Findings Of Fact Petitioner's business activities include the sale of tangible personal property such as caskets and burial vaults. The written sales contract utilized by Petitioner sets forth the amount of sales tax and includes that sum in the total amount which the customer agrees to pay. The contracts are in the form of a note, containing a promise to pay, and were sold at discount by the Petitioner at certain times during the audit period. The contracts require a down payment and installment payments thereafter. The contracts further contain a clause allowing the customer three days in which to cancel the contract, under which circumstances the customer is reimbursed all moneys paid by him to Petitioner. Under Petitioner's retained- title, conditional-sale contract, if the customer cancels the contract or stops making payments at any time subsequent to the initial three-day period, Petitioner retains all sums which have been paid to it by the customer. Petitioner's business practice is to pay its salesmen commission from the down payment on a contract. Petitioner operates on the accrual method of accounting, and its sales tax liability is entered on its books at the time of the sale. Petitioner pays the total sales tax due at the time that it enters into the contract. When a contract is cancelled (after the initial three-day cancellation period), Petitioner claims a credit against its current liability for the full amount of sales tax charged on the transaction when it files its sales tax report for the month, even though at least the down payment, and frequently additional payments, has been collected from the customer. On audit, Respondent allowed full credit for the amount of sales tax when a contract had been cancelled within the three-day cancellation period, but disallowed that portion of the credits claimed which related to the down payments and installments which the Petitioner retained when a contract was cancelled after the three-day period. Respondent did allow, however, a credit for taxes attributable to the unpaid balance under each cancelled contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: The Department of Revenue enter its final order disallowing to Petitioner a credit for taxes attributable to amounts retained by it upon the cancellation of its installment sales contracts. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of May, 1980. LINDA M .RIGOT 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 29th day of May, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Cynthia Savage Comptroller Restlawn, Inc. 2600 Ribualt Scenic Dr Post Office Box 9306 Jacksonville, FL 32208 E. Wilson Crump, II, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301 John D. Moriarty, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mr. Randy Miller Executive Director Department of Revenue Room 102, Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue Pursuant to Subsection 320.641(3), Florida Statutes (2006),1 the issues in the case are whether Nissan North America, Inc.'s (Respondent), proposed termination of the dealer agreement with Classic Nissan, Inc. (Petitioner), was clearly permitted by the franchise agreement, undertaken in good faith, undertaken for good cause, and based on material and substantial breach of the dealer agreement; and whether the grounds relied upon for termination have been applied in a uniform and consistent manner.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to definitions set forth at Section 320.60, Florida Statutes, the Petitioner is a "motor vehicle dealer" and the Respondent is a "licensee." In 1997, the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into an agreement whereby the Petitioner took control of an already- existing Nissan dealership located in Orlando, Florida. In 1999, the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into a Dealer Sales and Service Agreement (Dealer Agreement), which is a "franchise agreement" as defined at Subsection 320.60(1), Florida Statutes. The Respondent's proposed termination of the 1999 Dealer Agreement is at issue in this proceeding. At all times material to this case, the dealership has been owned by Classic Holding Company. Classic Holding Company is owned by four members of the Holler family. Christopher A. Holler is identified in the Dealer Agreement as the principal owner and the executive manager of the dealership. The family owns a number of other dealerships, representing a variety of auto manufacturers. The Respondent does not sell cars at retail to individual purchasers. Standard Provision Section 3.A. of the Dealer Agreement requires that the Petitioner "actively and effectively promote" vehicle sales to individual retail purchasers. Standard Provision Section 3.B. of the Dealer Agreement permits the Respondent to develop and select the criteria by which sales are measured, as long as the measurement criteria is reasonable. Standard Provision Section 12.B.1.a. of the Dealer Agreement permits the Respondent to terminate a dealership when a dealer fails to substantially meet its vehicle sales obligation. The Dealer Agreement includes examples of various criteria that may be used to measure dealer performance. Specifically included among the examples is the calculation of a dealer's "sales penetration" within a defined geographic "Primary Market Area" (PMA) around the dealership as compared to other local and regional dealers. Sales penetration is calculated by dividing a dealer's total new vehicle sales by the number of competitive new vehicles registered in the dealer’s PMA. Data related to vehicle registration was compiled by R. L. Polk (Polk), a nationally recognized organization commonly relied upon in the auto industry for such information. There was no evidence offered to suggest the Polk data was incorrect. The dealer's sales penetration is compared to Nissan's regional sales penetration to determine the dealer's sales performance as measured against other Nissan dealer's in the region. A dealer performing at 100 percent of the regional average is performing at an "average" level. Otherwise stated, an average dealer is performing at a "C" level. The use of sales penetration calculations as a measurement of dealer performance is common in the automotive industry. The Respondent has used sales penetration as a measurement of dealer sales performance for more than 20 years. The Respondent's use of sales penetration as a measurement of dealer performance was reasonable or was permitted by the specific terms of the Dealer Agreement. The Respondent's use of the sales penetration measurements was widely communicated to dealers, who were advised on a routine basis as to the performance of their dealerships compared to local dealers and on a regional basis. The Petitioner knew, or should have known, that sales penetration was being used to measure the Petitioner's sales performance. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that the Respondent calculated sales penetration in order to disadvantage the Petitioner relative to other Nissan dealers in the region. At the hearing, the Petitioner suggested alternative standards by which sales performance should be reviewed, including consideration of total sales volume. The use of sales volume to measure retail effectiveness would penalize dealerships in smaller markets and fail to reflect the market opportunity available to each dealer. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that total sales volume more accurately measured the Petitioner's sales performance than did sales penetration. The Petitioner suggested that the use of sales penetration to substantiate the proposed termination of the Dealer Agreement at issue in this case was unreasonable and unfair because approximately half of Nissan's dealerships will be performing below 100 percent of the regional average at any given time, yet the Petitioner has not proposed termination of dealership agreements with half of its dealer network; however, the proposed termination at issue in this case is not based merely on the Petitioner's sales penetration. In 2002, the Petitioner's sales penetration was 110.5 percent, well above the regional average. At that time, the Respondent was preparing to introduce a number of new vehicles to the market. Some of the new vehicles were revisions of previous models, while others were intended to compete with products against which Nissan had not previously competed. Nissan representatives believed that the new models would substantially expand sales opportunities for its dealerships, and they encouraged their dealer network to prepare for the new environment. Some dealers responded by increasing staff levels and modernizing, or constructing new facilities. The Petitioner failed to take any substantive action to prepare for the new model lineup. Beginning in 2003, and continuing throughout the relevant period of this proceeding, the Petitioner's regional sales penetration went into decline. From 2002 to 2003, the Petitioner's annualized sales penetration fell more than 30 points to 85.13 in 2003. The Petitioner's sales penetration for 2004 was 65.08 percent. The Petitioner's sales penetration for the first quarter of 2005 was 61.78 percent. Following the introduction of the new models and during the relevant period of this proceeding, regional Nissan sales increased by about 40 percent. By 2004, the average Nissan dealer in the Petitioner's region had a sales penetration of 108.8 percent of the regional average. Through the first quarter of 2005, the average dealer in the region had a sales penetration of 108.6 percent of the regional average. Compared to all other Florida Nissan dealers during the relevant period of this proceeding, the Petitioner was ranked, at its best, 54th of the 57 Florida Nissan dealerships and was ranked lowest in the state by January 2005. Every Florida Nissan dealership, other than the Petitioner, sold more new cars in 2004 than in 2002. The Petitioner sold 200 fewer vehicles in 2004 than it had two years earlier. The three other Orlando-area Nissan dealers experienced significant sales growth at the same time the Petitioner's performance declined. The Petitioner has suggested that the Respondent failed to provide the information to appropriate management of the dealership. The Dealer Agreement indicated that Christopher A. Holler was the executive manager of the dealership; however, his address was located in Winter Park, Florida, and he did not maintain an office in the dealership. The Respondent's representatives most often met with managers at the dealership, who testified that they communicated with Mr. Holler. On several occasions as set forth herein, Nissan representatives met with Mr. Holler for discussions and corresponded with him. