Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this cause, Robert W. Pope has been the holder of license no. 62-600, series 4-COP, SRX, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage to trade as The Wedgewood Inn, located at 1701, 4th Street, South, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. When the Respondent, Pope, began to operate the licensed premises he was given a registration sales tax number by the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. This number was provided in accordance with 212, F.S. That law required the remittance of the collected sales tax on a month to month basis, the period beginning with the first day of the month and ending with the last day of the month. The remittance was due on the first day of the following month and payable by the 20th day of the following month. Failure to pay by the 20th would result in a 5 percent penalty and 1 percent interest per month. The sales tax remittance due from the licensed premises for December, 1975 through August, 1976 was not made, and a lien was filed to aid collection of the tax. In mid 1976, the Respondent, contacted the State of Florida, Department of Revenue to discuss term payments of the sales tax remittance. The Respondent in October, 1976 tried to effect a partial release of the tax claim by paying $2,900. In keeping with their policy the Department of Revenue rejected these efforts. Subsequently, in February, 1977, the Respondent made a $10,000 initial payment and three monthly installments to satisfy the lien on this licensed premises and another licensed premises which the Respondent owned. At present all taxes due and owing under 212, F.S. are current. The above facts establish that the Respondent failed to comply with the provisions of 212, F.S. pertaining to the remittance of sales tax from the Respondent to the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. This violation, thereby subjects the Respondent to the possible penalties of 561.29, F.S.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Robert W. Pope, be required to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 or have the license no. 62-600, series 4- COP, SRX, suspended for a period of 10 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Division of Beverage 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert W. Pope, Esquire 611 First Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this cause, Robert W. Pope, has been the holder of license no. 62-600, series 4-COP, SRX, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage to trade as The Wedgewood Inn, located at 1701, 4th Street, South, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. When the Respondent, Pope, began to operate the licensed premises he was given a registration sales tax number by the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. This number was provided in accordance with 212, F.S. That law required the remittance of the collected sales tax on a month to month basis, the period beginning with the first day of the month and ending with the last day of the month. The remittance was due on the first day of the following month and payable by the 20th day of the following month. Failure to pay by the 20th would result in a 5 percent penalty and 1 percent interest per month. The sales tax remittance due from the licensed premises for September, 1976 through December, 1976 was not made and a lien was recorded to aid collection of the tax. Payment of the amount of $4,500.00 was paid in February or March, 1977 to satisfy the Department of Revenue lien claims. At present all taxes due and owing under 212, F.S. are current. The above facts established that the Respondent failed to comply with the provisions of 212, F.S. pertaining to the remittance of sales tax from the Respondent to the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. This violation, thereby subjects the Respondent to the possible penalties of 561.29, F.S.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Robert W. Pope, be required to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 or have the license no. 62-600, series 4- COP, SRX, suspended for a period of 20 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Division of Beverage 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert W. Pope, Esquire 611 First Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner performed nontaxable services as a decorating contractor, as he maintains, or, rather, whether he leased tangible personal property and thereby incurred sales tax liability, as Respondent alleges.
