its intent to revoke her certificate of registration. An informal meeting was scheduled for April 17, 2007. The purpose of the meeting was to permit Respondent to present evidence on why her certificate of registration should not be revoked and to show that the amount of taxes due was incorrect. Respondent attended the meeting on April 17, 2007. The Department waived the penalties due on her tax liability. Interest due totaled $2,857.68. Respondent did not raise any issue regarding her ex-husband’s past tax liability or any payments she had allegedly made thereon. Indeed, Respondent’s argument regarding payment on her ex-husband’s past tax liability did not make sense and was not borne out by the evidence. Respondent did file her tax returns for November 2006, December 2006, January 2007, and February 2007. It was unclear, if Respondent brought her account books for the sub shop to the meeting. Respondent’s own books reflect that she reported tax liability for the period August 2003 through August, 2006 in the amount of $25,133.97, and through December 2006, she owed $27,620.97. Respondent’s records did not reflect the return amounts for 2007. Her records also reflect that for the period August 2003 through August 2006, she paid $13,311.68 and through December 2006, she paid $16,029.68 to the Department. Returns filed with the Department for 2007 totaled $1,379.78 though February 2007. In 2007, Respondent’s records reflect that through April 2007, she paid $1,912.08 to the Department. In short, Respondent’s own records reflect that for the period August 2003 through August 2006, she owed past due taxes in the amount of $11,822.19 and through December 2006, she owed past due taxes in the amount of $11,591.29. Her own records reflect she had repeatedly not complied with the requirements of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, to timely remit and pay taxes. More importantly, Respondent entered into a compliance agreement with the Department at the April 17, 2007, meeting. In the agreement, Respondent admitted she owed taxes in the amount of $14,658.07, plus interest in the amount of $2,857.68, for a total of $17,515.75, to the Department. She admitted she had not complied with Sections 212.14(1), 212.14(2) and 212.15(1), Florida Statutes, regarding timely filing of returns and timely payment of taxes. These failures were repeated. Additionally, Respondent agreed to timely file all tax returns for the period April 2007 through March 2008, timely pay all tax due for the same period, as well as, comply with the payment schedule for the past due amount referenced above. Failure to abide by the terms of the compliance agreement would permit the Department to initiate revocation of the Respondent’s certificate of registration and the use of the compliance agreement to establish the facts of the earlier noncompliance with Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Respondent made the payments required under the payment schedule in the compliance agreement, but did not make such payments timely. Her most current return was late. Respondent also paid the current taxes due each month, but did not timely pay those taxes. Thus, Respondent has accrued $2,519.96 in interest and $214.22 in penalties through July 18, 2007, in addition to the amount she agreed was due in the compliance agreement. Given this history, Respondent has clearly not complied with the requirements of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and her certificate of registration should be revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order revoking Respondent’s certificate of registration pursuant to Section 212.18, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Warren J. Bird, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 101 Revenue Litigation Bureau Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Glen M. Swiatek, Esquire 5 Clifford Drive Shalimar, Florida 32579 Marshall Stranburg, General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Lisa Echeverri, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact On August 27, 1976, the Respondent, State of Florida Department of Revenue, notified the Petitioner of its intention to assess sales tax, penalties and interest against the Respondent for business transactions in the period August 1, 1973 through July 31, 1976. This Notice of Proposed Assessment was revised on May 27, 1977, and the Petitioner was notified of that revision. By his letter of June 19, 1977, the Petitioner has challenged the assessment, as revised. Upon receipt of the June 19, 1977 petition, the Respondent moved for a more definite statement and the Petitioner was afforded fifteen (15) days from the date of the Order within which time to amend his petition. Petitioner took advantage of that opportunity to amend and by an undated document did make such an amendment. The Respondent subsequently moved to strike certain portions of the amended petition and filed its answer to the petition. A pre-hearing conference was held to consider the Motion To Strike and after that pre-hearing conference was concluded an Order was issued which struck certain portions of the amended Petition and allowed copies of the proposed notices of assessments of August 27, 1976 and the revision of May 27, 1977 to be made a part of the complaint/petition as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. After the pre-hearing Order had been issued by the undersigned, the case was noticed for hearing for December 5, 1977. At the December 5, 1977 hearing date a Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest Under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes was tendered. This revision dated from December 5, 1977, was allowed to be introduced as the final position of the Respondent on the question of the assessment. It was also allowed to be attached as Exhibit 3 to the amended petition. (Under cover of a separate correspondence the original petition, amended petition, exhibits to the amended petition, an Order which was entered after consideration of the Motion To Strike, are being submitted as a part of the record herein). In the ordinary course of his duties a tax examiner employed by the Respondent went to the business premises of the Petitioner to perform an audit to determine whether or not the Petitioner was collecting and remitting sales tax for the category of sales which the Petitioner was making, that required the payment of sales tax. These requirements spoken of are those set forth in Chapter 212, F.S. Mr. DeCico, the tax examiner, allowed Mr. Farhud to pick three (3) months in the year 1976 as being the period to be audited. DeCico then returned to Farhud's place of business and showed him the details of the three (3) month audit. Farhud was dissatisfied wish this audit and indicated that he preferred to have the audit sample expended for a full three (3) years. DeCico replied that he would be willing to expand the audit period. but cautioned Farhud that expansion of the audit period might promote an increased liability. Nonetheless, at Farhud's request, the audit period was expanded to one for thirty-six (36) months. The new audit period dated from August 1, 1973, through July 1, 1976. The work papers on that audit may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. This audit which is depicted in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, left out invoices pertaining to stamps, electric bills, wrapping paper, grocery bags, etc., since they were not retail items for sale. The audit was rendered on August 27, 1976. Before