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that the Petitioner was unaware that its sales penetration results were declining or that the Petitioner was unaware that the Respondent was concerned with the severity of the decline. The Respondent communicated with the Petitioner on a routine basis as it did with all dealers. As the Petitioner's sales performance declined, the Respondent communicated the monthly sales report information to the Petitioner, and the topic of declining sales was the subject of a continuing series of discussions between the parties. In February 2003, Tim Pierson, the Respondent's district operations manager (DOM), met with the Petitioner's on- site manager, John Sekula, and discussed the dealership's declining sales penetration. Mr. Sekula was subsequently transferred by the ownership group to another auto manufacturer's dealership. In August 2003, Mr. Pierson met with the Petitioner's new manager, Darren Hutchinson, as well as with a representative from the ownership group, to discuss the continuing decline in sales penetration, as well as an alleged undercapitalization of the dealership and the lack of an on-site executive manager with authority to control dealership operations. On October 1, 2003, the Respondent issued a Notice of Default (NOD) charging that the Petitioner was in default of the Dealer Agreement for the failure to "retain a qualified executive manager" and insufficient capitalization of the dealership. In December 2003, Mr. Pierson met with Christopher A. Holler to discuss the dealership's problems. By the time of the meeting, Mr. Hutchinson had been designated as the executive manager, although Mr. Hutchinson's decision-making authority does not appear to have extended to financial operations. During that meeting, based on the Petitioner's failure to meet the capitalization requirements and respond to the deterioration in sales, Mr. Pierson inquired as to whether the Petitioner was interested in selling the dealership, but Mr. Pierson testified without contradiction that Mr. Holler responded "no." Mr. Hutchinson explained at the hearing that he asked the question because there was little apparent effort being made to address the deficiencies at the dealership, and he was attempting to ascertain the Petitioner's intentions. Mr. Hutchinson was directed to prepare a plan to address the Petitioner's customer service rating, which had fallen to the lowest in the area. Based on an apparent belief that the ownership group was going to remedy the Respondent's concerns about capitalization, the Respondent extended the compliance deadline set forth in the NOD, but the extended deadline passed without any alteration of the dealership's capitalization. A letter to the Respondent dated March 25, 2004, allegedly from Mr. Holler, noted that sales and customer service scores had improved; however, there was no credible evidence presented during the hearing to support the claimed improvement in either sales or customer service. The letter also stated that the capitalization of the dealership would be increased in April 2004 and that new vehicle orders were being reduced. On March 19, 2004, Mr. Pierson spoke with Mr. Holler and believed, based on the conversation, that a meeting would be scheduled to discuss the sales and capitalization issues. In anticipation of the meeting, Pierson sent the sales penetration reports directly to Mr. Holler, but the meeting did not occur. There was no additional capital placed into the dealership during April 2004. In April 2004, Andy Delbrueck, a new DOM for the area, met with Mr. Hutchinson to discuss the continuing decline in sales penetration through the end of March 2004. Other dealers in the area were experiencing increased sales at this time, but the Petitioner's regional sales penetration continued to decline and was below the region for almost all Nissan models. Mr. Hutchinson advised that he was hiring additional staff and had sufficient advertising funds to return the regional sales penetration averages by June. In early May 2004, Mr. Delbrueck and a Nissan vice president, Patrick Doody, sent a letter about the Petitioner's declining sales performance to Mr. Holler and requested that the Petitioner prepare a plan to address the problem. On May 18, 2004, Mr. Delbrueck again met with Mr. Hutchinson and discussed the decline in sales performance and customer service scores, as well as the issue of the dealership's undercapitalization. A May 25, 2004, letter to the Respondent, allegedly from Mr. Holler, noted that the dealership's sales penetration had improved, that additional staff had been hired, and that the Petitioner anticipated reaching or exceeding the regional sales penetration average by the end of the third quarter of 2004. The Petitioner never reached regional sales penetration averages following this letter, and, at the time it was written, there had been no material improvement in the dealership's sales penetration. On June 17, 2004, Mr. Delbrueck met with Mr. Holler to discuss the continuing decline in the Petitioner's sales performance. Mr. Delbrueck believed, based on the meeting, that Mr. Holler was aware of the problem and would make the changes necessary to improve sales, including employing additional sales staff. On July 7, 2004, the Respondent issued an Amended NOD, citing the continuing decline in the Petitioner's sales performance as grounds for the default, in addition to the previous concerns related to capitalization that were identified in the earlier NOD. The Amended NOD established a deadline of November 29, 2004, by which time the cited deficiencies were to be remedied. One day later, Mr. Delbrueck met with Mr. Hutchinson, discussed the Amended NOD, and made various suggestions as to how the Petitioner could improve the dealership's sales, including marketing and staffing changes. Mr. Delbrueck also offered to send in a trained Nissan representative, William Hayes, to review dealership operations and provide suggestions to improve conditions at the facility and ultimately to increase car sales. Mr. Hutchinson accepted the offer. A letter to the Respondent dated July 23, 2004, allegedly from Christopher A. Holler, noted that staffing levels had increased as had sales for the month of July; however, there was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that any substantive increase in staffing had occurred or that the Petitioner's sales penetration had increased. The letter contained no specific plan for remedying the problems cited in the Amended NOD. In late July 2004, a Nissan training representative, William Hayes, performed a focused review of the Petitioner's operations and provided a list of specific recommendations intended to improve the Petitioner's sales performance. He met with Mr. Hutchinson at the dealership and discussed the list of recommendations. At that time, Mr. Hutchinson stated that he believed the recommendations were useful. On September 10, 2004, Nissan Vice President Doody sent another letter to Mr. Holler referencing the Petitioner's declining sales performance and, again, requesting that the Petitioner prepare a plan to address the issue. A September 30, 2004, letter to the Respondent, allegedly from Mr. Holler, noted that staffing levels had been increased, a new executive manager (Mr. Hutchinson) had been hired, advertising funds had been increased, and customer service scores had improved. However, by that time, Mr. Hutchinson had been employed at the dealership since at least August of 2003, and there was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that staffing levels, advertising funds, or customer satisfaction scores had been materially increased. On October 18, 2004, Nissan Vice President Doody, sent another letter to Mr. Holler about the Petitioner's declining sales performance, noting that whatever efforts had been made by the Petitioner to improve sales had been unsuccessful. Thereafter, Mr. Doody arranged a meeting with Mr. Delbrueck, Mr. Holler, and another member of the Holler family to discuss the deteriorating situation at the dealership and between the parties. The meeting occurred on October 26, 2004, during which the Nissan representatives addressed the issues including under- capitalization, declining sales, and customer satisfaction scores. The Nissan representatives noted the Petitioner's failure to respond to any of the continuing problems and advised the Petitioner that, if the situation did not improve, the Respondent could initiate proceedings to terminate the Dealer Agreement. At the hearing, the Nissan representatives testified that the Holler family members in attendance at the October 26th meeting had no response during the discussion and offered no specific plan to resolve the situation. The Petitioner presented no credible evidence to the contrary. Shortly after the meeting, and in the absence of any substantive attempt by the Petitioner to resolve the concerns set forth in the NODs, the Nissan representatives decided to pursue termination of the Dealer Agreement if the Petitioner's sales penetration continued to be unsatisfactory. The Petitioner's regional sales penetration as of November 2004 was 65.69 percent. The year-end sales penetration for 2004 was 64.5 percent of regional average. On January 7, 2005, Mr. Delbrueck met with Mr. Hutchinson to discuss the dealership's sales performance. By that time, more than a year had passed since Mr. Hutchinson's designation as executive manager, yet the dealership's sales performance had not improved. Mr. Delbrueck inquired as to whether the Petitioner would be interested in using an additional Nissan resource (the EDGE program) designed to identify specific deficiencies in the sales process. The EDGE program included an extensive review of the sales process from the customer perspective, including a six-month survey period and four hidden camera "mystery shopper" visits. There was a charge to dealers participating in the EDGE program. Mr. Hutchinson told Mr. Delbrueck that he would have to discuss the program with the owners. The Petitioner subsequently chose not to participate. During the January 7th meeting, Mr. Delbrueck also encouraged Mr. Hutchinson to hire additional sales staff. At the hearing, Mr. Hutchinson testified that at the time of this meeting, he had been "building a sales force" yet by March of 2005, the Petitioner's full-time sales staff was approximately one-half of what it had been in 2003. On February 11, 2005, Mr. Delbrueck met with Mr. Hutchinson and Holler family members to follow up on the NOD and the October 26th meeting, but made no progress towards resolving the problems. On February 23, 2005, Mr. Delbrueck and Mr. Hayes met with Mr. Hutchinson to follow up on the recommendations Mr. Hayes made in July 2004. Mr. Hutchinson continued to state that the recommendations were useful, but very few had been implemented, and he offered no plausible explanation for the delay in implementing others. On February 24, 2005, the Respondent issued a Notice of Termination (NOT) of the Dealer Agreement that set forth the continuing decline in sales penetration as grounds for the action, as well as the alleged undercapitalization. At some point in early 2005, the Petitioner increased the capitalization of the dealership and corrected the deficiency, although it was implied during the hearing that the correction was temporary and that the increased capital was subsequently withdrawn from the dealership. In any event, the Respondent issued a Superceding NOT on April 6, 2005, wherein capitalization was deleted as a specific ground for the proposed termination. The Petitioner's January 2005 sales penetration was 49.3 percent of regional average, the lowest of any Nissan dealer in the State of Florida. Consumers typically shop various automobile brands, and a consumer dissatisfied with a dealer of one brand will generally shop dealers of competing brands located in the same vicinity, in order to purchase a vehicle at a convenient dealership for ease of obtaining vehicle service. The Respondent asserted that it was harmed by the Petitioner's deteriorating sales performance because Nissan sales were "lost" to other manufacturers due to the Petitioner's failure to appropriately market the Nissan vehicles. The Petitioner asserted that because Nissan's overall sales performance in the Petitioner's PMA was average, no Nissan sales were lost. The Respondent offered testimony suggesting that sales lost to Nissan may not have been lost to the Holler ownership group because the group also owned nearby Mazda and Honda dealerships. The evidence regarding the calculation of lost Nissan sales was sufficiently persuasive to establish that Nissan was harmed by the Petitioner's inadequate vehicle sales volume and by the Petitioner's failure to meet its obligation to "actively and effective promote" the sale of Nissan vehicles to individual purchasers as required by the Dealer Agreement. The number of sales lost is the difference between what a specific dealer, who met regional sales averages, should have sold compared to what the dealer actually sold. In 2003, the Respondent lost 185 sales based on the Petitioner's poor sales performance. In 2004, the Respondent lost 610 sales based on the Petitioner's poor sales performance, 200 more lost sales than from the next poorest performing Nissan dealer in Florida. The parties offered competing theories for the Petitioner's declining performance, which are addressed separately herein. The greater weight of the evidence presented at the hearing establishes that as set forth herein, the Respondent's analysis of the causes underlying the Petitioner's poor sales performance was persuasive and is accepted. The Respondent asserted that the sales decline was caused by operational problems, including an inadequate facility, inadequate capitalization, poor management, ineffective advertising, inadequate sales staff, and poor customer service. Competing dealerships in the area have constructed improved or new facilities. Customers are more inclined to shop for vehicles at modern dealerships. Upgraded dealerships typically experience increased customer traffic and sales growth. The Petitioner's facility is old and in disrepair. Some dealership employees referred to the facility as the "Pizza Hut" in recognition of the sales building's apparent resemblance to the shape of the restaurant. Nissan representatives discussed the condition of the facility with the Petitioner throughout the period at issue in