Findings Of Fact The Parties At all relevant times, Petitioner Philip E. Hancock ("Hancock") was a sole proprietor doing business in and around Fort Lauderdale, Florida, under the names "Action Plant Rental" and "Action Plants." Respondent Department of Revenue ("Department"), an agency of the State of Florida, is authorized to administer the state's tax laws. An Overview of Hancock's Businesses In 1980, Hancock and his then-wife purchased a nursery and, as proprietors, started a business called "Landscape Concepts." Initially, the couple's business activities involved landscaping and (b) sales of plants and nursery stock at wholesale (mostly) and retail. Sometime in 1983, Landscape Concepts began "renting" plants and trees for special events, such as weddings, banquets, and charity fundraisers.2 In time, this plant rental business eclipsed the original landscaping and sales operations, and by the late 1980's the ascendant enterprise was dubbed "Action Plant Rental."3 In 1990, having established Action Plant Rental, the Hancocks sold their nursery, whereupon Landscape Concepts stopped selling plants on a regular basis. The landscaping business, in contrast, tapered off gradually, continuing for several more years until being discontinued completely at the end of 1993. As of January 1994, plant rental was Petitioner's sole vocation. A Closer Look At the Plant Rental Business The evidence concerning the details of how Hancock's plant rental business operated during the audit period is relatively sparse, consisting of little, if anything, other than Hancock's testimony, which is generally credible as far as it goes, but not comprehensive. Hancock's clients, for the most part, were not the individuals who hosted or sponsored the events for which Action Plant Rental supplied "green décor" (to use Hancock's phrase), but rather were the event planners, designers, florists, and hotels (which frequently acted as planners in connection with events held on their premises) who had been hired by the hosts or sponsors to make their events happen. Thus, Hancock usually did not deal directly with, for example, the bride, but with the bride's wedding planner. In effect, he was a subcontractor. Hancock did not enter into written contracts with his clients. When a client retained Hancock, the client informed Hancock when and where the event would be held, and told Hancock (or asked him for an opinion about) which plants would be appropriate. The evidence is ambiguous as to the degree of Hancock's input and discretion in selecting the particular plants to bring to a given event. While the undersigned is persuaded that Hancock had some involvement in choosing the plants at least some of the time, it cannot be found that this service, to the extent provided, added substantial value to the transaction——or was one for which clients specifically and knowingly paid. When the time came for Hancock to perform the agreement, he delivered the plants and trees to the site and, at a time before the event was to begin, set them up in the hall or ballroom. Setting up the plants to create a pleasing and appropriate environment no doubt required decorating skill. It is undisputed, moreover, that Hancock commonly added decorating touches, such as lights and decorative containers, to his plants and trees, which made the display more attractive. What is less clear, however, is whether clients purchased Hancock's decorating expertise——or if, instead, Hancock executed the commands of someone else who decided how to arrange and present the plants. On this point, as others, it might have been helpful to hear from some clients. As it is, Hancock's own testimony is somewhat ambiguous. While the question is extremely close, the undersigned is persuaded, on the evidence presented, that Hancock usually operated under the direction of his client and had relatively little control over the design and arrangement of his plants and trees at the event site. Thus, the undersigned is unable to find that Hancock's decorating services provided the ultimate value to Hancock's clients. Once the plants were set in place and Hancock was assured that the arrangement satisfied his client, Hancock left the event site. (This meant, of course, that someone——the client, the host, or even a guest——could have moved the plants around.4 The Department contends that Hancock's absence from the premises demonstrates decisively that possession and control of the plants was surrendered to his client. The undersigned has given this fact some weight, but not a great deal. For one thing, there is no persuasive evidence that the client typically remained on-site with the plants. Further, since the plants were generally set up in a "public" place (as opposed to a personal space such as an office) over which neither the client, nor the host, nor the guests had exclusive control,5 the undersigned is not persuaded that the client or others attending the event had possession and control of the plants in any meaningful sense. Indeed, under the Department's theory, the plants apparently would have been in the constructive possession, at least, of everyone present at the party——a conclusion that runs counter to common sense and ordinary experience. The opportunity to move a plant is not, in the undersigned’s mind, equivalent to having a possessory right or power over the plant.) When the event was over, Hancock returned to the site to retrieve and remove his plants. Later, Hancock sent the client