The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is liable for use tax, pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, to the Florida Department of Revenue for the use and storage of a vessel.
Findings Of Fact Camden Corporation (Petitioner) is a foreign corporation, incorporated in Delaware on August 7, 1990. Petitioner is a solely owned, closed corporation. Petitioner has two officers: a President, who is the sole owner, and a Treasurer. At all times material hereto, Petitioner's President and Treasurer were residents of Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner's business address is in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner's officers handled its day-to-day activities and records from Jacksonville, Florida. Prior to the Petitioner's incorporation, its President wanted to purchase a vessel to take a world wide cruise. He obtained the services of a law firm to advise him on avoiding a state's sales and use tax on the purchase of a vessel, with Florida being one of the states. A lawyer in the firm contacted the Florida Department of Revenue (Respondent) and inquired, without relating any of Petitioner's factual circumstances, as to whether the case of Department of Revenue v. Yacht Futura, 510 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) was still good case law in Florida. Yacht Futura was a case in which the parameters of Florida's sales and use tax were interpreted regarding repairs and personal use of vessels while in Florida waters. Respondent's representative informed the firm's lawyer that Yacht Futura was still being followed by Respondent and that no exceptions existed; but Respondent's representative further cautioned that the factual circumstances must conform to Yacht Futura. The firm's lawyer prepared a memorandum advising Petitioner's President, among other things, that no liability for Florida's sales and use tax would be incurred for repairs and personal use of a vessel in Florida's waters, so long as the circumstances complied with Yacht Futura. After having received the firm's advice and advice from tax advisors, Petitioner's President created and incorporated Petitioner. On August 14, 1990, Petitioner purchased a used motor vessel in international waters for $5,618,000. The vessel was a 131' Feadship with Coast Guard documentation number 623589. Petitioner named the vessel "CAMDEN." The CAMDEN was the only assest owned by Petitioner. Petitioner did not pay any Florida sales tax at the time of CAMDEN's purchase. From August 14, 1990 through October 15, 1990, the CAMDEN was outside the State of Florida. Petitioner's President had taken the vessel on a cruise. During the time period that the vessel was on the cruise, Petitioner did not pay any sales or use tax in any jurisdiction in the United States. Also, during the time period that the vessel was on the cruise, Petitioner did not license, title, or register the CAMDEN in any jurisdiction in the United States. On October 15, 1990, relying on the law firm's advice, Petitioner imported the CAMDEN into Florida waters for major repairs, with the intention of departing after the repairs and not returning to Florida waters. Petitioner obtained the services of Huckins Yacht Corporation, a registered repair facility, in Jacksonville to perform repairs to the CAMDEN, which had a dock in Huckins Marina. However, the dock at Huckins Marina was unable to accommodate a vessel the size of the CAMDEN. The vessel was docked at Southbank Marina which could accommodate the vessel and which was the closest marina to Huckins Marina. Petitioner's President was not in the State of Florida when the CAMDEN arrived in Florida waters. He did not return to Florida until October 24, 1990. Petitioner did not have a written contract with Huckins Yacht Corporation (Huckins) to perform any repairs on the CAMDEN. However, Huckins did perform some minor repairs to the CAMDEN. Also, Huckins arranged for a major repair to the CAMDEN. It arranged for Petitioner to purchase a global position satellite electronic system as a nonwarranty repair. The electronic system was to be installed by someone who was not an employee of Huckins and who did not have a contractual agreement with Huckins for the installation. The electronic system was installed on the CAMDEN at the Southbank Marina. During the time that repairs were being made to the CAMDEN, its crew remained on board. Petitioner never received any bill from Huckins for any repairs made to the CAMDEN, including the installation of the electronic system. While the vessel was docked for repairs at the Southbank Marina, it was used for personal entertainment. On October 25, 1990, Petitioner's President and his friends had an open house type of party on the CAMDEN. On October 26, 1990, Petitioner had a luncheon cruise on the CAMDEN. On October 27, 1990, Petitioner had a dinner cruise and a birthday party for the daughter of Petitioner's President. On October 28, 1990, Petitioner took the CAMDEN from Jacksonville to St. Augustine for a pleasure trip. Leaving St. Augustine, the CAMDEN traveled to Miami, Florida and docked there on October 30, 1990, to get the vessel prepared for world travel. In Miami, the CAMDEN was docked at the Moorings Yacht Services, Inc. (Moorings), a registered repair facility. In November 1990, the Moorings began repairs to the CAMDEN, and in December 1990, the vessel departed the Moorings. In November 1990, Petitioner hired a tax consultant, who was a former employee of Respondent, for advice regarding Petitioner's liability for sales and use tax of the CAMDEN in Florida. The tax consultant advised Petitioner to register the CAMDEN as a charter for sales and use tax. Further, he advised Petitioner to late-file with Respondent an Exemption Affidavit for Boats Placed in a Registered Repair Facility, referred to as a Safe Harbor Affidavit, pursuant to Subsection 212.08(7)(t), Florida Statutes. On December 19, 1990, a Safe Harbor Affidavit was executed by both Huckins and Petitioner's President. The Safe Harbor Affidavit indicated, among other things, that Huckins was a registered repair facility in Jacksonville, Florida and that, from October 16, 1990 through October 25, 1990, the CAMDEN was under the care, custody, and control of Huckins for the purpose of installing electronics, which was the electronic system. Even though the Safe Harbor Affidavit does not provide that Huckins installed the electronic system on the CAMDEN, it does infer that Huckins had installed the electronic device. Respondent interprets "care, custody, and control" as the vessel being in the "physical" care, custody, and control of the registered repair facility. Clearly shown on the Safe Harbor Affidavit is that it is to be filed with the Respondent within 72 hours after the repair facility takes possession of the vessel. Additionally, clearly shown on the Safe Harbor Affidavit