this proceeding. When the Respondent began preparing for the introduction of new models in 2002, the Respondent began to encourage dealerships including the Petitioner, to participate in the "Nissan Retail Environment Design Initiative" (NREDI), a facility-improvement program. Apparently, the Petitioner was initially interested in the program, and, following a design consultation with the Respondent's architectural consultants, plans for proposed improvements to the Petitioner's facility were created. At the time, the Respondent was encouraging dealers to improve facilities, the Respondent had a specified amount of funding available to assist dealers who chose to participate in the NREDI program, and there were more dealers interested than funds were available. Although funds were initially reserved for the Petitioner's use, the Petitioner declined in June of 2003 to participate in the program, and the funds were reallocated to other dealerships. The Respondent implied that one of the reasons the Petitioner did not upgrade the dealership facility was a lack of capitalization. The allegedly inadequate capitalization of the dealership was the subject of continuing discussions between the Petitioner and the Respondent for an extended period of time; however, inadequate capitalization was specifically deleted from the grounds for termination set forth in the NOT at issue in this proceeding. Although the evidence indicates that lack of capitalization can limit a dealer's ability to respond to a multitude of problems at a dealership, the evidence is insufficient to establish in this case that an alleged lack of capitalization was the cause for the dealership's failure to upgrade its facility. In a letter to the Respondent dated June 30, 2003, the Petitioner stated only that it was "not feasible" to proceed and indicated an intention only "to proceed in the future," but offered no additional explanation for the lack of feasibility. Similarly, it is not possible, based on the evidence presented during the hearing, to find that Petitioner's failure to respond to the deteriorating operations at the dealership was due to a lack of financial resources. Daily operations at the dealership were hampered by the lack of appropriate management at the dealership location. Although Mr. Holler was identified in the Dealer Agreement as the principal owner and the executive manager of the dealership, his address was located in Winter Park, Florida, and there was no credible evidence presented that he managed the operation on a daily basis. As sales deteriorated, the Respondent began to insist that the Petitioner designate someone located on-site at the facility as executive manager with full control over the day-to- day operations of the dealership. In June 2003, Mr. Sekula was appointed as executive manager, but his authority was limited and his decisions required approval of the ownership group. At the hearing, Mr. Sekula acknowledged that the ownership group was bureaucratic. Shortly after his appointment, he was transferred by the ownership group to another of their competing dealerships. Several months later, Mr. Hutchinson was appointed as executive manager. There was no credible evidence presented to establish that Mr. Hutchinson ran the fiscal operations of the dealership. He prepared budgets for various expenditures and submitted them to the ownership group. The ownership group apparently controlled the "purse strings" of the dealership. There was no credible evidence presented as to the decision- making process within the group; however, decisions on matters such as the dealership's advertising budget required approval of the ownership group. The failure to provide appropriate on-site management can delay routine decisions and negatively affect the ability to manage and motivate sales staff. For example, when Nissan offered Mr. Hutchinson the opportunity to participate in the Nissan EDGE sales program, Mr. Hutchinson was initially unable to respond, because he lacked the ability to commit the financial resources to pay for the program. Mr. Hutchinson testified that the ownership group routinely approved his advertising budget requests. As the Petitioner's sales declined, so did advertising expenditures, from $694,107 in 2002 to $534,289 in 2004. The Petitioner's declining advertising expenditures were a contributing factor in deteriorating sales. The Petitioner reduced its total advertising budget while the Orlando market was growing, and the Petitioner's sales penetration declined while competing dealerships sales increased. Additionally, the Petitioner did not monitor the effectiveness of its advertising. The Petitioner's advertising was implemented through "Central Florida Marketing," a separate company owned by the Holler organization. There is no evidence that either the Petitioner or Central Florida Marketing monitored the effectiveness of the advertising. A substantial number of Nissan buyers within the Petitioner's PMA purchased vehicles from other dealerships, suggesting that the advertising failed to attract buyers to the Petitioner's dealership. Only eight percent of the Petitioner's customers acknowledged seeing the Petitioner's advertising, whereas about 20 percent of car shoppers in the Orlando area admit being influenced by dealer advertising. The Respondent asserted that the Petitioner failed to have sufficient sales staff to handle the increased customer traffic precipitated by the introduction of new Nissan models in 2002 and 2003. The Respondent offered evidence that the average vehicle salesperson sells eight to ten cars monthly, five to six of which are new cars and that, based on sales expectations, the Petitioner's sales force could not sell enough cars to meet the regional averages. Although the evidence establishes that the Petitioner cut sales staff as sales declined at the dealership, there is no credible evidence that customers at the Petitioner's facility were not served. The assertion relies upon an assumption that the Petitioner experienced increased sales traffic upon the introduction of new models and that the sales staff was inadequate to sufficiently service the increased traffic. The evidence failed to establish that the Petitioner experienced an increase in sales traffic such that sales were lost because staff was unavailable to assist customers. However, the Petitioner's sales staff failed to take advantage of customer leads provided to the dealership by the Respondent. The Respondent gathered contact information from various sources including persons who requested vehicle information from the Respondent's internet site, as well as the names of lease customers whose lease terms were expiring. The contact information was provided to dealers without charge through the Respondent's online dealer portal. The Petitioner rarely accessed the data, and it is, therefore, logical to presume that the leads resulted in few closed sales. The Petitioner's customer satisfaction scores also declined during the time period relevant to this proceeding. Poor customer service can eventually influence sales as negative customer "word-of-mouth" dampens the interest of other prospective customers. The Respondent monitored the customer opinions of dealer operations through a survey process, which resulted in "Customer Service Index" (CSI) scores. Prior to 2003, the Petitioner's CSI scores had been satisfactory, and then CSI scores began to decline. By the close of 2003, the CSI scores were substantially below regional scores, and the sales survey score was the lowest in the Petitioner's district. Although the Petitioner asserted on several occasions that CSI scores were increasing, the evidence established that only the March 2004 CSI scores improved and that no other material improvement occurred during the time period relevant to this proceeding. The Petitioner asserted at the hearing that the sales performance decline was caused by a lack of vehicle inventory, the alteration of the Petitioner's PMA, a lack of available financing from Nissan Motors Acceptance Corporation (NMAC), hurricanes, improper advertising by competing dealers, and the death of Roger Holler, Jr. The Petitioner also asserted that this termination action is being prosecuted by the Respondent because the Petitioner declined to participate in the NREDI dealer-facility upgrade program and declined to sell the Respondent's extended service plan product. A number of the suggested causes offered by the Petitioner during the hearing were omitted from the Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, but nonetheless are addressed herein. The Petitioner asserted that the Respondent failed to make available marketable inventory sufficient for the Petitioner to meet sales penetration averages. The evidence failed to support the assertion. Nissan vehicles were distributed according to an allocation system that reflected dealer sales and inventory. The Respondent used a "two-pass" allocation system to distribute 90 percent of each month's vehicle production. The remaining 10 percent were reserved for allocation by Nissan market representatives. Simply stated, dealers earned new vehicles to sell by selling the vehicles they had. New vehicle allocations were based upon each dealer's "days' supply" of cars. The calculation of days' supply is essentially based on the number of vehicles a dealer had available on the lot and the number of vehicles a dealer sold in each month. Through the allocation system, a dealership that failed to sell cars and lower its days' supply would be allocated fewer cars during the following month. More vehicles were made available to dealers with low days' supplies than were available to dealers with higher supplies. It is clearly reasonable for the Respondent to provide a greater supply of vehicles to the dealers who sell more cars. At some point during the period relevant to this proceeding, Nissan removed consideration of sales history from the days' supply-based allocation system calculation; however, there was no credible evidence presented to establish that the elimination of the sales history component from the calculation reduced the vehicle allocation available to the Petitioner. The Respondent applied the same allocation system to all of its dealerships, including the Petitioner. There is no evidence that the Respondent manipulated the allocation system to deny any vehicles to the Petitioner. The Respondent provided current inventory and allocation information to all of its dealerships, including the Petitioner, through a computerized database system. The Petitioner was responsible for managing vehicle inventory and for utilizing the allocation system to acquire cars to sell. Although the Petitioner asserted that the decline in sales was related to a lack of vehicle inventory, there was no evidence that the Petitioner's inventory declined during the period relevant to this proceeding. In fact, the evidence established that the Petitioner's inventory actually increased from 150 vehicles in early 2003 to 300 vehicles in early 2004, at which time the Petitioner reduced vehicle orders and the inventory began to decline. The Petitioner also asserted that it was provided vehicles for sale that were undesirable to the Petitioner's customers, due to expensive or excessive options packages. There was no credible evidence that the Petitioner's sales declines were related to an inventory of undesirable vehicles. Further, there was no evidence that the decline in sales penetration was related to poor supply of any specific vehicle model. Other than two truck models, the Petitioner's sales penetration decline occurred across the full range of Nissan vehicles offered for sale. Every Nissan dealer had the ability to exercise significant control (including color and option package choices) over most of the inventory acquired during the "first pass" allocation. Any inventory deficiencies that may have existed were the result of the Petitioner's mismanagement of inventory. Mr. Hutchinson did not understand the vehicle allocation system or its relationship to the days' supply calculation. The Petitioner routinely declined to order units of Nissan's apparently most marketable vehicles during the allocation process. During 2003, the Petitioner declined 137 vehicles from the "first pass" allocation, including 18 Sentras and 56 Altimas, and declined 225 vehicles from the "second pass" allocation, including 59 Sentras and 59 Altimas. During the first half of 2004, the Petitioner declined 58 vehicles from the "first pass" allocation and 42 vehicles from the "second pass" allocation. During the hearing, one of the