an invoice for his "services." As far as the evidence shows, Hancock did not bill his clients separately for delivery, set up, removal, or design, but rather he charged a lump sum for the plants, which price included these associated services as part of the total package. Petitioner's History As a Sales Tax-Paying Dealer From at least 1985, and continuing through the middle of 1994, Landscape Concepts, as a registered dealer having identification number 16-03-109301-76, collected and remitted sales taxes on the revenues generated through retail plant sales and plant rentals, filing monthly sales tax returns as legally required.6 If a client gave Petitioner a resale certificate, however, Petitioner did not collect sales tax from that client. Because most of Petitioner's plant rental customers were other businesses (e.g. event planners, florists, and hotels) that provided resale certificates to Petitioner, a relatively small percentage of these transactions were taxed. In mid-1994, while in one of the Department's regional offices attending to some since forgotten sales tax-related matter, Hancock was shown Rule 12A-1.071 of the Florida Administrative Code. This Rule then contained the following provision: (35)(a) A decorating contractor who uses materials and supplies such as bunting, streamers, colored paper, wreaths, pennants, lights, rope, etc., in fulfilling a contract which requires the furnishing of arrangements and decorations to, and their subsequent removal from, hotels, offices, public buildings, etc., is the consumer of such materials and supplies and shall pay tax on their acquisition. The contractor's charge under such contract is a service charge and is exempt. Fla. Admin. Code R. 12A-1.071(35)(a).7 Hancock concluded that he was entitled to the benefit of the foregoing "decorator's exemption." Hancock asked a local employee of the Department whether he could claim the exemption, and she advised him to write a letter to the Department's main office in Tallahassee. Hancock sent the Department a letter announcing his intent to stop filing monthly sales tax returns. Enclosed with this letter was Hancock's sales tax certificate, which Hancock purported to "relinquish." The Department did not respond to Hancock's letter. Hancock did not file another sales tax return.8 The Audit and Protest In January 2001, the Department commenced a sales and use tax audit of Hancock's plant rental business, initially concentrating on the five-year period from December 1, 1995 through November 30, 2000. The Department later enlarged the audit period to span 16 years, reaching all the way back to June 1, 1985, and continuing through June 30, 2001. This expansion was based on the Department's belief that Hancock had never filed any sales tax returns respecting his business——a belief that, as found above, would prove to be incorrect. After concluding that Hancock's tax records were "adequate but voluminous," the Department used a sampling method to calculate the amount of tax allegedly owed.9 To determine the total amount of revenue subject to sales tax, the Department used as a starting point the gross receipts figures as reported on Hancock's federal income tax returns for the years 1995 through 2000, inclusive.10 From these figures, the Department calculated the average monthly receipts for each of the six years in question (by dividing 12 into each respective year's gross sales revenue). It also computed an average annual gross sales figure (by dividing 6 into the sum of the known annual gross receipts), along with an average average-monthly sales amount (by dividing 6 into the sum of the average monthly receipts). Year Here are the relevant Gross Sales numbers: Avg. Monthly Sales 1995 $ 99,045 $ 8,253.75 1996 $113,973 $ 9,497.75 1997 $171,721 $14,310.08 1998 $169,961 $14,163.42 1999 $126,306 $10,525.50 2000 $154,253 $12,854.42 Average Annual Gross Sales: $139,210.00 Average Average-Monthly Sales: $ 11,600.82 The Department apparently acquired more specific information regarding monthly receipts for the 11-month period from January through November 2000. During this period, Hancock's gross receipts totaled $113,661.00.11 The Department determined, based on these figures, that the total tax due for this particular period was $6,861.41. Dividing 113,661 into 6,861.41, the Department derived a "percentage of error" of .060367. This "percentage of error" was effectively the tax rate because, as we have seen, the Department believed that Hancock had paid no taxes whatsoever. The "percentage of error" slightly exceeded 6 percent (the present state sales tax rate) due to the inclusion of some county taxes.12 The Department computed the total sales tax allegedly due and owing as follows. To determine the tax due per month for the 121 months comprising the periods from (a) June 1985 through December 1994 and (b) January through June 2001, for which there were no "known-sales" numbers, the Department applied the "percentage of error" (=tax rate) against the average average-monthly sales