the Notice of Assessment was filed, Farhud had expressed his displeasure with the outcome of the second audit process because he felt that certain amounts depicted in the gross sales were not accurate; to wit, the inclusion of certain so-called "service fees", namely income tax preparation, notary fees, etc. DeCico tried to get a reasonable statement of the amounts of the categories which Farhud desired to have excluded. Farhud did not have records of the matters and was unable to provide an estimate as to the amount of income which had been derived from the aforementioned "service fees". The August 27, 1976, proposed assessment was computed on the basis of the proposition that the gross sales are equivalent to actual sales and are subject to sales tax in the taxable categories. As indicated before, this audit did not take into consideration any "service fees", nor did it grant any allowance for pilferage. No allowance was made for the latter category, because Farhud had not provided any estimate and/or police records to indicate the amount which would be lost to pilferage, and cause a reduction of the sales tax liability. Farhud formally challenged the audit of August 27, 1976, by his correspondence of September 8, 1976 in which he rejects the amount claimed and asks for a hearing. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. An informal conference was held between the parties on October 12, 1976 to see if a resolution of the dispute could be achieved. Mr. Farhud was represented at the informal conference by Michael J. Burman, Esquire, an attorney in Jacksonville, Florida. By a letter of October 14, 1976, Farhud's attorney requested the Respondent to utilize the figures for the three (3) month audit period, as opposed to the thirty-six (36) month period. The letter concluded by stating that Mr. Burman was unaware of any intention Mr. Farhud had to appeal the assessment of August 27, 1976. This letter was followed by a series of letters in which the various parties were indicating the desire to determine whether or not Mr. Farhud intended to accept the August 27, 1976 assessment or to appeal it. In the course of his correspondence Mr. Farhud continued to insist that he did not accept the amount of assessment as accurate. Mr. Farhud failed to indicate to Mr. Burman whether he was going to appeal the assessment or not and Mr. Burman withdrew as his attorney, as shown in the January 31, 1977 correspondence addressed to one of the employees of the Respondent. This correspondence is Respondent's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. On February 2, 1977, the audit supervisor in the Jacksonville district of the Respondent wrote Mr. Farhud indicating the intention of the Respondent to collect the taxes pursuant to the August 27, 1976 audit. A copy of this correspondence is Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. It should be indicated at this point, that the Respondent's representative had continued to request documentation from Farhud on the items requested for exemption which have been referred to as "service fee". The subject of pilferage had also been discussed at the October 12, 1976 informal conference and a request made for some form of records of police reports which would verify pilferage allowances. No documentation had been provided at the time the February 2, 1977 letter was written to Farhud. Subsequent to the February 2, 1977 letter another informal conference was held on April 4, 1977. As a result of that conference it was determined that certain items would be deleted from the audit assessment of August 27, 1976. This is evidenced in Respondents Exhibit No. 9 which is a copy of a letter dated May 27, 1977, from the audit supervisor, Mr. McCrone, to Mr. Farhud. At the April 4, 1977, discussion the subject of pilferage allowance as brought up in the deletion of 4 percent of the purchase price of taxable goods, as to soft drinks, paper and said products, pet foods and miscellaneous sundries were allowed. No allowance was given for beer, wine and tobacco products because these were felt to be out of reach of prospective pilferers. Again, this deletion is found in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 9. The 4 percent figure was arrived at as an industry estimate. Farhud still was not satisfied after the April 4, 1977, conference had been held and adjustments to the assessment had been mode. In view of this dissatisfaction, the Respondent elected to make a new type of audit, which was performed and was premised upon an analysis of the taxable purchases by the Petitioner for the three (3) year period. These purchases were divided into taxable categories and these categories were then marked up in price using an industry average to arrive at the actual taxable sales. The industry average was based upon an examination of the United Food Stores, Inc.'s sales catalog, which had suggested retail prices for low volume and high volume stores. The Respondent gave the Petitioner the benefit of the range of high volume stores, although the Petitioner's store was a neighborhood convenience store and therefore a low volume operation. The effect of allowing the average retail price for the high volume stores was that it made the differential between his purchase price and the retail price less than that for a low volume neighborhood store, causing lesser tax liability. As stated before, this alternative method was elected for the reason that the Respondent had objected that the gross sales figures reported in the monthly tax returns were incorrect, due to the fact that the Petitioner was unable to document his claim for entitlement to certain exemptions due to pilferage and "service fees", and due to the belief that the more correct approach to the audit was the second method. The work sheet on the alternative method may be found on Respondent's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence. The utilization of this method led to the revised assessment of May 27, 1977, which is the subject of the appeal by petition, and amended petition of the Petitioner. This revision was superceded by the second revision of December 5, 1977, which was allowed to be entered without objection from the Petitioner. The second revision reduces the amount of tax liability claimed by the Respondent. An analysis of the documents offered in this cause and the testimony, leads to the conclusion that the Petitioner/taxpayer owed sales tax during the audit period August 1, 1973 through July 31, 1976. Furthermore, the more correct form of audit procedure under the circumstances, was the alternate method employed in arriving at the May 27, 1977 revised Notice of Assessment as further revised by the December 5, 1977 Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment. This conclusion is grounded on the requirements of Section 212.05(1), F.S., which requires persons in the Petitioner's category for the exercise of the privilege of doing business, to assist in levying a tax in the amount of 4 percent in the categories covered. Furthermore, Sections 212.06(3) and 212.07(2), F.S., places the duty on the Petitioner to collect this 4 percent sales tax. The Petitioner failed to act in accordance with the provision of Chapter 212, F.S. and the Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment is correct and in keeping with the authority of Section 212.12(6), F.S.