is that a copy of it is to be filed with Respondent within 72 hours after the work is completed and the vessel is released to the owner. On or about December 22, 1990, the CAMDEN departed Florida waters for a pleasure cruise to the Bahamas. In early January 1991, the vessel returned to Florida. The CAMDEN remained in Florida until mid-January 1991, when it traveled to the Caribbean. Around mid-May 1991, the vessel returned to Florida. In 1990, Petitioner was not issued a permit by any agency of the United States government to use the CAMDEN in Florida waters. In April 1991, one of Respondent's representatives discovered, during a routine examination of the records of the Miami Marina, that the CAMDEN was named as a boat docked in Florida with an out-of-state hailing port. On May 13, 1991, Respondent's representative sent a Declaration for Florida Sales and Use Tax (Declaration) to Petitioner for it to complete and return to Respondent. Instead of completing the Declaration, on December 10, 1991, Petitioner's tax consultant delivered the Safe Harbor Affidavit executed on December 19, 1990, to Respondent's representative. Additionally, Petitioner's tax consultant verbally supported the Safe Harbor Affidavit by stating that the CAMDEN was docked at Southbank Marina in Jacksonville while the repairs to the vessel were being completed by Huckins and the nonemployee. The Moorings filed a Safe Harbor Affidavit with Respondent, providing that the CAMDEN entered the facility in November 1990 and departed in December 1990. The Safe Harbor Affidavit was not submitted to Respondent within 72 hours of the CAMDEN either entering the facility for repairs or departing the facility after the repairs were completed. 1/ Respondent has a practice of accepting late-filed Safe Harbor Affidavits, with the condition that all documents supporting repairs are also to be submitted. A subsequent review of all the documents submitted would determine whether a person would be responsible for sales and use tax. On December 10, 1991, based on the Safe Harbor Affidavit and the representations by Petitioner's tax consultant, Respondent's representative closed her file regarding the sales and use tax, without assessing any sales or use tax against Petitioner. However, she forwarded neither a closing letter nor a closing agreement to Petitioner. Even though Petitioner had not received a closing letter or a closing agreement from Respondent, it believed that Respondent had terminated its inquiry of any assessment against it. In or around November 1991, another of Respondent's representative (Respondent's second representative) observed, while performing a routine marina check, the CAMDEN docked at the Palm Harbor Marina in West Palm Beach, Florida. Subsequently, he opened a new file on the CAMDEN. Petitioner was unaware that Respondent's second representative had opened a new file. Respondent's second representative performed an investigation of the vessel, including reviewing the Safe Harbor Affidavit submitted to the Respondent's other representative on December 10, 1991. His investigation led to the assessment at issue. The investigation by Respondent's second representative showed, and it is determined as a finding of fact here, that the CAMDEN was not in the physical care, custody, and control of Huckins during the repairs for the period October 16, 1990 through October 25, 1990. From October 15, 1990, when the CAMDEN entered in Florida waters for repairs, the vessel remained in Florida for more than a total of 10 days. Petitioner decided to sell the CAMDEN and listed it for $6.9 million. On February 14, 1992, Petitioner sold the CAMDEN for $5.3 million, which was $1.6 million less than it was originally listed. For 1991 and 1992, Petitioner's President treated the CAMDEN as his personal second home and took a home interest deduction for federal income tax purposes. On October 10, 1992, Respondent notified Petitioner that it was assessed, as of April 10, 1992, a tax of $337,080, representing: 6 percent of the CAMDEN's purchase price of $5,618,000; $84,270 in penalty; $168,540 in specific penalty; and $59,826.60 in interest. On October 26, 1992, Respondent issued a notice of final assessment to Petitioner which included the above assessment and the facts and reasons, including legal reasons, for the assessment. Petitioner contested the assessment. On January 14, 1994, Respondent issued a notice of reconsideration of the assessment and revised final assessment, withdrawing the $168,540 in specific penalty but sustaining the remaining assessment of $503,113.02, which represented: $337,080 tax; $84,270 penalty; and $81,763.02 interest. In its notice of reconsideration, Respondent determined, among other things, that Petitioner was issued an out-of-state registration, effective December 1, 1990, as a result of Petitioner submitting an application for sales and use tax registration, listing the major business activity as rental of tangible personal property. Additionally, Respondent determined, among other things, that Petitioner, as the corporation, maintained control and use of the CAMDEN during the period December 1990 through February 1992 when the CAMDEN was sold. No tax at issue was assessed for this period of time. Petitioner protested the revised assessment. Petitioner has not paid any Florida use tax.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order affirming the assessment of use tax against the Camden Corporation in the amount of $503,113.02, plus accrued interest. DONE AND ENTERED on this 30th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, 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 30th day of September, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. (Lloyd) has requested that it be awarded $22,006.00 in attorney's fees and out-of-pocket expenses of $589.31 for a total of $22,595.31. All fees and expenses listed by Lloyd were incurred in its successful appeal of the adverse decision in its Section 120.57(1) F.S. proceeding challenging the Respondent agency's tax assessment. All fees and costs claimed were incurred during appeal after the recommended and final orders were entered against Lloyd in a formal tax assessment proceeding, Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, DOAH Case No. 92-2348. The formal tax assessment proceeding arose pursuant to Section 72.011 and Chapter 212 F.S. concerning the balance ($57,471.43) of a greater sales and use tax assessment levied against Lloyd for its alleged failure to pay sales tax on goods and services sold to customers of concession stands on Daytona Beach for an audit period before Lloyd owned and operated the stands. Because Lloyd was unable to provide records of predecessors in interest, the agency estimated tax on the basis of Lloyd's existing records after purchasing the stands. Also, Lloyd was assessed sales taxes (approximately $6,004.38 of the assessed tax liability) for all beach concession fees it had paid to Volusia County during the audit period of 11/1/85--12/31/90, pursuant to Section 212.031, F.S. [1989]. Lloyd's petition for formal hearing before DOAH was a letter previously utilized in the parties' informal negotiations. FDOR moved for a more definite statement and time to file an answer if Lloyd were required to file a more definite statement or a more definite petition. An order dated May 19, 1992 denied the agency's request for more definite statement and provided, in pertinent part, "...As Respondent's motion has observed, an answer in this type of proceeding is not mandatory. Respondent is, however, granted 10 days from the date of this order in which to file an answer should the agency elect to do so." The agency elected to stand on its prior notices of proposed assessment. Therefore, for purposes of this proceeding, the agency's "petition," as contemplated by Section 120.575(5) F.S. is the original tax assessment. The tax assessment proceeding went to formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S. without any motions to dismiss or for other summary relief filed by either party. The recommended order found in favor of the agency's assessment, with some minor arithmetical adjustments required. The final order adopted the recommended order in toto. Lloyd appealed the final order. In Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 651 So. 735 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), decided upon Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, DOAH Case No. 92-2348, (RO entered by the undersigned Hearing Officer on 4/01/93; FDOR's FO entered 5/24/93), Lloyd argued that Section 212.031, F.S. [1989], had been erroneously applied to the beach concession fees charged by Volusia County and that Section 212.10 [1989] was unconstitutional as applied to Lloyd in this case and that the "projection" method used by FDOR's auditors to determine the amount of taxes due was unauthorized, unreasonable, and arbitrary. FDOR argued that the transfer and annual fees charged by the County to beach concessionaires pursuant to its Unified Beach Code and Ordinance, (Volusia County Ordinance 88-32), constituted rent payments for the various beach locations. The Fifth District Court of Appeal partially agreed with Lloyd and reversed. The court did not reach Lloyd's argument that Section 212.10 F.S. is arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, unconstitutional but did agree with Lloyd that under the facts of this case and the statutory framework, the best estimate provisions of Section 212.12(5)(b), F.S. [1989], could not be invoked to impose liability upon Lloyd as a "successor" dealer. (615 So.2d 735 at 736). The appellate court ruled with regard to the first issue raised on appeal that, The hearing officer erred in deciding it was proper to impose a sales tax on the fees Volusia County charged Lloyd for the privilege of selling and renting goods and services to the public on public beaches and that these privileges constituted taxable events under Rule 12A-10.070 F.A.C. and Section 212.031 F.S.. It ruled further that, The hearing officer arrived at this ruling simply by deferring to the Department's interpretation of the rule and by noting there was no contrary case law. The hearing officer correctly pointed out that deference should be given to an agency's interpretation of its rules and the statutes it is charged to administer. However, the agency's interpretation is subject to review and is not conclusive. (651 So.2d 735 at 736). The court went on to say, We hold that, in exercising the duties imposed on it by the Unified Beach Code, the County did not enter into the business of renting, leasing, or licensing real property. Accordingly, the tax liability assessed on the basis of the concession- aire fees being a license or lease of land is reversed. (651 So.2d 735 at 737) The appellate court also stated that, At the time Lloyd purchased the concessions, neither Lloyd nor the sellers were aware of the duties imposed by Section 212.10 [1989] which imposed on a purchasing or successor dealer the sales tax liabilities of a selling dealer under certain circumstances, and Lloyd concedes it did not comply with the statute. (651 So.2d 735 at 738). The Fifth District Court of Appeal majority opinion criticized the agency for relying solely on Lloyd's own, adequate records for the more current years after Lloyd purchased the concessions which are records not listed in Section 212.12(5)(b) F.S. as usable even if that section were applicable. It further criticized the agency for making no effort to obtain or project--or estimate--sales tax liabilities of the prior concessionaires on the basis of their own records which would have been for the relevant taxable period. However, the appellate court's ultimate ruling on the second issue raised on appeal was that the agency was not entitled to invoke Section 212.12(5)(b) F.S. without showing that Lloyd was guilty of a default listed by the statute. The opinion relies on the fact that, because there was no statutory or regulatory mechanism in place by which Lloyd could have ascertained the prior owners' tax liability, Lloyd, the taxpayer, could not be in default. The court observed the longstanding and frequently reiterated precedent that, "tax laws should be construed strongly in favor of the taxpayer and against the government with all ambiguities or doubts resolved in the taxpayer's favor." The opinion stops short of finding the statute unconstitutional as written or as applied to Lloyd. The foregoing rulings by the appellate court are res judicata for purposes of determining whether or not there was any justiciable issue of law or fact raised by the agency's initial tax assessment. The recommended and final orders appealed from did not reserve jurisdiction to determine entitlement to any fees or costs. The Petitioner made no request for fees and costs to the appellate court and none were awarded. There is no order of the appellate court requiring FDOR or DOAH to award fees or costs. Petitioner makes its claim herein only pursuant to Sections 57.111 and 120.575(5), F.S. The agency has never entered a final order on remand in accord with the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, but clearly, Lloyd ultimately prevailed at the appellate level. Petitioner filed its original fees and costs petition with DOAH within 60 days of the appellate court's mandate. That petition was dismissed by an order herein dated June 28, 1995. The second paragraph of the June 28, 1995 order read, "Petitioner shall have 15 days from date of this order to amend its motion (sic=petition)." The fifteenth day was July 13, 1995. The Amended Petition was served and filed with DOAH on July 14, 1995. Respondent set forth no showing of prejudice by the one day's delay.