Petitioner's witnesses generally asserted that the Respondent's turndown records were erroneous; however, the witness was unable to identify any errors of significance, and the testimony of the witness was disregarded. After the two-pass allocation process was completed, there were usually some vehicles remaining for distribution to dealers. Nissan assigned responsibility to DOMs to market these units to dealers. The DOMs used the days' supply calculation to prioritize the order in which they contacted dealers, although the vehicles were available to any dealer. There is no evidence that any DOM manipulated the days' supply-based prioritization of vehicles for denying the Petitioner the opportunity to obtain vehicles to sell. Any vehicles remaining available after the DOM attempts to distribute the vehicles were identified as "Additional Vehicle Requests" (AVR) and were made available to all dealers simultaneously. Dealerships were notified of such availability by simultaneous facsimile transmission or through the Nissan computerized database. There was no evidence that the Petitioner was denied an opportunity to obtain AVR vehicles, and in fact, the Petitioner obtained vehicles through the AVR system. The Petitioner asserted that the Nissan practice of reserving 10 percent of each month's production for allocation by market representatives rewarded some dealers and punished others. Market representative allocations are standard in the industry, and such vehicles are provided to dealerships for various reasons. Nissan market representative allocations were used to supply extra cars to newly opened dealerships or in situations where a dealership was sold to new ownership. Nissan market representative allocations were also provided to dealers who participated in the NREDI facility upgrade program. The provision of additional vehicles by market representatives to new or expanded sales facilities was reasonable because the standard allocation system would not reflect the actual sales capacity of the facility. The Petitioner presented no evidence that the Respondent, or any of its market representatives, manipulated the 10 percent allocation to unfairly reward any of the Petitioner's competitors or to punish the Respondent for not participating in various corporate programs. Prior to 2001, the Respondent had a program of providing additional vehicles to under-performing dealers in an apparent effort to increase sales by increasing inventory; however, the program did not cause an increase in sales and actually resulted in dealers being burdened with excessive unsold inventory and increased floor plan financing costs. The Respondent eliminated the program in 2001, and there is no evidence that any dealership was provided vehicles through this program during the time period relevant to this proceeding. There is no evidence that the Respondent eliminated the program for the purpose of reducing the vehicles allocated or otherwise provided to the Petitioner. The Petitioner asserted that the Respondent altered the Petitioner's assigned PMA in March 2004 and that the alteration negatively affected the Petitioner's sales penetration calculation because the Petitioner's area of sales responsibility changed. Prior to March 2004, the Petitioner's PMA was calculated using information reported by the 1990 United States Census. After completion of the 2000 Census, the Respondent evaluated every Nissan dealer's PMA and made alterations based upon population changes as reflected within the Census. Standard Provision Section 3.A. of the Dealer Agreement provides that the Respondent "may, in its reasonable discretion, change the Dealer's Primary Market Area from time to time." There was no credible evidence presented to establish that the 2000 PMA was invalid or was improperly designated. There was no evidence that the Respondent's evaluation of the Petitioner's PMA was different from the evaluation of every other PMA in the United States. There was no evidence that the Respondent evaluated or altered the Petitioner's PMA with the intent to negatively affect the Petitioner's ability to sell vehicles or to meet regional sales penetration averages. There was no credible evidence that the 2000 PMA adversely affected the dealership or that the Petitioner's declining sales penetration was related to the change in the PMA. The alteration of the PMA did not sufficiently affect the demographics of the Petitioner's market to account for the decline in sales penetration. Recalculating the Petitioner's sales penetration under the prior PMA did not markedly improve the Petitioner's sales penetration. The Petitioner suggested that the 2000 PMA revision was an impermissible modification or replacement of the Dealer Agreement, but no credible evidence was offered to support the assertion. There was no evidence that the Petitioner did not receive proper notice of the 2000 PMA. At the hearing, the Petitioner implied that the Respondent caused a decline in sales by refusing to make Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation (NMAC) financing available to the Petitioner's buyers. NMAC is a finance company affiliated with, but separate from, the Respondent. NMAC provides a variety of financing options to dealers and Nissan vehicle purchasers. NMAC relies in lending decisions, as do most lenders, on a "Beacon score" which reflects the relative creditworthiness of a customer's application to finance the purchase of a car. Vehicle financing applications are grouped into four general "tiers" based on Beacon scores. Various interest rates are offered to customers based on Beacon scores. The Petitioner offered data comparing the annual number of NMAC-approved applications submitted in each tier by the Petitioner on behalf of the Petitioner's customers to suggest that the decline in the Petitioner's sales indicated a decision by NMAC to decrease the availability of NMAC credit to the Petitioner's customers. There was no evidence that NMAC treated the Petitioner's customers differently than the customers of competing dealerships or that NMAC-financed buyers received preferential interest rates based upon the dealership from which vehicles were purchased. There was no evidence that the Respondent exercised any control over individual financing decisions made by NMAC. There was no evidence that the Respondent manipulated, or had the ability to manipulate, the availability of NMAC financing for the purpose of negatively affecting the Petitioner's ability to sell vehicles. A number of hurricanes passed through the central Florida region in August and September of 2004. The Petitioner asserted that the dealership's physical plant was damaged by the storms, and that the hurricane-related economic impact on area consumers caused, at least in part, the decline in sales. The evidence failed to establish that the Petitioner's physical plant sustained significant hurricane damage to the extent of preventing vehicle sales from occurring. None of the Petitioner's vehicle inventory sustained hurricane- related damage. There was no evidence presented to indicate that the Petitioner's customers experienced a more significant economic impact than did the customers of competing dealers in the area. There was no credible evidence that the hurricanes had any material impact on the Petitioner's sales penetration. The Petitioner's sales penetration immediately prior to the hurricanes was 62.8 percent. The Petitioner's sales penetration in August 2004 was 61.6 percent, in September was 61.1 percent, and in October was 62.3 percent. Generally, within 30 to 45 days after a hurricane, customers with damaged vehicles use insurance proceeds to purchase new vehicles. The Petitioner's sales volume increased at this time; although because other dealers in the region also experienced increased sales, there was no change to the Petitioner's sales penetration calculation. The Petitioner asserted that improper advertising of "double rebates" by competing dealers caused declining sales, and offered evidence in the form of newspaper advertisements in support of the assertion; however, the Petitioner's own advertising indicated the availability of such rebates on occasion. There was no evidence presented to establish that the Respondent was responsible for creating or approving advertisements for dealerships. The Respondent has a program whereby dealers who meet certain advertising guidelines can obtain funds to defray advertising costs, but the program is voluntary. The Respondent does not regulate vehicle advertising or retail pricing. There was no evidence that the Petitioner reported any allegedly misleading or illegal advertising with any law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over false advertising or unfair trade practices. Mr. Hutchinson testified that the death of Roger Holler, Jr., in February 2004, negatively affected sales at the dealership, but there was no evidence that Roger Holler, Jr., had any role in managing or operating the dealership. The Petitioner's sales decline commenced prior to his death and continued thereafter. The evidence failed to establish that the death had any impact on the operation of the dealership or the Petitioner's sales performance. The Petitioner asserted that the Respondent's effort to terminate the Dealer Agreement was an attempt to punish the Petitioner for declining to participate in the NREDI program and offered a chronology of events intended to imply that the Respondent's actions in this case were a deliberate plan to force the Petitioner to either build a new facility or sell the dealership. The assertion is speculative and unsupported by credible evidence. During the time period relevant to this proceeding, only one of the four Orlando-area Nissan dealers agreed to participate in the NREDI program. Of the four dealerships, three experienced increased sales activity during the period relevant to this proceeding. The Petitioner was the only one of the four dealerships to experience a decline in sales penetration during this period. The Respondent has taken no action against the two other dealerships that declined to participate in the NREDI program. There was no credible evidence that the Respondent has taken any punitive action against any dealership solely based on a dealership's decision not to participate in the NREDI program. The Petitioner asserted that the Respondent's actions in this case were intended to punish the Petitioner for not selling the Respondent's extended service contract (known as "Security Plus") and for selling a product owned by the Petitioner, but there was no evidence supporting the assertion. A substantial number of dealers in the region did not sell the Security Plus product to new car buyers. There was no evidence that the Respondent has penalized any dealer, including the Petitioner, for refusing to sell the Nissan Security Plus product. During the hearing, the Petitioner identified a number of other troubled Nissan dealerships, ostensibly to establish that other dealerships similarly situated to the Petitioner had not been the subject of Dealer Agreement termination proceedings and that the Respondent had failed to enforce the Dealer Agreement termination provisions fairly. A number of the dealerships cited by the Petitioner are outside the State of Florida and are immaterial to this proceeding. The Dealer Agreement provides for termination of an agreement if the dealer materially and substantially breaches the agreement. The Dealer Agreement does not require termination of every dealership that fails to achieve average regional sales penetration. Termination of a Dealer Agreement because of sales performance requires a dealer-specific analysis that includes consideration of the factors underlying poor sales and consideration of conditions that may warrant delaying termination proceedings. As to the other Florida Nissan dealers cited by the Petitioner, many had higher sales penetration levels than did the Respondent. When compared to the Florida dealerships, the magnitude of the Petitioner's sales penetration decline exceeded that of all the other dealerships. Many of the cited dealerships had also initiated changes in management, staffing, and facilities to address sale and service deficiencies. Some of the cited dealers had already shown sales and service-related improvements. One dealership, Love Nissan, had already been terminated, even though its sales penetration had exceeded that of the Petitioner. One dealership cited by the Petitioner was Hampton Nissan, against whom the Respondent had initiated termination proceedings in 2003. Changes to Hampton's PMA based on the 2000 PMA resulted in an increase in the dealership's sales penetration eventually to levels exceeding those of the Petitioner, and Nissan has rescinded the action. There was no evidence that the Hampton Nissan PMA was calculated differently than the Petitioner's PMA, or that either PMA was altered purposefully to affect the dealer's sales penetration results. Other dealerships cited by the Petitioner were being monitored by the Respondent to ascertain whether efforts to improve sales performance succeed. The Respondent may ultimately pursue termination proceedings against underperforming dealerships if sales performance fails to improve. There was no credible evidence that, prior to initiating this termination proceeding, the Respondent failed to consider the facts and circumstances underlying the Petitioner's poor sales and the Petitioner's response to the situation. The Petitioner has experienced a substantial and continuing decline in sales penetration and has failed to respond effectively to the deteriorating situation during the period at issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's protest and approving the April 6, 2005, Superceding Notice of Termination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 20th day of March, 2007.