Recommendation Therefore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Second Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest found as Exhibit 3 to the amended petition which total is $2,238.92 be allowed with such adjustments as may be necessary for a computation of interest prior to the rendition of a final order. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan Weil, Esquire 203 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Patricia Turner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Attorney, Division of Administration Department of Revenue Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact The stipulated facts are as follows: The petitioner is GJPR Two Corporation, formerly Employers Insurance Management Corporation, a Florida Corporation, and its address is c/o W. L. Adams, Esquire, Pyszka, Kessler, Adams and Solomon, 2699 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida 33133. Said petitioner has a substantial interest in these proceedings and has proper standing herein. The agencies affected are the Department of Revenue, Tallahassee, Florida, and the Office of the Comptroller of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida; no other agencies are affected. These proceedings have been properly initiated and are now properly before the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Administration of the State of Florida. The parties are not in dispute as to any issues of fact, and agree to the following findings of fact: On or about June 1, 1977, petitioner sold all of its assets of every kind and type in a single transaction to Arthur J. Gallagher and Company. The assets sold included two aircraft. When the registration documents of such aircraft were presented to the State of Florida for transfer, payment of sales tax was required in the sum of $4,056.00. Said sum was paid under protest on or about June 10, 1977. Until the sale of its assets, the business of petitioner had always been the sale of insurance and the administration of self-insurance programs for insureds and self-insureds throughout Florida and other states. The aircraft had been used in the business of petitioner, but petitioner had never engaged in the sale or leasing of aircraft as all or any part of its business. Since the sale of its assets, petitioner has not been engaged in business and petitioner has adopted and filed with the Internal Revenue Service of the United States a Resolution requiring that petitioner conduct no further business and that petitioner be liquidated. The sale of the two aircraft upon which the tax in question was paid under protest is an occasional or isolated sale. Petitioner filed a Claim for Refund upon the ground that the sale was an isolated sale. The Claim for Refund was denied by letter of August 11, 1977 from the Office of the Comptroller of the State of Florida, a copy of which is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A."
Recommendation That the denial of tax refund to the petitioner by the State Comptroller be affirmed. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 24th day of January, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. Horwich, Esquire Suite 302 University Federal Building 2222 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Cecil Davis, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Petitioner purchased a used car in Florida in May of 1983 and paid 5 percent sales tax. Petitioner did not title said car in the State of Florida. When Petitioner returned to Maryland, his state of residence, Maryland imposed a 5 percent tax on said car when Petitioner titled said car. Petitioner applied for a sales tax refund to the Department of Revenue in the amount of $225.00. Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to deny said refund application on December 1, 1983. From the exhibits to which the parties stipulated, additional facts are found by the Hearing Officer. A bill of sale indicates that Petitioner purchased a 1979 Buick Regal from Eddy Auto Sales on May 14, 1983. A temporary registration and receipt issued by the State of Maryland on June 17, 1983, shows that Petitioner paid a "title tax" of $222.50 to the State of Maryland. By letter dated January 27, 1984, Agnes Stoicos of the Maryland Department of Transportation indicates that the Maryland tax is a 5 percent excise tax upon the issuance of all original and subsequent certificates of title, and the tax is used primarily for the construction and the maintenance of the Maryland highway system.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner William G. Brunet owns and operates the Music Box Lounge, a bar in Lake Worth, Florida. Mr. Brunet is homosexual as are his employees and many of the patrons of the Music Box Lounge. At no time pertinent to these proceedings did any agent or employee of either respondent take any action affecting petitioner with any motive or intent to discriminate against petitioner on account of his homosexuality. On October 25, 1977, Margaret Sager called the Music Box Lounge to arrange to see the books for the period September 1, 1974, to August 31, 1977. Two days later she visited the Music Box Lounge where she spoke to the bartender, John J. Dolan, and to petitioner. On the basis of these discussions, Ms. Sager filled out a form. This form, which petitioner signed, was received in evidence as respondents' exhibit No. 1. For the most part, the form is an abbreviated price list for beer, champagne, other wine, and liquor, covering the period 1974 through 1977. The form indicates that one ounce drinks are poured at petitioner's establishment, and the notation "1 case of beer a week personal- 5 bottles of liq. per week personal" appears at the bottom of the form. Ms. Sager compared invoices reflecting petitioner's purchases of alcoholic beverages with the entries in petitioner's general ledger purporting to represent such purchases and found no discrepancies. She inquired of petitioner's suppliers as to how much the kegs of beer they had sold petitioner contained. She made allowance for petitioner's personal weekly use of one case of beer and four or five bottles of liquor, assumed that petitioner sold 30 drinks for each quart bottle of liquor he purchased from suppliers, and projected petitioner's gross sales on these assumptions. After a conference with petitioner and his accountant, and on the advice of her supervisor, Ms. Sager substituted the figure 25 drinks per quart to arrive at a second projection. By multiplying .045 times this second estimate, and subtracting from the product the amount of sales tax petitioner had remitted for the period September 1, 1974, to August 31, 1977, Ms. Sager arrived at the figure four thousand fourteen dollars and twenty-three cents ($4,014.23), representing the alleged deficiency on account of petitioner's sales. After the audit, Ms. Sager concluded that petitioner had remitted what he probably felt was a true figure for the period in question. In estimating petitioner's gross sales, Ms. Sager made no allowance for "happy hours" or other promotions; made no allowance for theft or bartenders' drinking; and made no allowance for the sale of liquor by the bottle rather than by the drink. During the period in question, petitioner operated his bar on two shifts, from ten in the morning till six in the evening and from six till closing, at two the following morning. Prices of drinks were not stated separately from sales tax due on account of their sale. The bartender started each shift with a certain amount of money in the cash register, and was instructed to ring up each sale as it occurred. At the end of the day, the bartender put the cash register tape and the money in the cash register into a box. The following day