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
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner's business records for the period July 1, 1985, through June 30, 1990. Respondent determined a deficiency in sales tax of $174,823.96, including penalty and interest through August 22, 1990. Petitioner objected to the deficiency. Respondent reviewed the audit, and made audit changes that are the subject of this proceeding. The audit changes determined a deficiency in use tax of $76,035.60, including tax ($47,910.10), penalty ($11,977.68), and interest through March 12, 1991 ($16,147.60). Interest accrues daily in the amount of $15.75. A First Revised Notice Of Intent To Make Sales Tax Changes, for the reduced assessment of $76,035.60, was issued on March 21, 1991. A Notice Of Proposed Assessment was issued on July 2, 1991. The Notice Of Proposed Assessment became a Final Assessment on August 31, 1991. Respondent made a prima facie showing of the factual and legal basis for the use tax assessment. Section 120.575(2), Florida Statutes. 1/ The audit and assessment are procedurally correct. Tax, interest, and penalty are correctly computed. Formation Petitioner was incorporated in Florida, in January, 1983, by Mr. B. Theodore Troy, president and sole shareholder. Petitioner's principal place of business is 101 Wymore Road, Suite 224, Altamonte Springs, Florida. Petitioner conducted business as American Advertising Distributors of Central Florida. Mr. Troy and his wife operated the business until liquidating Petitioner's assets in 1992. Operation Petitioner sold direct mail advertising to Florida businesses. Petitioner operated pursuant to a franchise agreement with American Advertising Distributors, Inc., of Mesa, Arizona ("AAD"). AAD was Petitioner's franchisor until AAD filed for bankruptcy in 1990. Petitioner solicited orders from Florida businesses 2/ for advertising coupons designed and printed by AAD in Arizona. AAD mailed the advertising coupons to addressees in Florida who were potential customers for Florida businesses. Florida businesses placed orders with Petitioner on written contracts, or sales agreements, labeled "advertising orders." AAD was not a party to advertising orders. Advertising orders identified "AAD" as American Advertising Distributors of Central Florida, and were imprinted with the name and address of "AAD" in Central Florida. Advertising orders specified the total charges, color and stock of paper, number of addressees, and areas of distribution. Petitioner assisted businesses with rough layout for art work. The rough layout was forwarded to AAD. AAD prepared finished art work and sent copies back to Petitioner for approval by Florida businesses. AAD then printed, collated, and mailed advertising coupons to addressees in Florida, without charge to addressees. Florida businesses paid non-refundable deposits when placing advertising orders. The remaining balance was paid upon approval of final art work. AAD did not submit invoices to Florida businesses. AAD submitted invoices to Petitioner for the amount due from Petitioner. 3/ Petitioner paid AAD 10 days before advertising coupons were mailed. Some advertising coupons were produced by Laberge Printers, Inc., in Orlando, Florida ("Laberge"). Coupons from Laberge were designed, printed, and distributed in the same manner as coupons from AAD. Two types of advertising coupons were provided by AAD and Laberge. The majority of coupons were distributed in coop mailings, or "bonus express" envelopes, containing coupons for up to 20 businesses. Bonus express envelopes were mailed approximately eight times a year. Advertising coupons were also distributed in "solo" mailings. A solo mailing was an individualized, custom printed coupon, or flyer, mailed to individual addressees. The total charges stated in advertising orders included the cost of services provided by Petitioner, AAD, and Laberge. Services included typesetting, art work, printing, inserting envelopes, and mailing. Florida imposed a tax on services, from July 1, 1987, through December 31, 1987. Petitioner collected and remitted tax imposed on the cost of services included in the total charges stated on advertising orders. Except for the services tax, neither Petitioner, AAD, nor Laberge collected and remitted sales or use tax to Florida or to Arizona. Petitioner never utilized resale certificates for any tax other than the tax on services. Collectibility Petitioner was financially able to pay the use tax assessment during 1990 and 1991. No later than August 22, 1990, Mr. Troy knew of the sales tax deficiency of $174,823.96. By March 21, 1991, Mr. Troy knew of the reduced use tax assessment of $76,035.60. During 1990 and 1991, Petitioner made discretionary payments to Mr. Troy of $110,389. Petitioner reported federal taxable income of $58,279 in 1990 and 1991. 4/ In arriving at taxable income, Petitioner deducted payments to Mr. Troy of $59,430 for compensation to officers, management fees, and salary. 5/ From taxable income of $58,279, Petitioner paid approximately $50,959 to Mr. Troy in nondeductible shareholder loans. 6/ Discretionary payments of $110,389, 7/ made to Mr. Troy in 1990 and 1991, were more than adequate to pay the use tax assessment of $76,036.60. At the end of 1991, Petitioner reported fixed assets with a book value of $14,933, a customer list valued at $104,447.72, and retained earnings of $102,605. The book value of intangible assets was $82,943, comprised primarily of the franchise, valued at $35,000, and goodwill of $45,000. Termination Of Operations But Continued Existence AAD petitioned for bankruptcy in 1990. Petitioner subsequently determined that its franchise and goodwill were worthless. In 1992, Petitioner reported a loss of $99,726 for federal tax purposes. All of Petitioner's assets, including its customer lists, were sold or transferred for $1,330 to Florida Mail, Inc. ("Florida Mail"). Florida Mail is a Florida corporation wholly owned by Mr. Troy. Florida Mail sells direct mail advertising; and shares Petitioner's principal place of business. Since 1992, Petitioner has been a shell corporation with $579 in assets.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order upholding the assessment of tax and interest and waive all of the penalty included in the assessment. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of June, 1994. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida with its sole place of business located at 6186 Southwest 8th Street, Miami, Florida. Petitioner operates a delicatessen and restaurant in the same building at the above location. Petitioner's restaurant prepares food to be served to paying customers who consume that food at tables provided in the restaurant for that purpose. This food is served by waiters and waitresses who prepare guest checks which separately indicate the amount of sales tax charged thereon. Petitioner's delicatessen sells unprepared food to customers who do not consume that food on the premises and for whom no eating facilities are provided. The items sold by Petitioner's delicatessen are grocery-type items. A common cash register serves the two facilities, which cash register has a separate key for the sale of delicatessen items and a separate key for the sale of restaurant items. The restaurant and delicatessen occupy the same general space and are not separated by a wall or other physical barrier. Petitioner's Exhibit 4 contains a list of those items sold on the delicatessen or grocery side of Petitioner's business. The accuracy of that list was not challenged in this proceeding and it is found as a matter of fact that those items on Petitioner's Exhibit 4 accurately reflect the items sold by Petitioner across his delicatessen counter. That list includes items such as bread, rolls, bagels, milk, beer, soda, catsup, canned goods and various meats such as salami, bologna, franks, fish and ham. Petitioner collects sales tax for those items sold in the restaurant portion of the business and does not collect sales tax on those items sold in the delicatessen portion of the business. The taxable and nontaxable items are segregated and distinguished on the cash register tapes. Petitioner has so conducted his business from its inception in 1959 through the audit period in question. Throughout that period of time Petitioner regularly maintained separate and distinct records sufficient to allocate sales between taxable restaurant sales and nontaxable delicatessen or grocery sales. Petitioner's tax returns have reflected this behavior for the above period of time. When the business first opened Mr. Leo Hoffman, the owner of Petitioner corporation, contacted the Department of Revenue by telephone and was told that the foregoing method of operation was proper. Petitioner has always filed tax returns reflecting this activity and such returns were apparently not questioned until the audit at issue here. The period of time for which Petitioner was audited in this cause was January 1, 1976, to December 31, 1978. On March 12, 1979, Respondent issued a proposed sales and use tax delinquency assessment against Petitioner in the amount of $40,018.14. This assessment was based on the total sales revenue generated by both of Petitioner's enterprises and did not allocate sales revenue between the delicatessen portion of the business and the restaurant portion of the business. On May 10, 1979, the Respondent issued a revised proposed sales tax delinquency assessment against Petitioner in the amount of $33,259.20. This revised assessment was based on the total sales revenue generated by both of Petitioner's separate enterprises and did not allocate sales revenue between the delicatessen portion of the business and the restaurant portion of the business. Petitioner did pay approximately $12,000 in sales tax for the subject audit period. That was the sales tax Petitioner believed he owed for the restaurant portion of his business. The additional assessment is apparently the sales tax (with penalty and interest) Respondent believes is owed for the delicatessen portion of Petitioner's business. The items sold on the delicatessen side of Petitioner's business represent approximately 75 percent of his gross revenue. The items sold on the restaurant, or taxable side of Petitioner's business, represents approximately 25 percent of his gross revenue. The assessment by Respondent against Petitioner was based, at least in part, upon Rule 12A-1.11(1), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner holds a restaurant license from the State of Florida, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. Petitioner also holds a retail sales license from Dade County for its delicatessen operation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: To the extent that the assessment for unpaid sales tax is based upon sales made by the delicatessen or grocery side of Petitioner's business, such assessment is invalid and should be withdrawn. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June 1980 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark J. Wolff, Esquire Sparber, Shevin, Rosen, Shapo & Heilbronner, P.A. First Federal Building, 30th Floor One Southeast Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Linda C. Procta, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated to all facts in this proceeding. Those facts found relevant to a determination of the issue are as follows: Petitioner, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, is a New York corporation and is functionally divided into two divisions: the Long Lines Department and the General Department. Through its Long Lines Department, petitioner is a federally regulated public utility and common carrier which furnishes interstate and international telecommunications services. Long Lines is responsible generally for the construction, operation and maintenance of a nationwide system of interstate telecommunications facilities and related equipment which serve to interconnect the facilities of over 1700 operating telecommunications companies in the United States as well as telecommunications systems abroad. Some of these facilities extend into and through the State of Florida. In performing this interstate business, Long Lines operates, and thus has property or employees or both in 49 states, including Florida. Through its General Department, petitioner is the parent corporation of 21 operating telecommunications companies (known as "Associated Companies"), Western Electric Company, Inc. ("Western") and Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. ("Bell Labs"). The General Department holds and manages the stock owned in these subsidiaries and two minority owned companies, and provides capital. advice and assistance to them. It conducts these activities principally in New York and New Jersey and conducts no business and has no property or employees in Florida. The only business activities in the State of Florida during 1972, 1973 and 1974 were conducted through petitioner's Long Lines Department in connection with the operation of the interstate and international long distance telecommunications network. None of the Associated Companies is organized under the laws of Florida or has its headquarters in Florida. The Only Associated Company which conducts business or has property or employees within Florida is the Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (hereinafter "Southern Bell"), a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner. Southern Bell files its own separate Florida income tax returns and during the period 1972-1974 paid approximately $10 million in income tax to Florida. The respondent concurs that petitioner is entitled to deduct 100 percent of the dividends paid by Southern Bell to petitioner. Western, also a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner, is a manufacturing corporation with its own Board of Directors and officers, doing business in all 50 states. During the period 1972-1974 Western paid approximately $1.7 million in income tax to Florida. The respondent concurs that petitioner is entitled to deduct 100 percent of the dividends paid by Western to petitioner. For each of the 1972, 1973 and 1974 tax years, petitioner has filed a federal consolidated income tax return, and has made a valid election under Section 