figure of $11,600.82. To determine the tax due per month for the years 1995 through 2000, the Department applied the "percentage of error" against each respective year's average monthly sales figure. The sum of these monthly figures equaled the total alleged tax liability. Here are the numbers: Period Average Monthly Sales Tax Rate Tax Due Per Month Tax Due For Period Jun 1985 — Dec 1994 (115 months) 11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 80,535.65 Jan (12 — Dec 1995 months) 8,253.75 0.060367 498.25 5,979.00 Jan (12 — Dec 1996 months) 9,497.7613 0.060367 573.35 6,880.20 Jan (12 — Dec 1997 months) 14,310.08 0.060367 863.86 10,366.32 Jan (12 — Dec 1998 months) 14,163.42 0.060367 855.00 10,260.00 Jan (12 — Dec 1999 months) 10,525.50 0.060367 635.39 7,624.68 Jan (12 — Dec 2000 months) 12,854.4314 0.060367 775.98 9,311.76 Jan — Jun 2001 (6 months) $11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 4,201.86 135,159.47 In sum, the Department found that Hancock was liable for $134,337.17 in state sales taxes and $822.30 in County Taxes, see endnote 12, which amounts, when added together, equaled $135,159.47. Additionally, the Department found that Hancock owed small amounts of state use taxes in connection with several fixed assets. This aspect of the case received little attention, if any, at final hearing and accordingly will not be examined in great detail here. The following table summarizes the amounts that the Department claims are due and owing: Asset Transaction Date Tax Due Computer September 1995 229.12 Office refrigerator April 1997 24.00 Computer October 1998 72.00 Office Furniture December 1998 21.62 Printer May 1999 24.66 371.40 In January 2002, the Department notified Hancock that it intended to collect the alleged tax deficiencies just described, in the total principal amount of $135,530.87. In addition, the Department claimed $135,666.86 in interest through January 2, 2002, together with a total of $52,359.05 in penalties, making a grand total of $323,556.78. Hancock disputed the assessments and timely requested a formal administrative hearing. Ultimate Factual Determinations The factual question whether Hancock performed nontaxable services as a decorating contractor, as he maintains, or leased tangible personal property and thereby incurred sales tax liability, as the Department contends, is very close, at least based on the evidence presented. On a better record it might have been possible to answer this question with greater confidence——and, indeed, to obtain a different result. On this relatively limited record, however, the undersigned finds that the weight of the evidence tips ever so slightly in the Department's favor, primarily because it appears more likely than not that Hancock's clients were given a meaningful right to direct the use of the material personal property involved, namely the live plants and trees. Thus, while reasonable minds could differ, the undersigned finds that Hancock was engaging in the taxable business activity of leasing personal property. The evidence does not establish, however, and hence the undersigned does not find, that Hancock filed a grossly false or substantially incorrect return or made a substantial underpayment of tax. Likewise, Hancock did not file any fraudulent returns. Rather, Hancock properly filed returns through mid-1994, paying all of the sales and use taxes then due and owing. What Hancock failed to do was make all required tax payments after May 1994——a significant default, to be sure, but one that leaves him less liable, in fact, for back-taxes than the Department has contended. Hancock's decision to stop collecting and remitting sales taxes, moreover, was based not upon an intent to defraud but upon an honest, if mistaken, belief that the business of Action Plant Rental fell within the "decorator's exemption."15 Apart from any question of liability, the Department's assessment of the amount of state sales taxes and County Taxes allegedly due and owing for the period from June 1985 through December 1993 is clearly erroneous, for at least three reasons. First, the state sales tax was not six percent during that entire period, yet the Department has computed Hancock's alleged tax liability as if it were.16 Second, the Department did not make any adjustments to account for the time-value of money when it projected sales figures from 1995-2000 back as many as 15 years. It is commonly known, however, that dollars earned in the year 2000, for example, had less purchasing power than, say, 1985 dollars; thus, sales figures from 2000 must be discounted if a fair and reasonable comparison to 1985 is to be made. The Department's failure to reduce recent earnings to the then- present value of income derived from plant rentals in the earlier years of the audit period is tantamount to charging interest——which, of course, the Department has also assessed, separately. Finally, the Department's calculation assumed, incorrectly, that (a) Hancock's business had not changed during the entire 16-year