receipts were tabulated. Petitioner's accountant used the resulting daily reports in compiling sales tax reports, which petitioner filed regularly during the audit period in question. All but the first four monthly reports petitioner made during the audit period were received as a joint composite exhibit on August 15, 1978. During the period in question, petitioner sold package goods to his employees and friends at cost; sales tax was collected on these transactions. From April of 1975, to February of 1976, ten to fifteen quarts of liquor were sold at cost each week. Bruce MacFallon, who worked for petitioner as a bartender during and about the year 1974, purchased five cases of liquor from petitioner in a year's time. Gerald P. Mooney, who worked for petitioner as a bartender during the entire audit period, bought about fifteen bottles of liquor at wholesale from petitioner in a year's time. In addition, petitioner gave Mr. Mooney two or three bottles of liquor a year as presents. There was no evidence that petitioners' employees stole from him. At least during the period from April 1975 to February 1976, there were two sets of prices for drinks at petitioner's bar, one set for each shift. From four to six in the afternoon, moreover, prices were further reduced. Respondent's exhibit No. 1 does not reflect these diurnal price fluctuations. John J. Dolan, who worked the day shift as a bartender from April 1975 to February 1976, poured an ounce and a half of liquor for most drinks, but used two ounces in each martini. Bruce MacFallon poured up to two ounces of liquor in each regular drink and more in each manhattan or martini he prepared. He never poured as little as one ounce of liquor in a drink. Gerald P. Mooney poured one and one quarter to one and one half ounces of liquor in each normal drink he mixed and two to three ounces of liquor in each martini or manhattan he prepared. Martinis were especially popular during "happy hours." Petitioner authorized his bartenders to give complimentary drinks to good customers. As a rule of thumb, Mr. Mooney gave two or three free drinks a night to any customer who regularly spent twenty-five dollars or upwards on visits to the bar. On an average day, Mr. Dolan gave away fifteen to twenty or more highballs and ten or more beers. Mr. MacFallon gave away free drinks for every so many sold to a customer and has given away as many as twenty drinks a day in this fashion. Respondent's exhibit No. 1 overstates the prices petitioner charged for beer during the audit period in question. There was testimony to the effect that bars catering to homosexuals face stiffer competition than other bars and resort to promotions involving sales of liquor at reduced prices more often. Whether or not it is true, this general proposition has no bearing on the specific matters developed in the evidence in the present case. Except insofar as they recite that Ms. Sager was inexperienced and unfamiliar with the operation of bars and that she failed to consider spillage, petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been adopted in substance, insofar as relevant and consistent with the foregoing findings of fact.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondents abandon the revised notice of proposed assessment and refund all monies collected pursuant to the revised notice of proposed assessment, except for one hundred thirty-five dollars and eighty-nine cents ($135.89), together with penalty and interest thereon. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: David S. Meisel, Esquire Rogers & Meisel 400 Royal Palm Way Palm Beach, Florida 33480 E. Wilson Crump, II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Tax Division, Northwood Mall Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is liable for certain taxes and, if so, how much.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Manatee County, Florida. Petitioner is in the printing business. Specifically, Petitioner produces, manufactures, assembles, and publishes telephone directories for mobile home parks in Florida. All of Petitioner's work in connection with these directories takes place in Florida. The directories list the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of residents of the mobile home park for which the directory is prepared. The directories also contain advertisements, which Petitioner solicits from merchants seeking to sell goods or services to the mobile home park residents. Following the production of the directories, Petitioner distributes them to the mobile home park residents, who maintain possession of the directories. However, Petitioner retains ownership of each directory, even after it is distributed. Petitioner is solely responsible for the manufacture and distribution of the directories. Petitioner owns accounts receivable reflecting monies owned it by entities for which Petitioner has performed work. Petitioner owns treasury stock. Following an audit, Respondent issued its Intent to Make Sales and Use Tax Audit Changes. The proposed changes assessed additional sales and use taxes of $44,151.77, intangible tax of $1297.08, and $194,75 of health care tax. The bases of proposed liability for the sales and use tax were for the publication and distribution of directories for which no sales or use tax had been collected and for the sale of advertising during the period of the service tax from July 1, 1986, through December 31, 1986, for which no sales tax on advertising had been collected. The basis of proposed liability for the intangible tax was for the failure to pay intangible tax on accounts receivable and treasury stock. The basis of proposed liability for the health care tax was for the failure to pay the Hillsborough County Health Care Tax and Discretionary Sales Surtax. On February 11, 1991, Petitioner protested the proposed assessments. On April 24, 1992, Respondent issued its Notice of Decision sustaining the proposed sales and use tax and intangible tax, but eliminating the proposed health care tax. On May 12, 1992, Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration concerning the proposed sales and use tax. On November 24, 1992, Respondent issued its Notice of Reconsideration sustaining the proposed sales and use tax. On January 21, 1993, Petitioner timely filed its petition for a formal administration hearing. Subject to the accuracy of its legal position, Respondent's assessment is factually accurate. Petitioner will pay the assessed amount of sales and use tax, plus interest, if its position is not sustained following the conclusion of this proceeding, including judicial review.