243 of the Internal Revenue Code for each of those years. That provision of the federal tax law permits a domestic corporation to deduct 100 percent of the dividends received from its wholly-owned domestic subsidiaries. Petitioner's federal income tax returns were audited by the Internal Revenue Service and the respective tax liabilities were determined and paid for each of the years in question. The Internal Revenue Service did not tax dividends received by petitioner from its affiliates. Petitioner timely filed its Florida corporate income tax returns for the years ending December 31, 1972, December 31, 1973 and December 31, 1974. Petitioner did not elect and was not required to file a Florida consolidated income tax return under Section 220.131, Florida Statutes. For each of the years in question, petitioner reported on line 1--"federal taxable income (line 30, Form 1120 or corresponding line on related form 1120 series, 990C or 990T)"- -of its Florida corporation income tax return (Form F-1120) its taxable income for federal income tax purposes computed as if petitioner had filed a separate federal income tax return for each of the years in question and for each preceding taxable year for which it was a member of an affiliated group. These amounts were: 1972 $ 94,020,281 1973 $213,364,165 1974 $110,770,402 On its Florida corporation income tax return for each of the years in question, petitioner made the additions and subtractions required by the form of the return in computing "adjusted federal income" and apportioned this amount by the prescribed three-factor formula to obtain "Florida net income." The Department of Revenue adjusted the amount of "federal taxable income" and hence "Florida net income" of petitioner for each of the years in question by adding thereto 15 percent of the dividends received from subsidiaries which were deductible for federal income tax purposes under Section 243 of the Internal Revenue Code. On April 10, 1978, the Department issued a notice of proposed deficiency for petitioner's tax years ended December 31, 1972, December 31, 1973 and December 31, 1974. The total amount of the proposed deficiency was $1,131,158, computed as follows: YEAR AUDITED TAX TAX AS FILED DEFICIENCY 1972 $426,468 $122,365 $304,103 1973 668,597 281,168 387,429 1974 594,300 154,674 439,626 Total $1,689,365 $558,207 $1,131,158 After a timely protest to the proposed deficiencies was filed by the petitioner, correspondence and an informal conference between the parties was had. Finally, on April 16, 1981, the Department issued a letter denying the protest and petitioner petitioned for an administrative hearing. Through correspondence and discussions with the petitioner, the Department of Revenue has taken the position that it would allow only an 85 percent dividend deduction for the dividends received by petitioner from those affiliates which were not subject to the Florida corporate income tax code. Petitioner is seeking to take a 100 percent deduction of all dividends which it received from its subsidiaries, as it did on its federal income tax returns. The dividends received by petitioner which the Department is attempting to subject to Florida tax by its proposed deficiency assessment are derived from its equity investment in its subsidiaries and they represent to petitioner a return on such investment. Since the actual capital, however, for that investment is furnished primarily by public investors, the principal use of the dividends received by petitioner is to meet its obligation to its shareholders and bondholders for the payment of dividends and interest. For example, in 1974 petitioner received dividends from the Associated Companies, Western and other affiliates in the amount of $2,538,443,000 and paid dividends to shareholders in the amount of $2,039,800,000 and interest on its long and intermediate term debt of $475,670,000. Petitioner, therefore, serves as the investor interface between the investing public and its subsidiary companies, whereby the purchase of petitioner's stock or debt issues actually represents an investment in the earnings of the Bell System. Petitioner, acting through its General Department, thus provides the avenue by which the subsidiaries pass their net earnings to the investing public. The income which the Department seeks to tax is derived from dividends received by petitioner primarily from earnings generated by the property and employees of the Associated Companies which are devoted to furnishing intrastate and interstate telecommunications services in their operating territories in states other than the State of Florida. These earnings are subject to income taxes in all states in which the Associated Companies provide telecommunications services that impose income taxes on corporations. The dividends received by petitioner do not contribute to the funding of Long Lines since (1) the pervasive regulation under which petitioner's subsidiaries operate limits their earnings to that amount sufficient for the needs of their own operations and effectively prevents those earnings from being available for use in other businesses and (2) earnings paid out as dividends by petitioner's subsidiaries are principally required to be passed to the public investors in the Bell System, through petitioner's General Department, in order to meet dividend and interest obligations to these outside shareholders and bondholders. During the tax years in question, the Department of Revenue had not promulgated any rule with respect to the disallowance of a deduction for 100 percent of dividends received as provided for under Section 243 of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Florida corporate income tax return forms did not require any such add-back or adjustment. During the 1980 legislative session, an amendment to Chapter 220, Florida Statutes, was proposed which would have changed the definition of "affiliated group of corporations." Such proposed legislation was not passed and did not become law.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that that portion of the Department's proposed assessment of deficiencies for the 1972, 1973 and 1974 tax years as is based upon dividends received by the petitioner from its affiliates be withdrawn as being contrary to law and invalid. Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of April, 1982. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 28th day of April, 1982.
The Issue The primary issue in this proceeding is whether the taxable income of Jaffie Contracting Company of Florida, Inc. can be consolidated with the taxable income of Arlen Realty and Development Corp. in consolidated Florida Corporation Income Tax Returns for the taxable years ending February 28, 1973, and February 28, 1974. A second issue is whether Jaffie Contracting Company of Florida, Inc. should be liable for penalties for the underpayment of estimated taxes if it is determined that Jaffie Contracting Company of Florida, Inc. is not entitled to be included in Arlen Realty and Development Corp`s consolidated Florida Corporation Income Tax Returns for the fiscal years ending February 28, 1973, and February 28, 1974.