audit period and (b) Hancock had never paid any sales taxes. In fact, until the end of 1993, Hancock derived income not only from his plant rental business but also from landscaping and plant sales; not only that, he paid sales taxes on the receipts from these activities, through May 1994. In sum, then, even if Hancock were liable for the taxes that allegedly accrued before 1994, the Department's figures for that period of the audit are simply too unreliable to be credited. Period Average Monthly Sales Tax Rate Tax Due Per Month Tax Due For Period Jun 1994 — Dec 1994 (7 months) 11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 4,902.17 Jan — Dec 1995 (12 months) 8,253.75 0.060367 498.25 5,979.00 Jan — Dec 1996 (12 months) 9,497.7617 0.060367 573.35 6,880.20 Jan — Dec 1997 (12 months) 14,310.08 0.060367 863.86 10,366.32 Jan — Dec 1998 (12 months) 14,163.42 0.060367 855.00 10,260.00 Jan — Dec 1999 (12 months) 10,525.50 0.060367 635.39 7,624.68 Jan — Dec 2000 (12 months) 12,854.4318 0.060367 775.98 9,311.76 Jan — Jun 2001 (6 months) $11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 4,201.86 59,525.99 It is found, therefore, that Hancock owes state sales taxes and County Taxes in the following sums: Additionally Hancock must pay use taxes amounting to $371.40, bringing to $59,897.39 the total principal amount of taxes proved to be due.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order directing Hancock to pay state sales taxes and County Taxes in the total amount of $59,525.99, plus state use taxes in the amount of $371.40, bringing to $59,897.39 the principal sum of back-taxes due and owing. In addition, Hancock should be ordered to pay interest and penalties on the unpaid taxes, in amounts to be determined by the Department in accordance with the methodologies reflected in the audit work papers that are included in the evidentiary record of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 7th day of January, 2004.
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.
The Issue Does the taxpayer owe sales tax, penalty, and interest as assessed by the Department of Revenue.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Revenue, is an agency of the State of Florida, lawfully created and organized pursuant to Section 20.21, Florida Statutes. By law, the Department is vested with the responsibility of regulating, controlling and administering the revenue laws of the State of Florida, including, specifically, the laws relating to the imposition and collection of the state's sales and use tax, pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Worldwide Equipment Group, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company, whose principal address is Post Office Box 1050, Freeport, Florida 32439. Respondent sells and leases heavy equipment. In early 2006, Petitioner, Department of Revenue, conducted an audit of the books and records of Petitioner, pursuant to statutory notice. The period covered by the audit was March 1, 2002, through February 28, 2005. The audit was conducted by Department of Revenue auditor David Collins and addressed three issues. Issue A-01 addressed misclassified exempt sales, i.e. failure to collect appropriate sales and use tax or lack of documentation to prove tax exempt status of certain sales. Issue A-03 addressed discrepancies in sales for 2003 as reported for federal income tax returns and for state sales and use tax returns. Issue A-03 addressed interest owed due to a timing difference between actual transactions and the filing of state returns: basically a manipulation of the grace period for payment of sales and use taxes. Respondent was notified of the apparent discrepancies observed by the auditor. The original Notice of Intent To Make Audit Changes was issued February 17, 2006, and started at more than $75,000.00 in taxes, penalty, and interest due. Respondent then filed amended federal income tax returns, reflecting larger sales figures covering a portion of the audit period which reduced the discrepancy. The dispute was originally referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on or about August 30, 2006. The original facts in dispute surrounded an addendum to the Notice of Proposed Assessment showing a balance due of $31,434.82. This was DOAH Case No. 06-3287. The request for a disputed-fact hearing was made by David R. Johnson CPA, who has a power of attorney on file with Petitioner Agency permitting him to represent Respondent. Throughout these proceedings, Worldwide has been served through Mr. Johnson by Petitioner and by DOAH. The parties filed a Joint Motion for Provisional Closing Order in DOAH Case No. 06-3287 on November 1, 2006. On November 2, 2006, DOAH Case No. 06-3287 was closed with leave to return if the parties' proposed settlement was not finalized. Mr. Johnson met once with counsel for Petitioner during the time the case was returned to the Agency. At some point, Respondent had produced certain accounting entries and supporting documents to the auditor. These were used