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered determining that, for each assessed period, Petitioner is liable for the assessed corporate intangible tax plus interest, the use tax on the cost price of the materials and other covered items plus interest, the sales tax on services on the advertising revenues, but not for any sales tax apart from the period covered by the sales tax on services. ENTERED on January 25, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 25, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: David M. Carr David Michael Carr, P.A. 600 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Eric J. Taylor Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner owes the taxes, interest, and penalties assessed by the Department of Revenue based upon its audit of Petitioner for the period of August 1, 1996, through July 31, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of selling and installing floor covering materials, such as carpet and tile. Petitioner's business is located in Hillsborough County, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner sales fall into two basic categories: "cash and carry sales" and "installation sales." The "cash and carry sales" are retail sales of floor covering materials to customers that come into Petitioner's store. These sales do not involve any installation work by Petitioner. The "installation sales" are sales in which Petitioner installs the floor covering material in the customer's home or business. These sales are performed pursuant to a lump-sum contract which incorporates the price of the installation and the price of the floor covering materials being installed. Petitioner purchases the floor covering materials from suppliers and distributors. Those purchases become part of the inventory from which Petitioner makes its "installation sales." Petitioner also makes general purchases of goods and services necessary for the day-to-day operation of its business. These purchases include items such as cleaning supplies and vehicle repairs. Petitioner made several fixed-assets purchases during the audit period for use in its business. It purchased a word processor in August 1996, and it purchased equipment and fixtures in December 1996. On those occasions that Petitioner collected sales tax from its customers on the "cash and carry sales" or paid sales tax on its inventory purchases and general purchases, it remitted or reported those amounts to the Department. However, as discussed below, Petitioner did not collect the full amount of sales tax due on each sale, nor did it pay the full amount of sales tax due on each purchase. The Department is the state agency responsible for administering Florida's sales tax laws. The Department is authorized to conduct audits of taxpayers to determine their compliance with the sales tax laws. By letter dated September 10, 2001, the Department notified Petitioner of its intent to conduct a sales tax audit of Petitioner's records for the period of August 1, 1996, through July 31, 2001. The audit was conducted by David Coleman, a tax auditor with seven years of experience with the Department. Petitioner designated its certified public accountant, P.J. Testa, as its representative for purposes of the Department's audit. That designation was memorialized through a power of attorney form executed by Petitioner on March 5, 2002. Mr. Coleman communicated with Mr. Testa throughout the course of the audit. Mr. Coleman conducted the audit using a sampling methodology agreed to by Mr. Testa on behalf of Petitioner. Pursuant to that methodology, Mr. Coleman conducted a comprehensive review of Petitioner's year-2000 purchase and sales invoices and extrapolated the results of that review to the other years in the audit period. The sampling methodology was used because of the volume of records and transactions during the audit period and because of the unavailability of all of the records for the audit period. The year 2000 was chosen as the sample period because Petitioner's records for the other years in the audit period were incomplete or unavailable. Mr. Coleman's audit of the year-2000 invoices focused on three broad types of transactions. First, he reviewed invoices of Petitioner's retail "cash and carry sales." Second, he reviewed the invoices through which Petitioner purchased the floor covering materials that it later sold as part of its "installation sales." Third, he reviewed the invoices through which Petitioner made general purchases of tangible personal property used in the day-to-day operation of its business. The sampling methodology was used for the audit of Petitioner's "cash and carry sales," the inventory purchases related to the "installation sales," and the general purchases. The methodology was not used for the audit of Petitioner's fixed-asset purchases; Mr. Coleman reviewed all of the available records for the fixed-asset purchases during each year of the audit period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's retail "cash and carry sales" identified 29 invoices during year-2000 on which no sales tax or less than the full sales tax was paid by the customer. Those invoices amounted to $17,451.30, on which $1,178.11 in total sales tax was due, but only $552.97 was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $625.14 for the retail sales during the sample period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's purchases of floor covering that was later sold in the "installation sales" identified a considerable number of purchases during year-2000 on which no sales tax or less than the full sales tax was paid by Petitioner to the supplier or distributor of the materials. Those purchases amounted to $123,398.52, but only $123,397.80 of that amount was taxable. On the taxable amount, $8,330.07 in total sales tax was due, but only $6,810.68 was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $1,519.41 for Petitioner's inventory purchases during the sample period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's "general purchases" identified 10 sales during year-2000 on which sales tax was not paid. Those invoices amounted to $2,914.76, on which $196.77 in sales tax was due, but none of which was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $196.77 for the general purchases during the sample period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's fixed-asset purchases identified only two transactions during the entire audit period on which Petitioner did not pay the full sales tax. Those transactions amounted to $5,078.92, on which $330.14 in total sales tax was due, but none of which was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $330.14 for the fixed-asset purchases during the audit period. The tax deficiencies calculated by Mr. Coleman for year-2000 for each category described above take into account any sales tax collected by Petitioner from its customers or paid by Petitioner to its vendors. After Mr. Coleman computed the tax deficiencies based upon his audit of the year-2000 records, he calculated a "percentage of error" for each category of sales/purchases. The percentage of error is the ratio used to extrapolate the results of the audit of the year-2000 records over the remainder of the audit period. No percentage of error was calculated for the fixed-asset purchases because Mr. Coleman reviewed the available records for those purchases over the entire audit period, not just year-2000. The percentage of error was calculated by dividing the sales tax deficiency identified in a particular category for the year-2000 by the total sales/purchases in that category for the year-2000. For the year-2000, Petitioner had retail sales of $1,143,182.45; general purchases of $21,254.88; and inventory purchases of $1,214,016.24. As a result, the applicable percentages of error were 0.000547 ($625.14 divided by $1,143,182.45) for the retail sales; 0.009258 ($196.77 divided by $21,254.88) for the general purchases; and 0.001252 ($1,519.41 divided by $1,214,016.24) for the inventory purchases. The percentages of error were then multiplied by the total sales in the applicable category for the entire audit period to calculate a total tax deficiency in each category. Petitioner's total retail sales over the audit period were $4,455,373.40. Therefore, the total tax deficiency calculated for that category was $2,437.12 (i.e., $4,455,373.40 multiplied by 0.000547). Petitioner's total general purchases over the audit period were $110,741.49. Therefore, the total