Findings Of Fact In a joint stipulation dated December 8, 1978, filed with the Hearing Officer, the parties stipulated to the relevant facts of this proceeding. Stipulation of Facts for Case No. 78-1800, together with the appendices thereto, are adopted by reference and made a part of the Findings of Fact of this Recommended Order. The consolidated Florida Corporation Income Tax Returns filed by Arlen Realty and Development Corp. pursuant to the first sentence of Section 220.131(1), Florida Statutes, for the fiscal years ending February 28, 1973, and February 28, 1974, indicated that there was no tax liability for the affiliated group of corporations which included Petitioner, Jaffie Contracting Company of Florida, Inc., a subsidiary of Jaffie Contracting Company, Inc. The Respondent, Department of Revenue, asserted deficiencies against Petitioner's taxable income separating it from that of Arlen Realty and Development Corp`s affiliated group for the fiscal years ending February 28, 1973, and February 28, 1974, in the amounts of $10,491.30 and $17,548.75, respectively. The Department had determined that Petitioner was not properly includable as a member of Arlen's affiliated group of corporations for Florida Tax purposes. Respondent additionally proposed penalties for the failure to make declarations of estimated tax for the same fiscal years in the amount of $751.30 and $1,356.98, respectively. The basis for the proposed deficiencies was that Petitioner did not qualify for inclusion in Arlen Realty and Development Corp`s consolidated Florida corporation income tax return because Petitioner's parent, Jaffie Contracting Company, was not subject to the Florida tax imposed by the Florida Income Tax Code and was not included in the consolidated Florida return, thereby breaking the chain of ownership of the affiliated group of corporations. Petitioner filed a protest against the proposed deficiencies. Following the initial consideration and reconsideration by the Department of Revenue, the proposed deficiencies were sustained. On November 27, 1978, a pre-hearing conference was held for the purposes of defining the issues in the case. Petitioner and Respondent filed Briefs, and Petitioner filed a Reply Brief prior to the hearing at which oral argument on the legal issues was heard. Both parties submitted excellent memoranda and Proposed Recommended Orders. Petitioner contends: That it elected to file its return under the first sentence of Section 220.131(1), and contends it has satisfied all the statutory requirements and that the deficiencies for the fiscal years ending February 28, 1973, and February 28, 1974, are invalid; that it is not liable for penalties for failure to file declaration of estimated taxes. Respondent contends: That one of the members of the affiliated group of corporations is not eligible to be included in the affiliated group of corporations inasmuch as it was not subject to tax under the Florida Income Tax Code, Chapter 220, Florida Statutes, as required by the first sentence of Chapter 220.131(1); that an affiliated group of corporations for federal purposes is not an affiliated group for Florida tax purposes; that the failure of the Petitioner to pay estimated taxes pursuant to provisions of Section 220.34(2)(a) subject Petitioner to the imposition of penalties.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Florida Corporation Income Tax Division deficiencies assessed against Jaffie Contracting Company of Florida, Inc. by the Department for the fiscal years ending February 28, 1973, and February 28, 1974, including the applicable penalties be upheld. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald T. Hart, Esquire William P. Battaglia, Esquire Post Office Box 1876 Suite 701, Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Cecil L. Davis, Jr. Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
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.
The Issue The issue presented is what is Peaches' basis in the Sterling stock?
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute as to the material facts in the instant case, Exhibit 1 presented at the hearing is a composite exhibit which is comprised of the Petitioner's U.S. Corporate Income Tax Return and Florida Corporate Income Tax Return for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973. Exhibit 3 is the Respondent's document entitled "Income Tax Audit Changes" which reflects the adjustments made by the Respondent based upon a review of the Petitioner's return and the reasons for assessing the deficiency. Exhibit 2 is a composite exhibit comprised of the Petitioner's Amended Protest of the proposed deficiency and the Respondent's letter denying the same. Petitioner's federal return (Exhibit 1) Schedule D, Part II, reflects the 31,500 shares were acquired in 1958 at a cost basis of $10,191.00. These shares were subsequently sold by Peaches in 1972 for $1,160,131.00 or a gain of $1,149,940.00. This gain was reported on line 9(a) of the federal tax return as a portion of the "net capital gains." On its 1973 Florida Corporate Income Tax Return, Petitioner computed the income using the basis for the stock as of January 2, 1972, thereby reducing its reported income by $1,013,040.00 from the federal tax. The $1,013,040.00 reflects the amount of appreciation in the value of the stock between the transferrer's acquisition and January 1, 1972, the effective date of the Florida corporate income tax code. The shares of stock of Sterling Drugs were acquired by Peaches in 1971 from the controlling stockholder who made a contribution to capital to the corporation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Petitioner's petition be denied and that the assessment against the Petitioner in the amount of $29,435.00 together with interest be assessed. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin J. Stacker Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James S. Moody, Jr., Esquire Trinkle and Redman, P.A. 306 West Reynolds Street Plant City, Florida 33566 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA PEACHES OF FLORIDA, INC. Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-1433 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. / NOTICE TO: JAMES S. MOODY, JR., ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER TRINKLE AND REDMAN, P. A. 306 WEST REYNOLDS STREET PLANT CITY, FLORIDA 33566 E. WILSON CRUMP, II, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE BOX 5557 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304 You will please take notice that the Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida, acting as head of the Department of Revenue, at its meeting on the 5th day of April, 1979, approved the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer dated January 22, 1979, with paragraph 3 of the "Findings of Fact" therein amended to read as follows: "The shares of stock of Sterling Drugs were acquired by Peaches in 1972 from the controlling stockholder who made a contribution to capital to the corporation", in accordance with Stipulation of the Petitioner and Respondent filed in the case on March 1, 1979. This constitutes final agency action by the Department of Revenue. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF FLORIDA ROOM 104, CARLTON BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice was furnished by mail to James S. Moody, Jr., Esquire, Trinkle and Redman, P. A., 306 West Reynolds Street, Plant City, Florida 33566, Attorney for Petitioner; by hand delivery to Wilson Crump, II, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Post Office fox 5557, Tallahassee, Florida 32304, Attorney for Respondent and Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings; Room 530, Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida this 5th day of April, 1979. JOHN D. MORIARTY, ATTORNEY