The Issue Whether the contested and unpaid portions of the tax, penalty and interest assessment issued against Petitioners as a result of Audit No. 9317210175 should be withdrawn as Petitioners have requested?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Shuckers is an oceanfront restaurant and lounge located at 9800 South Ocean Drive in Jensen Beach, Florida. In November of 1992, Petitioner Mesa's brother, Robert Woods, Jr., telephoned Mesa and asked her if she wanted a job as Shuckers' bookkeeper. Woods had been the owner of Shuckers since 1986 through his ownership and control of the corporate entities (initially Shuckers Oyster Bar Too of Jensen Beach, Florida, Inc., and then NAT, Inc.) that owned the business. Mesa needed a job. She therefore accepted her brother's offer of employment, notwithstanding that she had no previous experience or training as a bookkeeper. When Mesa reported for her first day of work on November 19, 1992, she learned that Woods expected her to be not only the bookkeeper, but the general manager of the business as well. Mesa agreed to perform these additional responsibilities. She managed the day-to-day activities of the business under the general direction and supervision of Woods. After a couple of weeks, Woods told Mesa that it would be best if she discharged her managerial responsibilities through an incorporated management company. Woods had his accountant draft the documents necessary to form such a corporation. Among these documents were the corporation's Articles of Incorporation. Mesa executed the Articles of Incorporation and, on December 3, 1992, filed them with the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, thereby creating Petitioner TAN, Inc. TAN, Inc.'s Articles of Incorporation provided as follows: The undersigned subscribers to these Articles of Incorporation, natural persons competent to contract, hereby form a corporation under the laws of the State of Florida. ARTICLE I- CORPORATE NAME The name of the corporation is: TAN, INC. ARTICLE II- DURATION This corporation shall exist perpetually unless dissolved according to Florida law. ARTICLE III- PURPOSE The corporation is organized for the purpose of engaging in any activities or business permitted under the laws of the United States and the State of Florida. ARTICLE IV- CAPITAL STOCK The corporation is authorized to issue One Thousand (1000) shares of One Dollar ($1.00) par value Common Stock, which shall be designated "Common Shares." Article V- INITIAL REGISTERED OFFICE AND AGENT The principal office, if known, or the mailing address of this corporation is: TAN, INC. 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 The name and address of the Initial Registered Agent of the Corporation is: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 ARTICLE VI- INITIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS This corporation shall have one (1) director initially. The number of directors may be either increased or diminished from time to time by the By-laws, but shall never be less than one (1). The names and addresses of the initial directors of the corporation are as follows: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 ARTICLE VII- INCORPORATORS The names and addresses of the incorporators signing these Articles of Incorporation are as follows: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 On the same day it was incorporated, December 3, 1992, TAN, Inc., entered into the following lease agreement with the trust (of which Woods was the sole beneficiary) that owned the premises where Shuckers was located: I, Michael Blake, Trustee, hereby lease to Tan, Inc. the premises known as C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, 9800 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, Florida for the sum of $3,000.00 per month. This is a month to month lease with Illinois Land Trust and Michael Blake, Trustee. Mesa signed the agreement in her capacity as TAN, Inc.'s President. She did so at Woods' direction and on his behalf. No lease payments were ever made under the agreement. 3/ The execution of the lease agreement had no impact upon Shuckers. Woods remained its owner and the person who maintained ultimate control over its operations. At no time did he relinquish any part of his ownership interest in the business to either Mesa or her management company, TAN, Inc. Mesa worked approximately 70 to 80 hours a week for her brother at Shuckers doing what he told her to do, in return for which she received a modest paycheck. Woods frequently subjected his sister to verbal abuse, but Mesa nonetheless continued working for him and following his directions because she needed the income the job provided. As part of her duties, Mesa maintained the business' financial records and paid its bills. She was also required to fill out, sign and submit to Respondent the business' monthly sales and use tax returns (hereinafter referred to as "DR- 15s"). She performed this task to the best of her ability without any intention to defraud or deceive Respondent regarding the business' tax liability. The DR-15s she prepared during the audit period bore NAT, Inc.'s Florida sales and use tax registration number. On the DR-15 for the month of December, 1992, Mesa signed her name on both the "dealer" and "preparer" signature lines. Other DR-15s were co-signed by Mesa and Woods. In April of 1993, Woods told Mesa that she needed to obtain a Florida sales and use tax registration number for TAN, Inc., to use instead of NAT, Inc.'s registration number on Shuckers' DR-15s. In accordance with her brother's desires, Mesa, on or about May 14, 1993, filed an application for a Florida sales and use tax registration number for TAN, Inc., which was subsequently granted. On the application form, Mesa indicated that TAN, Inc. was the "owner" of Shuckers and that the application was being filed because of a "change of ownership" of the business. In fact, TAN, Inc. was not the "owner" of the business and there had been no such "change of ownership." By letter dated June 22, 1993, addressed to "TAN INC d/b/a Shuckers," Respondent gave notice of its intention to audit the "books and records" of the business to determine if there had been any underpayment of sales and use taxes during the five year period commencing June 1, 1988, and ending May 31, 1993. The audit period was subsequently extended to cover the six year period from June 1, 1987 to May 31, 1993. Relying in part on estimates because of the business' inadequate records, auditors discovered that there had been a substantial underpayment of sales and use taxes during the audit period. The auditors were provided with complete cash register tapes for only the following months of the audit period: June, July, August and December of 1992, and January, February, March, April and May of 1993. A comparison of these tapes with the DR-15s submitted for June, July, August and December of 1992, and January, February, March, April and May of 1993 revealed that there had been an underreporting of sales for these months. Using the information that they had obtained regarding the three pre- December, 1992, months of the audit period for which they had complete cash register tapes (June, July and August of 1992), the auditors arrived at an estimate of the amount of sales that had been underreported for the pre- December, 1992, months of the audit period for which they did not have complete cash register tapes. The auditors also determined that Shuckers' tee-shirt and souvenir sales, 4/ Sunday brunch sales, cigarette vending sales, vending/amusement machine location rentals 5/ and tiki bar sales that should have been included in the sales reported on the DR-15s submitted during the audit period were not included in these figures nor were these sales reflected on the cash register tapes that were examined. According of the "Statement of Fact" prepared by the auditors, the amount of these unreported sales were determined as follows: TEE-SHIRT SALES: Sales were determined by estimate. This was determined to be $2,000/ month. No records were available and no tax remitted through May, 1993. SUNDAY BRUNCH SALES: Sales were determined by estimate. This was determined to be 100 customers per brunch per month (4.333 weeks). No audit trail to the sales journal was found and no records were available. CIGARETTE VENDING SALES: The estimate is based on a review of a sample of purchases for the 11 available weeks. The eleven weeks were averaged to determine monthly sales at $3/pack. VENDING MACHINE LOCATION RENTAL REVENUE: The revenue estimate is based on a review of a one month sample. TIKI BAR SALES: The sales estimate is based on a review of infrequent cash register tapes of February, 1993. The daily sales was determined by an average of the sample. The number of days of operation per month was determined by estimate. In addition, the auditors determined that TAN, Inc. had not paid any tax on the lease payments it was obligated to make under its lease agreement with Illinois Land Trust and Michael Blake, Trustee, nor had any tax been paid on any of the pre-December, 1992, lease payments that had been made in connection with the business during the audit period. According to the "Statement of Fact" prepared by the auditors, the amount of these lease payments were determined as follows: The estimate is based on 1990 1120 Corporate return deduction claimed. This return is on file in the Florida CIT computer database. The 1990 amount was extended through the 6/87 - 11/92 period. For the period 12/92 - 5/93 audit period, TAN's current lease agreement of $3,000/month was the basis. No documentation was produced during the audit supporting any the sales tax exemptions that the business had claimed during the audit period on its DR-15s. 6/ Accordingly, the auditors concluded that the sales reported as exempt on the business' DR-15s were in fact taxable. Using records of sales made on a date selected at random (February 1, 1993), the auditors calculated effective tax rates for the audit period. They then used these effective tax rates to determine the total amount of tax due. An initial determination was made that a total of $201,971.71 in taxes (not including penalties and interest) was due. The amount was subsequently lowered to $200,882.28. On or about December 22, 1993, TAN, Inc., entered into the following Termination of Lease Agreement with Ocean Enterprises, Inc.: TAN, Inc., a Florida corporation, hereby consents to termination of that certain lease of the premises known as C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 of ISLAND BEACH CLUB, located at 9800 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, Florida, dated December 3, 1992, acknowledges a landlord's lien on all assets for unpaid rent; and transfers and sets over and assigns possession of the aforesaid units and all of its right, title and interest in and to all inventory, equipment, stock and supplies located on said premises 7/ in full satisfaction of said unpaid rent; all of the foregoing effective as of this 22nd day of December, 1993. FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing termin- ation of lease, OCEAN ENTERPRISES, Inc., a Florida corporation, hereby agrees to pay Linda Mesa, each month all of the net revenues of the operation of the bar and restaurant located on said premises, up to the sum of $15,000.00, for sales tax liability asserted against TAN, Inc. or Linda A. W. Mesa based upon possession or ownership of said premises or any of the assets located thereon, plus attorney's fees incurred in connection with defending or negotiating settlement of any such liability. Net revenue shall mean gross revenue, less operating expenses, includ- ing, but not limited to, rent, up to the amount of $5,000.00 per month, costs of goods sold, utilities, payroll and payroll expense and insurance. OCEAN ENTERPRISES, Inc. represents that it has entered into a lease of said premises for a term of five years commencing on or about December 22, 1993, pursuant to the terms and conditions of which OCEANFRONT [sic] ENTERPRISES, Inc. was granted the right to operate a restaurant and bar business on said premises. Ocean Enterprises, Inc., leases the property from Island Beach Enterprises, which obtained the property through foreclosure. TAN, Inc., has been administratively dissolved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order withdrawing the contested and unpaid portions of the assessment issued as a result of Audit No. 9317210175, as it relates to TAN, Inc., and Linda A. W. Mesa. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of June, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 27th day of June, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner Conklin Shows, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in West Palm Beach, Florida. Conklin is engaged in the business of providing midway attractions for large fairs. The company services between five and eight fairs per year and provides rides as well as food and game concessions. In most instances, Conklin provides a turn-key operation whereby it provides all rides and concessions, sells tickets, collects all fees and charges, and pays the particular fair authority the amount set forth in the underlying agreement between the parties. Conklin owns and operates some of the rides that it provides and also owns a few food concessions. It also contracts with independent ride owners as well as food and game concession owners to provide the services necessary for a particular fair. Southeast Florida and Dade County Youth Fair Association, Inc. (the "Association") is a corporation which conducts an annual youth fair, in Dade County, Florida (the "Fair") in accordance with Chapter 616, Florida Statutes. Conklin has provided midway attractions, including rides, games and food concessions, for the Fair since the late 1970s. Initially, Conklin provided a complete turn-key operation for the Fair. In 1980 or 1981, the Fair advised Conklin that it wanted to modify the arrangement so that the Fair collected and dispersed all monies and retained the right to book attractions independently. Consequently, the parties modified their agreement so that the Association sold all the tickets used by the Fair-goers for admission and for rides. In other words, cash was not accepted from the public for admission and/or rides. The evidence indicates that cash was accepted at game and food booths. The Association employed all ticket sellers, sold admissions and tickets and paid the appropriate taxes on the sales. As discussed below, at the end of each day, the Association distributed the proceeds of the ticket sales and settled up with the food and game concessionaires. Conklin was paid an agreed upon percentage of the proceeds of the ticket sales after taxes. As part of the settlement, Conklin reimbursed the Association for certain expenses. In approximately March of 1990, DOR began an audit of Conklin at its offices in West Palm Beach. The audit was conducted primarily by Ms. Van T. Ho, a tax auditor with DOR. The audit covered the period between June 1, 1985 through February 28, 1990. Ms. Ho concluded that certain contractual arrangements between Conklin and its subcontractors who provided rides, games and food concessions for the Fair should be construed as the sublease or sublicense of the rental of real property. Since Conklin had not remitted sales tax to the State of Florida for these subleases or sublicenses, she concluded that sales tax should be assessed against Conklin. In addition, Ms. Ho reviewed Conklin's records regarding purchases of parts and materials and concluded that appropriate sales tax had not been paid on certain purchases. The audit results with the additional assessed taxes, penalties and interest were incorporated in a Notice of Intent to Make Sales and Use Tax Audit Changes dated October 24, 1990 (the "Notice of Intent.") In the Notice of Intent, DOR advised Conklin that it had been found liable on various transactions subject to tax under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, during the period June 1, 1985 through February 28, 1990. The Notice of Intent sought a total of $655,982.04 for taxes, penalties and interest through October 24, 1990 with additional interest at the rate of $142.69 per day. A Notice of Proposed Assessment was issued by DOR on April 25, 1991. Conklin protested the proposed assessment in a letter dated June 19, 1991. Ultimately, DOR issued a Notice of Decision dated May 27, 1992 upholding the audit findings. Conklin timely initiated this administrative challenge to DOR's Notice of Decision. At the commencement of the hearing in this matter, DOR announced that it was no longer contending that Conklin was subletting real property. Instead, DOR asserted that Conklin's contractual arrangements for ride subcontracts and for food and game concessions should be construed as licenses to use real property. Since the sales tax on a license to use real property did not become effective until July 1, 1986, DOR conceded that the assessment against Conklin should be reduced to delete any sales taxes related to the fairs conducted in February of 1985 and 1986. As set forth in the Preliminary Statement, DOR set forth its recalculated assessment in a late-filed exhibit which was submitted on March 26, 1993. The parties stipulated that the recalculation submitted on March 26, 1993, should be accepted as an amendment to Petitioner's Exhibit 1. According to that amendment, Petitioner is seeking a total of $468,520.80 for taxes, penalties and interest allegedly due through January 17, 1991 with a per diem interest rate of $105.58. For purposes of this proceeding, the proposed assessment can be broken down into four categories: (1) sales tax allegedly due from Petitioner on rental or license income from subcontractors who provided rides at the Fair; (2) sales tax allegedly due as the result of the sublease or sublicense of real property by Conklin to food concessionaires; (3) sales tax allegedly due as the result of the sublease or sublicense of real property by Conklin to game concessionaires; and (4) purchase tax allegedly due on parts and materials bought by Conklin which it claims were utilized in manufacturing or repairing rides for export. Rides During the years 1987 through 1990, Conklin contracted to provide rides to the Association for the Fair. Conklin was required to provide a specific number of rides in certain categories together with all personnel required to operate the rides. Conklin was also responsible for all expenses attributable to the operation and maintenance of the equipment. During all of the years in question, the Association sold the tickets for all rides, collected the proceeds and paid the applicable sales tax and remitted the agreed percentage of the after-tax receipts to Conklin. Conklin was paid a sliding scale percentage of the net revenues from the rides. Conklin typically contracted to provide more rides than it owned. In order to satisfy its contractual obligation, Conklin entered into agreements with independent ride owners. These subcontractors would provide all transportation, assembly and disassembly necessary for the ride, together with all personnel required for operation. Conklin did not take possession or exercise any direction or control over the physical operations of the ride. The subcontractor was responsible for all expenses related to the operation and maintenance of the ride and was required to reimburse Conklin for a proportionate part of the common expenses. Conklin agreed to pay the ride owner a percentage of the receipts attributable to that ride after sales tax. Each ride owner collected tickets from the Fair attendees. The subcontractors would turn their tickets over to Conklin. Conklin turned in the tickets for all rides provided by it and its subcontractors to the Association. After Conklin was paid its percentage by the Association, Conklin would pay the subcontractors a percentage attributable to their particular ride in accordance with the agreement between Conklin and that subcontractor. Conklin retained a portion of the amount received from the Association for all of the subcontracted rides. The subcontractors did not make any payments to Conklin nor did Conklin make any payments to the Association. The Association set the times of operation and other general policies for the Fair, but exercised no direction or control over the physical operation of any of the rides. In each case, the owner of the equipment furnished the operator and all operating supplies and made the particular ride available at the time dictated by the Association. DOR contends that the difference between the amount received by Conklin from the Association for rides provided by subcontractors and the amount paid by Conklin to the subcontractors was taxable because it arose from a sublicense of real property. 2/ Conklin, on the other hand, argues that its contractual arrangement with the subcontractors should be viewed as a nontaxable service transaction since it paid the subcontractors who in turn provided the rides together with operating personnel and expenses. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, Conklin's interpretation is consistent with the language of the subcontracts and more accurately reflects the relationship created by the parties. The mere fact that a ride was operated on real estate owned by another party should not be conclusive of whether the arrangement should be viewed as a license of real property as opposed to a rental of equipment. Food Concessions Conklin executed separate agreements with the Association to provide certain food and game concessions for the Fair during the years 1987 through 1990. The contracts between the Association and Conklin for food and game concessions were entitled "License Agreement for Exhibitors and Concessionaires." Those agreements specifically provided: It is understood and agreed the below described space is not leased to the Licensee [Conklin], rather he is a Licensee and not a lessee thereof. Under the food concession agreements, Conklin was obligated to provide specific food concessions, including all labor and operating expenses. The contract between the Association and Conklin designated specific areas at the Fair where the concessions were to be set up. The Association was entitled to a percentage of the gross receipts of the sales by the concessions. Conklin did not own any of the equipment utilized in connection with the food concessions. It entered into agreements with concessionaires to provide the personnel, equipment, goods and materials utilized. The concessionaire was responsible for all of the expenses involved with the concession. The concessionaire collected all of the money and settled daily with the Association by paying the Association the percentage due under its agreement with Conklin (which was normally twenty-five percent) together with the tax on that amount and the sales tax on all sales. The Association remitted the taxes on the rental (license) amount and the sales. Conklin was not privy to the settlement between the food concessionaires and the Fair. It was given a copy of the settlement sheet. The concessionaire paid Conklin a percentage of the gross based upon its agreement with Conklin. That percentage was normally between seven and ten percent. In the Notice of Assessment, DOR lumped food and game concessions together and assessed tax based upon its determination of the amount received by Conklin. The evidence presented at the hearing in this case established that the Notice of Assessment mistakenly included gross revenues rather than the net received by Conklin from game concessions. Petitioner's Exhibit 13 sets forth the correct amounts received by Conklin from food and game concessions during the years in question. During the years 1987, 1989 and 1990, the amounts received by Conklin from food concessions at the Fair were $11,919.73, $11,521.21 and $13,034.49 respectively. The Notice of Assessment indicates that there was no taxable income from food and game concessions in 1988. No explanation was given for this anomaly. Although there was no assessment for food and game concessions for 1988 in DOR's Notice of Assessment, Petitioner's Exhibit 13 indicates that Conklin received $16,975.22 from food and game concessions that year of which $11,938.44 was apparently attributable to food concessions. DOR contends the amounts received by Conklin from the food concessionaires were taxable because the arrangement constituted a sublicense of real property. Conklin contends that the money received from food concessions is exempt from taxation for the years since 1988 pursuant to Section 212.031(1)(a)(10), Florida Statutes. In its Proposed Recommended Order, Conklin conceded that this exemption did not come into effect until 1988. Consequently, Conklin admitted that it owed tax on the proceeds it received from the food concessions in 1987 ($11,919.73.) The evidence presented in this case was insufficient to conclude that Conklin was entitled to the exemption for the years subsequent to 1987. The exemption relied upon by Conklin is limited to a publicly owned arena, sports stadium, convention hall, exhibition hall, auditorium or recreational facility. While the parties agree that the Fairs in question were conducted pursuant to Chapter 616, Florida Statutes, no evidence was presented to establish that the Fair was conducted in one of the specified exempt facilities. Game Concessions With respect to the game concessions, Conklin agreed to provide a certain number of game booths and to pay a set fee to the Association for each game along with a five percent rental realty tax on that fixed amount. 