tax deficiency calculated for that category was $1,025.25 (i.e., $110,741.49 multiplied by 0.009258). Petitioner's total inventory sales over the audit period were $3,130,882.10. Therefore, the total tax deficiency calculated for that category was $3,919.86 (i.e., $3,130,882.10 multiplied by 0.001252). Petitioner's total tax deficiency was computed by adding the deficiencies in each category, as follows: Retail Sales $2,437.12 General Purchases 1,025.25 Inventory Purchases 3,919.86 Fixed-asset purchases 330.14 TOTAL $7,712.37 Of that total, $6,863.02 reflects the state sales tax deficiency; $313.77 reflects the indigent care surtax deficiency; and $535.58 reflects the local government infrastructure surtax deficiency. The sales tax rate in effect in Hillsborough County during the audit period was 6.75 percent. The state sales tax was six percent; the remaining 0.75 percent was for county surtaxes, namely the local government infrastructure surtax and the indigent care surtax. That rate was used by Mr. Coleman in calculating the tax deficiencies described above. On October 4, 2002, Mr. Coleman hand-delivered the Notice of Intent to Make Audit Change (NOI) to Petitioner. The NOI is the end-product of Mr. Coleman's audit. The NOI identified the total tax deficiency set forth above, as well as a penalty of $3,856.26, which is the standard 50 percent of the tax deficiency amount, and interest of $2,561.63, which is calculated at a statutory rate. The NOI included copies of Mr. Coleman's audit work- papers which showed how the taxes, penalties, and interest were calculated. The NOI also included a copy of the "Taxpayers' Bill of Rights" which informed Petitioner of the procedure by which it could protest the audit results reflected on the NOI. On October 29, 2002, the Department issued three NOPAs to Petitioner. A separate NOPA was issued for each type of tax -- i.e., sales tax, indigent care surtax, and local government infrastructure surtax. The cumulative amounts reflected on the NOPAs were the same as that reflected on the NOI, except that the interest due had been updated through the date of the NOPAs. Interest continues to accrue on assessed deficiencies at a cumulative statutory rate of $1.81 per day. The NOPAs were sent to Petitioner by certified mail, and were received by Petitioner on November 1, 2002. By letter dated November 5, 2002, Petitioner protested the full amount of the taxes assessed on the NOPAs and requested a formal administrative hearing. The letter was signed by Mr. Testa on Petitioner's behalf. The protest letter does not allege that the methodology used by Mr. Coleman was improper or that the results of the audit were factually or legally erroneous. Instead, the protest letter states that Petitioner was disputing the results of the audit because it was "following procedures set forth by an agent from a previous audit who established the manner in which [Petitioner was] to compute sales tax on the items being questioned by the current auditor." Mr. Testa made similar comments to Mr. Coleman during the audit. When Mr. Coleman requested documentation from Mr. Testa to corroborate those comments about the procedures allegedly established by the prior auditor, Mr. Testa was unable to provide any such documentation. The record of this proceeding is similarly devoid of evidence to support Petitioner's allegation on this point. The record does not contain any evidence to suggest that Petitioner ever modified or revoked Mr. Testa's authority to represent it in connection with the audit or this protest, which Mr. Testa initiated on Petitioner's behalf. Petitioner, through Mr. Testa, had due notice of the date, time, and location of the final hearing in these cases. Neither Mr. Testa, nor anyone else on Petitioner's behalf, appeared at the final hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order imposing the taxes, interest, and penalties against Petitioner in the full amounts set forth in the three Notices of Proposed Assessment dated October 28, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2003.
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue's final assessment of sales and use tax plus interest against Petitioner Karsten Enterprises FL, Inc., is correct.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a corporation headquartered in Dothan, Alabama, doing business in Florida. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida that has been delegated the responsibility to collect sales and use tax imposed by Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. During the audit period in controversy, from October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2007, Petitioner was a dealer in manufactured or modular homes and did business at one or more Florida locations. During the pertinent period, Petitioner entered into various contracts to provide manufactured or modular homes to its customers for delivery at locations in Florida. At a Karsten Sales Center, models of residential factory-built buildings are displayed. These residential factory-built buildings are produced by manufacturers that Karsten uses for that purpose. In most of the transactions during the audit period, Petitioner's customers would contract with Petitioner for the sale and installation of a factory built building on property owned by the customer. In the remainder of the contracts during the audit period, Petitioner would either purchase the property or enter into a contract for the sale of the property to the customer, and Petitioner would install a home that Petitioner had purchased from a manufacturer and then sell the home and land package to the customer. The contract prices were a lump sum, which included not only the manufactured or modular home, but also installation of the home at a Florida location. Petitioner’s contracts with its customers did not itemize individual components of the modular or manufactured homes, such as individual nuts, bolts, and shingles, but instead agreed to deliver the entire modular or manufactured home on an installed basis. The contracts between Petitioner and its customers specify the type of home that the customer wanted to have erected or installed on the property. Upon selection of a floor plan, options, and other customization, the customer would agree to order a specific home from a manufacturer. Petitioner purchased the pre-fabricated manufactured or modular homes from various manufacturers. The manufacturer would produce the home upon receiving an order from Petitioner. The manufacturer shipped the completed home to Petitioner, delivering the home to the property where the home would ultimately be erected and installed. Once shipped to the site, the factory-built buildings were placed on a foundation constructed for that purpose. Petitioner would either directly, through the manufacturer, or through subcontractors, construct the foundations, place the homes on the foundations, and connect the homes to required utilities. All of these activities were done as part of Petitioner's contracts with its customers for real property improvement. In many instances, the manufacturer both delivered the homes to the sites and provided post-delivery services to the homes. Additional services provided by the manufacturer after it installed the homes on the foundations included trim work, repair work, and fit and finish work. Petitioner paid the manufactures directly for these post-delivery services. During the audit period at issue, Petitioner sold, erected and installed approximately 30 residential modular or factory-built