The Issue Whether this cause should be dismissed for Petitioner's failure to comply with Section 120.80(14)(b)3., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is contesting an assessment of taxes, pursuant to an audit conducted by Respondent Department of Revenue. The total amount of the assessment was $32,312.24. Following the audit, in a letter to the Department's auditor dated April 17, 2006, Petitioner's counsel stated that taxes "in the amount of $5,744.80 is something [Petitioner] would be obligated to pay under the laws of the State of Florida, and as such, they are willing to do so. They would be willing to pay interest due on this money."1/ This statement constitutes a clear admission that Petitioner owes the stated amount of the tax, $5,744.80, plus interest that accrues daily. Petitioner's Memorandum makes the un-sworn statement that: At the time the parties met to discuss the assessment with the representative of the Department of Revenue, Martha Watkins, they offered to pay $5,744.80 of the taxes but were informed it was part of the $32,312.24, and they could either pay it all or contest it. At all times material hereto the petitioners have stood ready to pay the $5,744.80. On April 17, 2006, we wrote a letter to Martha Watkins making this offer for the second time. On August 17, 2006, we again wrote to the Department of Revenue attaching our letter of April 17, 2006, again making this offer. At no time was a response received to either letter. The August 17, 2006, letter alluded to in Petitioner's Memorandum is not of record and neither a copy of that letter, nor an affidavit of its contents, has been submitted by either party. At no time has Petitioner asserted that any amount of tax money was unequivocally tendered to Respondent. No affidavit to that effect has been filed in this case. The Second Affidavit of Martha Watkins, submitted with the Department of Revenue's timely Memorandum states, in pertinent part: I conducted the audit of C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., from which arose the challenged assessment and this controversy. During the course of the audit, and subsequent communication with C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., regarding the audit and assessment of taxes and interest, C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., made at least one settlement offer, that was unacceptable, and was rejected by the Department as such. At no time did C AND C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., unequivocally tender to me, or unequivocally offer to tender to me, the uncontested tax and applicable interest, and at no time did I refuse to accept any payment of taxes. On September 21, 2006, a Request for Administrative Hearing was filed with the Department of Revenue. On September 28, 2006, the Executive Director of the Department of Revenue entered an Order Dismissing the Petition with Leave to Amend. That Order reads, in pertinent part: On September 21, 2006, the Florida Department of Revenue received a "Request for Administrative Hearing" from Petitioner, C & C Mechanical Contractors. While the document clearly is a request for hearing, the petition does not state what the Petitioner is disputing. A record search shows that at least one Notice of Proposed Assessment was issued by the Department on June 15, 2006 to this Petitioner. It is impossible to determine from the petition whether this proposed assessment is being challenged. However, because this request was sent within the applicable time frame to dispute the Notice of Proposed Assessment, the Department will treat it as such. As required by law, the notice stated that a formal protest for an administrative hearing had to be received in the Office of the General Counsel within sixty days after the assessment became final and had to be in compliance with chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The petition fails to meet the requirements contained in chapter 120, Florida Statutes and Uniform Rule 28- 106.201, Florida Administrative Code, the appropriate rule for use in filing a petition requesting a hearing involving disputed issues of material fact. A copy of the appropriate rule is provided with this order. Specifically, the petition does not contain: (1) a statement of when and how the Petitioner received notice of the agency decision; (2) all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; (3) a concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts the Petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; (4) a statement of the specific rules or statutes the Petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action, and (5) a statement of the relief sought by the Petitioner, stating precisely the action the petitioner wishes the agency to take with respect to the agency's proposed action. Because of these deficiencies, Petitioner's documentation must be dismissed. IT IS ORDERED: The petition for hearing filed by Petitioner is DISMISSED. Such dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner to amend the petition to provide the information listed above. . . . On October 11, 2006, the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing was filed with the Department of Revenue. That Amended Petition stated, in pertinent part: 1. The Petitioner received a certified letter dated June 15, 2006, stating taxes were due and owing in the amount of $32,312.24. This amount included $5,774.80 in fabrication cost taxes which the Petitioner does not object too [sic]. The balance of the $32,312.24 was for taxes on items sold to non-taxable entities. The Petitioner would object to these taxes and gives as grounds the following: Items sold to non-taxable entities are not subject to the Florida Tax Code. The department made a determination the items sold to the non-taxable entities were taxable stating the contractor, in this case the Petitioner, was the end user. Florida Tax Code states in part ". . . a determination whether a particular transaction is properly characterized as an exempt sale to a government entity or a taxable sale to a contractor shall be based on the substance of the transaction rather than the form in which the transaction is cast." The department "shall adopt rules that give special consideration to factors that govern the status of the tangible personal property before its affixation to real property." The Department of Revenue has adopted a rule which is in violation of the incident [sic] of legislature and contrary to Florida Statute 212.08.2/ (Emphasis supplied). The Amended Petition constitutes a clear admission that the $5,744.80 portion of the taxes due under the audit were both uncontested and owed, as of October 11, 2006. The first Affidavit of Martha Watkins, filed November 28, 2006, in support of the pending Motion to Dismiss, states, in pertinent part: I am a [sic] sui juris and otherwise competent to testify in this matter. I am employed by the Florida Department of Revenue in the position of Tax Auditor III. I am familiar with the accounts, accounting methods, and maintenance of records at the Florida Department of Revenue for sales tax, interest, and penalties. I am authorized by the Department of Revenue to make affidavit regarding the payment status of sales taxes, interest and penalties relative to registered Florida dealers. I have reviewed, and have personal knowledge of the accounts of the Florida Department of Revenue regarding tax payment of C&C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., a Florida corporation that has in the past been issued a Certificate of Registration by the Department of Revenue. According to the records of the Department of Revenue, as of November 27, 2006, C&C MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., has not paid any sums to the Department of Revenue against the assessed outstanding balance of sales tax, interest or penalties, since prior to April 16, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Revenue enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 27th day of February, 2007.