3/ Conklin did not own or operate any game concessions itself. It contracted with the owner/operators of the various games. The owner/operator would provide all of the equipment and personnel. The game owner was responsible for collecting the money, paying all expenses of operation, paying the applicable sales tax to the Association and also paying the Association the contractual percentage and rental taxes set forth in the agreement between Conklin and the Association. The net profits from the game were to be split equally between Conklin and the owner of the game. In the event of a loss, Conklin was responsible for contributing one-half of the net amount. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, the amounts received by Conklin from the game concessions should be treated as the proceeds on joint venture partnerships between Conklin and the various concessionaires and, therefore, should not be taxable. If this conclusion is rejected and the amounts received by Conklin are viewed as taxable license or rental payments, the tax should be assessed on the share Conklin actually received. As set forth in Findings of Fact 17 above, the evidence established that DOR's calculation in the Notice of Assessment of the tax allegedly owed by Conklin for food and game concessions was incorrectly based upon the gross receipts for the game concessions rather than the net profits that Conklin actually received. During the years 1987, 1989 and 1990, Conklin's share of the profits from the games operated under its name amounted to $5,792.65, $1,554.64 and $1,179 respectively. The Notice of Assessment indicated there were no taxable receipts from food and game concessions in 1988. Petitioner's Exhibit 13 indicates that Conklin received $16,975.22 from food and game concessions that year, of which $5,036.78 was apparently attributable to game concessions. Exports Conklin is also engaged in the business of repairing and manufacturing games and rides. In the course of the manufacture or repair of these games and rides, Conklin purchases parts and supplies. Conklin's accountant testified that it paid the appropriate tax on all of its purchases except those items which were segregated out as being integral parts of products that were exported to Canada. DOR's auditor claims that she requested and was not provided with any documentation to support the exemption claim. While Petitioner's accountant claims that the company has documentation that the items in question were used in the manufacture and repair of items that were exported and this documentation was made available to DOR's auditor, no such documents were presented at the hearing in this matter to confirm that the final products were in fact exported. Consequently, the evidence was insufficient to establish that Conklin had complied with the applicable rule requirements and was entitled to the exemption it claimed. Penalties In 1984 and 1985, Conklin provided rides and concessions to the Martin County Fair under its usual turn-key system where it sold all the tickets. During those years, DOR sent an enforcement officer to the fair to ensure that all taxes were paid. The DOR enforcement officer reviewed all of Conklin's books and collected the sales tax from all the concessionaires. Although Conklin inquired as to whether it was paying all appropriate taxes, the DOR enforcement officer never indicated to Conklin that it was obligated to pay rental realty taxes on its subcontractual arrangements with ride owners and/or food and game concessionaires. Thus, there was some justification for Conklin's belief that it was not obligated to pay taxes on the ride subcontracts and the food and game concessions. Conklin's understanding of the law should have been reexamined with the adoption of the statutory clarification for the imposition of sales tax on a license to use real property. See section 66 of Chapter 86- 152 of the Laws of Florida effective July 1986. However, none of the statutory or rule provisions relied upon by DOR clearly address contractual arrangements such as those Conklin had with its ride subcontractors where the purported sublicensee made no payments to the alleged sublicensor. In view of these factors, it would be inappropriate to impose penalties on Conklin for "taxable income" it allegedly received from the ride subcontracts. Similarly, even if Conklin's contention that its arrangements with game concessionaires should be viewed as a joint venture is rejected, penalties should not be imposed since the statutory and rule provisions do not clearly address this situation. With respect to the food concessions, Conklin has conceded that it owes tax on the amount received from food concessionaires in 1987. Conklin has offered no justification for the failure to pay the tax on this amount other than to claim that it did not believe any tax was due because of comments (or lack thereof) by DOR representatives during the 1984-85 Martin County Fair. However, the basis for imposing a tax on a sublicense of real estate was significantly clarified in 1986. Thus, Conklin's purported reliance on the comments made in 1984 and 1985 should not be given much weight. Penalties on the assessment on food concession receipts from 1987 are appropriate. For the years subsequent to 1988, Conklin relies on the exemption set forth in Section 212.031(1)(a)(10), Florida Statutes. While it is possible that the exemption applies, the evidence presented at the hearing in this matter was insufficient to establish that this exemption was applicable. Consequently, penalties on the food concession receipts subsequent to 1988 are not appropriate. Following the issuance of the Notice of Proposed Assessment, Conklin admitted that it owed taxes on certain purchases that were made from out of state companies and shipped into the state. Conklin paid the tax on those items prior to the hearing in this matter. It is not clear what, if any, penalty was assessed with the late payment of the tax on these items. With respect to the remaining items, Conklin has steadfastly maintained its position that the items were utilized in connection with products that were exported. However, Conklin failed to convince DOR's auditor of the merits of its position and failed to provide sufficient evidence at the hearing in this matter to justify its claim. In view of all the circumstances, there is no basis for a waiver of penalties on this portion of the Notice of Assessment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order amending the Notice of Assessment to: (a) delete all taxes, penalties and interest assessed against Conklin for the ride subcontracts and game concessions; (b) affirming the assessment of tax against Conklin for the amount it received from food concessionaires during the years 1987 through 1990 (the amount of the assessment should be amended to reflect the net proceeds Conklin received rather than the gross revenues reflected in the original Notice of Assessment) and imposing penalties and interest on the amount of tax due; and (c) affirming the assessment of taxes, penalties and interest for the purchase of items that were allegedly used in the repair or manufacture of goods for export. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of January 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 13th day of January, 1993.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to execute a written agreement with the owner of property to be auctioned and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed auctioneer, holding license number AU 0000415. Respondent and Danny Mitchell are coworkers at a County mosquito control agency. Mr. Mitchell and his wife Joan were selling their house and moving out of town. Wanting to sell their personal possessions fast, they agreed that Mr. Mitchell would contact Respondent and ask him about conducting an auction. In late March 1993, Respondent visited the Mitchells at their home to view the property to be auctioned. Based on the number and quality of the property available for auction, Respondent realized that the auction would not raise much money. He estimated the value of the property to be auctioned at $1200 to $2000. Respondent did not require the Mitchells to sign a contract right away. Because of the friendship between Mr. Mitchell and Respondent, Respondent allowed the Mitchells to sell or give away items without Respondent's approval prior to the auction, and they sold $525 worth of items in the interim. Even the auction date was left open. The Mitchells did not want the auction to take place until they were closing on the sale of their house. For the next three months, the Mitchells sold and gave away what property they could. Then, without much notice, they told Respondent that they wanted the auction to take place. The Mitchells and Respondent agreed that the auction would take place July 24, 1993. Respondent discussed with Mr. Mitchell the need for advertising, which would come out of the Mitchells' share of the proceeds. The Mitchells agreed on fairly modest advertising. Respondent never obtained a written contract in the days prior to the auction. Although he was in frequent contact with Mr. Mitchell at work, there was some awkwardness in presenting the contract to him because Mr. Mitchell does not read or write. Respondent instead agreed to meet the Mitchells at their house on the morning of the auction, and he intended to present them a contract at that time to sign. Respondent appeared at their house at the agreed-upon time with a contract to be signed. However, he did not insist that they read and sign the contract because, as Respondent arrived, the Mitchells were rushing out of the house to take care of other matters. Consistent with their intent all along, the last instructions that the Mitchells gave Respondent was that he had to sell everything so the new homeowners could get into the house and the Mitchells would not have to move anything. Only about ten bidders appeared for the auction. Bidding was low. Respondent wanted to stop the auction, but had no way to contact the Mitchells, who did not try to contact him that day. Recalling the final instructions about selling everything, Respondent continued with the auction. After about an hour and a half, the auction ended with everything sold. Respondent claims that he received $499.50 in sale proceeds. It is unnecessary to determine whether this testimony should be credited. Respondent did not hear from the Mitchells for two weeks after the auction. One day, Mr. Mitchell returned to work from his vacation and asked for his money. Bringing the money the next day to work, Respondent gave the Mitchells a check for $200 with a settlement sheet itemizing the expenses. Upon the insistence of Mrs. Mitchell for documentation of the auction sales, Respondent later provided the Mitchells with copies of the clerking tickets. The estimated value of the auctioned property exceeded $500.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Auctioneers enter a final order reprimanding Respondent. ENTERED on July 28, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 28, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Auctioneers Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Chief Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Bruce C. Scott 2424 McGregor Boulevard Ft. Myers, FL 33901