buildings in the state of Florida. If the home was built by a Florida factory, the factory would include sales tax in its invoice to Petitioner, based upon the cost of materials, but not including labor, that the manufacturer used in the construction of the home prior to its delivery to the site. If an out-of-state manufacturer built the home, the manufacturer would not include a sales tax amount in its invoices to Petitioner. Rather, the out-of-state manufacturers indicated that the cost of materials for construction of the homes at the factory was approximately 60% of the purchase price Petitioner paid for the homes. When Petitioner closed its contracts with its customers, if the manufacturer was an out-of-state manufacturer that had not previously included a sales or use tax in its invoice to Petitioner, Petitioner would remit a use tax directly to the Department, based upon 60% of Petitioner’s purchase price of the manufactured or modular homes. In either case, whether paying sales tax directly to a Florida manufacturer based only on the Florida manufacturer's cost of materials, or remitting use tax on 60% of its purchase price of manufactured or modular homes from out-of-state manufacturers, rather than paying tax on 100% of the price it paid for the homes, Petitioner did not pay sales or use tax on the manufacturer’s labor or fabrication costs. In remitting use tax, or paying sales tax to the Florida manufacturers, Petitioner was seeking to pay tax only on the manufacturer’s cost of materials used in the manufacturing process. There is no dispute concerning the Department’s math calculations. Rather, Petitioner disputes that the labor costs were taxable. Petitioner has no proof that the Department has ever received payment of tax from any person on the manufacturer’s labor costs at issue in this proceeding. Drenea York, who testified for the Department, is an accountant and auditor with twenty years of experience, all in sales and use taxation. Tammy Miller, who testified for the Department, is an attorney who has worked with the Department for eight years within the Department's Technical Assistance and Dispute Resolution section (Department's Dispute Resolution Section). The Department's Dispute Resolution Section employs “Tax Conferees,” such as Ms. Miller, who hear informal taxpayer protests, issue the Department's notices of decisions regarding final assessments, and provide guidance to the public upon request. Her practice has focused principally upon sales and use taxation, and she has handled several cases involving taxation of modular home contractors. Tammy Miller signed the notice of decision regarding the Final Assessment at issue. She also wrote the article for the Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants, which Petitioner introduced into evidence as P1. She testified as the Department’s corporate representative. Douglas Uhler testified as a former employee of Petitioner and also as an expert witness for the Petitioner. He is a CPA with some tax experience, who was not shown to be a specialist in taxation or in Florida sales and use taxation. He practices in Birmingham, Alabama, where he is licensed. He has knowledge and expertise in valuation and other areas, but was not qualified as an expert to testify as to the tax determinations at issue in this controversy. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Uhler applied for a TAA. Mr. Uhler was permitted to testify, over the Department’s hearsay and relevancy objections, that he relied on an oral statement from an alleged Department employee, concerning how Florida sales and use tax law is applied in the manufactured and modular home industry. During his testimony, however, Mr. Uhler did not know the name of the person to whom he allegedly spoke and he was not sure that the person he spoke to was an employee of the Department of Revenue. Therefore, no weight was given to his testimony regarding his recollection of a conversation with an alleged Department employee on the issue of how Florida sales and use tax law is applied in the manufactured and modular home industry. During the audit period at issue, the Department made four revisions to its original audit report in response to additional information provided by the Petitioner. During this period, the Petitioner paid the uncontested portion of the Department's assessment, leaving only one issue in dispute: whether additional tax and interest is due on Petitioner’s purchase of the modular homes. The Department’s audit and resulting tax assessment considered Petitioner, and not the manufacturer, to be the “real property contractor” responsible for the payment of the tax, within the meaning of the aforementioned rule provisions. The Department’s determination that Petitioner was the responsible “real property contractor” is consistent with the fact that the real property improvement contracts at issue were entered directly between Petitioner and its customers, and not between the manufacturer and Petitioner’s customers. In its contracts with its customers, Petitioner directly arranged installation work, either providing the installation itself or through the manufacturer or a subcontractor on behalf of Petitioner's customers. The issue of whether Petitioner or the manufacturer performed the installation work, however, was not considered by the Department to be a determinative factor, in and of itself, in making the Final Assessment. According to the Department, it would not consider a manufacturer to be the responsible “real property contractor” unless the contracts for real property improvement were directly between the manufacturer and Petitioner’s customers. The evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner's customers had direct contracts for real property improvements with the manufacturers of the homes. The Department also considered Petitioner to be the “end user” under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.051(3) and (4), which, according to the Department, imposes tax on the “end user.” The Department considered Petitioner, as opposed to Petitioner's customers, to be the end user based upon the reasoning that Petitioner was the last party to purchase the modular units as “tangible personal property,” before the modular homes became affixed to real property. Ms. York and Ms. Miller explained that the Department did not consider Petitioner’s customers to be the “end users” because Petitioner's customers did not purchase resold items of “tangible personal property,” itemized in detail under Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.051(3)(d). Rather, they explained that Petitioner’s customers, who purchased under lump- sum contracts, were considered to have purchased an improvement to real property, and improvements to real property fall outside the scope of the Florida sales and use tax chapter. In its audit, the Department examined Petitioner’s contracts with its customers solely to determine that the Petitioner was the end user or the “real property contractor.” The Department’s assessment did not seek to impose tax or interest liability on Petitioner’s transactions with its customers. Instead, the Department taxed Petitioner on Petitioner’s “cost price” of purchasing modular homes, giving Petitioner full credit for any partial tax that Petitioner had paid. As noted above, during the audit period, when it was dealing with a Florida manufacturer, Petitioner generally remitted sales or use tax directly to the manufacturer, at the time of purchase. More often, however, Petitioner paid sales or