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent unlawfully conducted gambling operations at its licensed business establishment, and, if so, what penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, licensing and monitoring businesses licensed under the Florida Beverage and Tobacco laws. Department headquarters are in Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent is a duly-licensed business monitored by the Department. The business, known as Tubby's, is a small bar or pub that serves alcohol pursuant to its license. The business has five video games with names such as Stone Age, Cherry Master, and Haunted House. The games allow customers to accumulate points as they play. The points are then registered on a written slip of paper printed by the video game after each period of play. There are a number of video surveillance cameras in Tubby's which are used to monitor the hallway, bathroom, and bartenders. The bar has experienced trouble in the past with drug deals and installed the cameras to prevent such activities from re-occurring. One of the video cameras, the one pointed toward the video game area, was in fact not actually a working camera according to Tubby's representative.3 On October 19, 2007, two agents employed by the Department conducted an investigation of Tubby's to ascertain whether illegal gambling was going on in the establishment. Special Agent Michael Chandler sat at one of the video machines and played approximately $5.00 worth of currency. Upon completion, he had accumulated 4 points as evidenced by a game slip which printed from the machine. The game slip had the following information printed on it: "TUBBY'S GAME 1; NO CASH VALUE; 1/20/07 01:17:37 1404."4 Chandler gave the slip to the bartender, and it was placed on a red diary or log kept behind the bar. When the slip was later recovered by Chandler, his undercover name (Mike Boone) had been written on the slip. Also written across the top of the slip were the words, "Not Paid. Same guy as last night." Special Agent Robert Baggett also played one of the games. He played $30.00 worth of coins and won 100 points as indicated on his game slips.5 Baggett says another patron told him that he could get actual money for the slips, but that testimony was not confirmed by non-hearsay evidence. Baggett gave his slips to the bartender and asked what he could receive for them. This exchange between Baggett and his counsel at final hearing addressed what happened next: Q: And did the bartender do anything with the game slips? A: He asked me my name, and I gave him my alias. And he advised me that the scores will be tabulated at the end of the week, and that if I got the highest score my name would be placed on the electronic scoreboard that hung next to the bar area. Q: To your understanding, do the game slips have any value? A: Based upon my previous education, training and experience, these points are redeemable for monetary items. Because we have conducted several investigations in the past where we actually were paid out in the form of bar tabs or actual money. There was no mention by the bartender of cash payments being available for the game slips that Baggett acquired at Tubby's. In fact, in contrast to what Baggett had experienced in other investigations, this establishment specifically applied earned points to a non-monetary function, i.e., listing the winners' names on a game board. Based on their determination that illegal gambling was occurring, Chandler and Baggett seized a number of lottery tickets, a bank bag filled with cash, and the game slips from the log book. The cash was primarily twenty-dollar bills wrapped in bundles of $1,000 each for a total of $3,049.00. Each night, the Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) was replenished with cash. The register report produced at final hearing by Respondent clearly indicates a daily deposit of cash into the ATM. Goulet's testimony that the cash in the bank bag was used to replenish the ATM on site at Tubby's is credible. The game slips from customers were shredded or otherwise disposed of at the end of each week because there was no reason to keep them. This explanation is credible. The Department’s concern and position that the slips should be maintained in case some customer questioned his or her point total is speculative and not supported by the facts. Also confiscated from the establishment by Chandler and Baggett was a hand-written list of professional football teams. The list contained the first names or nicknames of 13 individuals, along with a statement of each player's record from the prior week. This sheet was obviously representative of some sort of football pool, but there is no evidence whatsoever that it was used for gambling purposes or involved the payment or exchange of money. The video camera in the gaming area of Tubby's was, as previously discussed, not a working camera. The game area was purposely set up by Tubby's management to look like a casino gambling area. This was meant to enhance the enjoyment of playing the video machines. Goulet testified that Tubby's is an alternative lifestyle bar and that its clientele is fairly regular, i.e., they see the same people over and over. Due to its location off the main thoroughfares, there are not a lot of folks who just drop in to the bar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation finding that Respondent, Rick's of South Florida, Inc., d/b/a Tubby's, is not guilty of conducting illegal gambling at its business site. Based upon the foregoing recommendation, it is further RECOMMENDED that Exhibits 5, 8, and 10 be returned to Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law I hereby recommend that the Petitioner's challenge to the Department's determination of sales taxes due herein pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, be denied and that the revised assessment notices be upheld as issued. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Davis, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert F. Nunez, Esquire Post Office Box 12726 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Mercer Farrington, Esquire Post Office Box 1548 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
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.
Findings Of Fact By Administrative Complaint filed August 30, 1990, and assigned DOAH Case No. 90-6107, Respondent alleged that Petitioner, as a licensed auction business, accepted the consignment of property from Ms. Erma Grant in April, 1988. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Petitioner failed to provide Ms. Grant a written agreement evidencing the consignment, as required by Section 468.388 for consignments involving property whose estimated value is over $500. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Petitioner failed to pay Ms. Grant the auction proceeds within 30 days of the auction. Based on the factual allegations set forth above, the Administrative Complaint charges that Petitioner violated Section 468.389(1)(j), which prohibits a violation of any statute, through the violation of Section 468.388 by failing to obtain a written consignment agreement; Section 468.389(1)(c), which prohibits the failure to account for or to pay, within a reasonable time not to exceed 30 days, money belonging to another which has come into the control of an auctioneer or auction business through an auction; and Section 468.389(1)(e), which prohibits conduct in connection with a sales transaction which demonstrates bad faith or dishonesty. Based on the alleged violations set forth above,the Administrative Complaint requests the Board of Auctioneers to enter a final order revoking or suspending Petitioner's license, imposing an administrative fine, issuing a reprimand, placing Petitioner on probation, and awarding other appropriate relief. Respondent predicated its allegations largely on a complaint that it received from Ms. Grant. By letter dated April 23, 1990, Ms. Grant recounted that she had advertised a moving sale in March or April, 1988. She reported that Petitioner contacted her and asked that she let him take everything to sell at an auction. Following the sale, she stated that she called Petitioner and consigned to him several items, including a davenport, china cabinet, a still- life picture, and two padded chairs. Ms. Grant charged in her letter that she did not hear from Petitioner following the consignment. Residing in Vermont, she returned to Florida in November, 1988, and immediately contacted Petitioner. She charged that Petitioner explained that he did not have the money, but thought that he had sent her a check. He reportedly promised to examine his records. Ms. Grant letter states that Ms. Grant returned to see Petitioner on March 6, 1989. The letter reads: "[Petitioner] had already told a cousin of mine that he had sent a check to me for $227. Some of my boys must have cashed it on me." It is unclear to whose "boys" the letter refers. Ms. Grant continued to pressure Petitioner for payment, according to the April 23 letter, but Petitioner refused to pay or show herrecords that he had already sent a check. Ms. Grant alleged that on April 11, 1989, Petitioner offered her $100. About a week later, Petitioner told her that he would be sending her a check for $50 and allegedly admitted that he had no copy of any prior check. Ms. Grant, who was 75 years old at the time and had recently been in poor health, ended her letter with a request for assistance and provided Respondent with her address in Vermont, to which she was returning in the next few days. Respondent opened a formal investigation shortly after receiving Ms. Grant's complaint. On June 4, 1990, Respondent's investigator contacted Ms. Grant, who stated that she had still not received anything from Petitioner. The following day, the investigator contacted Petitioner, who said that he could not remember accepting any property from Ms. Grant on consignment. They set up an appointment for June 6. On June 6, Ms. Grant telephoned the investigator and informed him that a friend of hers in Cocoa, Mr. Alcide Quesnel, had received a call from Petitioner, who offered him the sum of $200 to send to Ms. Grant. The investigator contacted Mr. Quesnel on the same day, and he confirmed that he had received from Petitioner the sum of $200 the prior evening to send to Ms. Grant. Mr. Quesnel explained that he had introduced Ms. Grant to Petitioner. Mr. Quesnel later tried to change his story by telling the investigator that Petitioner did not give him themoney. Instead, someone unknown to him put the money in his pocket and he assumed that it was for Ms. Grant because he had known that she and Petitioner had been having some problems. By letter dated June 9, 1990, Ms. Grant provided Respondent's investigator with a copy of the $200 check that she had received from Mr. Quesnel. She added that Mr. Quesnel had telephoned her on the evening of June 5 and informed her that Petitioner had given him the $200, she was to call the investigator and tell him that she had received the money, and Petitioner did not want a receipt. In addition to the interviews of Ms. Grant, Petitioner, and Mr. Quesnel, the investigator received an affidavit from Ms. Grant's sister, who swore that she witnessed Petitioner pick up the furniture from Ms. Grant's house in April, 1988. By internal memorandum dated December 31, 1990, a law clerk of Respondent advised the attorney handling DOAH Case No. 90-6107 that she did not believe that Respondent could prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner was guilty of any violations of Chapter 468. Respondent served the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal the same day. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, Respondent is a state agency and initiated the underlying case giving rise to the present claim for attorneys' fees; Petitioner is a prevailing small business party; and the attorneys's fees and costs are reasonable as to those expended in connection with theunderlying case. The fees in connection with DOAH Case No. 90-6107 are $1920. There is no indication that Petitioner incurred any costs in connection with DOAH Case No. 90-6107.