use tax on a monthly basis, by direct accrual or remittance to the Department on approximately 60% of the amount Petitioner paid for homes manufactured by out-of-state manufacturers. The invoices to Petitioner frequently included other itemized charges, which the Department did not consider part of Petitioner’s “cost price” of the purchased modular units. For example, if an invoice included sales or use tax, the Department excluded charges for tax when calculating Petitioner’s “cost price,” so as to avoid imposing tax on the itemized tax. Likewise, no charges for installation of the modular units onto real property were included in the Department’s calculation of “cost price.” The Department instead determined “cost price” by adding up the “Base Price” for purchasing the modular homes, together with itemized home “Options,” as they appeared on the manufacturer's invoices to Petitioner for the modular homes. Examples of several “Options” would be such things as better carpeting, a sliding glass door, or a plywood floor. The combined total of “Base Price” and “Options” were used by the Department in determining Petitioner’s “cost price” of purchasing the units as items of tangible personal property from the manufacturer’s factory. Petitioner's "cost price" as determined by the Department reflected the seller’s (in this case the manufacturer’s) material and labor costs. The Department's Final Assessment, however, did not include costs related to the installation of the modular homes onto real property, as those were considered by the Department as costs arising subsequent to the sale of the product as tangible personal property. The Final Assessment only sought tax on Petitioner’s purchase cost of the modular homes as tangible personal property leaving the factory. Because Petitioner had already paid tax on approximately 60% of its cost price, the Department’s assessment sought to capture the 40% of sales and use tax that Petitioner never paid. The Department's assessment determined that Petitioner owed tax on its own “cost price” as invoiced by the manufacturer. The Department determined that the Petitioner’s “cost price” was a different “cost price” than the manufacturer’s “cost price.” According to the Department, the manufacturer’s cost price excluded labor on its factory floor but Petitioner’s “cost price” included all materials and labor costs that were necessarily a component of Petitioner's actual purchase price. The Department’s auditor gave Petitioner full credit for all taxes paid, whether Petitioner had paid the tax by direct remittance or at the time that it paid an invoice, with one exception: credit was generally not given for payments made by Petitioner to a company named Cavalier because during the audit period at issue, Petitioner remitted certain amounts of sales tax to a manufacturer named Cavalier, but Cavalier refunded these amounts to Petitioner.3/ The Department’s audit and assessment did not treat Petitioner as a “manufacturer” nor give Petitioner the benefit of the special exemption, under Section 212.06(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which is available to manufacturers of a “factory- built building.” This is because the Department did not consider Petitioner to be a manufacturer. Although Petitioner argued that it qualified for the special exemption under Section 212.06(1)(b), Florida Statutes, under the theory that it was a "manufacturer," Petitioner failed to show that it is a “manufacturer” entitled to such exemption. In accordance with Petitioner's Application for Registration with the Department, Petitioner was registered as a “Manufactured (Mobile) Home Dealer” rather than as a manufacturer. In response to audit interview questions, Petitioner advised the auditor that it was in the business of “Retail Sale” of “Mobile and Modular Homes.” Petitioner made this same representation again in its response to a Pre-Audit Questionnaire and Request for Information. The first time that Petitioner ever asserted that it was a "manufacturer" was after Petitioner received the Department’s Notice of Intent to make Audit Changes, and became aware that, as a “real property contractor,” it would be assessed tax on 100% of its “cost price.” Petitioner then changed its self-description of its business model, asserting that it was a “manufacturer.” When Petitioner protested the Department’s assessment, however, it abandoned, at least at the informal protest stage, the argument that it was a manufacturer. Petitioner instead argued that it should be treated like a real property contractor engaged in the business of stick built homes. According to Tammy Miller, Petitioner's president, Mr. Copeland, told Ms. Miller during the informal protest process, that Petitioner was not a manufacturer. The Final Assessment corroborates Tammy Miller’s recollection because it addressed Petitioner’s various legal arguments but did not address Petitioner’s argument that it is a manufacturer, because that argument apparently was not made during the informal protest. The Amended Petition does not allege that Petitioner was a manufacturer or that it should be treated like one. Petitioner instead asserts that it is a modular home dealer who purchases from “the factory” and that it should be treated like a stick-built contractor. Petitioner stipulated that it is a modular home “dealer” and that it purchased the pre-fabricated manufactured or modular homes from various manufacturers. No evidence was introduced that Petitioner owns or operates factories or an assembly line. Rather, the evidence showed that Petitioner operated out of an office building in Alabama. No evidence was presented that Petitioner has been licensed or certified as a “manufacturer” by the Department of Community Affairs, which is the agency that regulates manufacturers of factory-built buildings. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-1.002(15) and 1.007(1). Petitioner’s representative repeatedly referred to Petitioner, throughout opening statement, argument and testimony, as a dealer purchasing from the factory. The Department’s witnesses testified that the sales and use tax applies to “real property contractors” in a way that taxes all real property contractors (stick-built or modular) on their full “cost price” of purchased materials, regardless of whether the purchased materials are lumber, shingles, nails, finished kitchen cabinetry, or assembled modular home modules. The Department's witnesses explained that the cost price of each item purchased will vary because the item purchased in each instance is different and some items will include greater material and labor costs than others. The Final Assessment reflects the unpaid balance assessed, after all revisions and payments made, and provides a per diem amount so that accrued interest may be readily calculated. The Final Assessment determined that the unpaid balance of tax and interest for the audit period (after crediting Petitioner with all payments made) was as follows: $41,446.31 combined tax and interest through 1/26/09, with $7.57 per day for each day thereafter until the postmark date of payment. The Final Assessment waived all penalties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, consistent with the Final Assessment and this Recommended Order, the Department of Revenue enter a final order finding that Petitioner owes tax and interest due as of January 26, 2009, in the amount of $41,446.39, with interest thereafter accruing at $7.57 per day, without penalties. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 2010.