to adjust the assessment levied by the Department. A Revised Notice Of Intent To Make Audit Changes dated March 13, 2007, was issued with a letter of the same date. The revised, and final Notice included an assessment of tax, penalty and interest totaling $15,065.24, as of the date of issue and information that the tax accrues interest at the rate of $3.10 per diem. On April 4, 2007, Petitioner filed before DOAH its Motion to Re-open Case and Notice for Trial. No timely response in opposition was filed by Respondent. By an Order to Re-open Case File, entered April 19, 2007, the case was re-opened as the instant DOAH Case No. 07-1710. Petitioner has established that the amount of $15,065.24 as tax, penalty, and interest was due as of March 13, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue sustain the March 13, 2007, assessment of the subject sales tax, penalties and interest to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Warren J. Bird, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Lisa Echeverri, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 David R. Johnson, CPA 1265 Highway 331 South Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Worldwide Equipment Group LLC Post Office Box 1050 Freeport, Florida 32439
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner owes the taxes, interest, and penalties assessed by the Department of Revenue based upon its audit of Petitioner for the period of August 1, 1996, through July 31, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of selling and installing floor covering materials, such as carpet and tile. Petitioner's business is located in Hillsborough County, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner sales fall into two basic categories: "cash and carry sales" and "installation sales." The "cash and carry sales" are retail sales of floor covering materials to customers that come into Petitioner's store. These sales do not involve any installation work by Petitioner. The "installation sales" are sales in which Petitioner installs the floor covering material in the customer's home or business. These sales are performed pursuant to a lump-sum contract which incorporates the price of the installation and the price of the floor covering materials being installed. Petitioner purchases the floor covering materials from suppliers and distributors. Those purchases become part of the inventory from which Petitioner makes its "installation sales." Petitioner also makes general purchases of goods and services necessary for the day-to-day operation of its business. These purchases include items such as cleaning supplies and vehicle repairs. Petitioner made several fixed-assets purchases during the audit period for use in its business. It purchased a word processor in August 1996, and it purchased equipment and fixtures in December 1996. On those occasions that Petitioner collected sales tax from its customers on the "cash and carry sales" or paid sales tax on its inventory purchases and general purchases, it remitted or reported those amounts to the Department. However, as discussed below, Petitioner did not collect the full amount of sales tax due on each sale, nor did it pay the full amount of sales tax due on each purchase. The Department is the state agency responsible for administering Florida's sales tax laws. The Department is authorized to conduct audits of taxpayers to determine their compliance with the sales tax laws. By letter dated September 10, 2001, the Department notified Petitioner of its intent to conduct a sales tax audit of Petitioner's records for the period of August 1, 1996, through July 31, 2001. The audit was conducted by David Coleman, a tax auditor with seven years of experience with the Department. Petitioner designated its certified public accountant, P.J. Testa, as its representative for purposes of the Department's audit. That designation was memorialized through a power of attorney form executed by Petitioner on March 5, 2002. Mr. Coleman communicated with Mr. Testa throughout the course of the audit. Mr. Coleman conducted the audit using a sampling methodology agreed to by Mr. Testa on behalf of Petitioner. Pursuant to that methodology, Mr. Coleman conducted a comprehensive review of Petitioner's year-2000 purchase and sales invoices and extrapolated the results of that review to the other years in the audit period. The sampling methodology was used because of the volume of records and transactions during the audit period and because of the unavailability of all of the records for the audit period. The year 2000 was chosen as the sample period because Petitioner's records for the other years in the audit period were incomplete or unavailable. Mr. Coleman's audit of the year-2000 invoices focused on three broad types of transactions. First, he reviewed invoices of Petitioner's retail "cash and carry sales." Second, he reviewed the invoices through which Petitioner purchased the floor covering materials that it later sold as part of its "installation sales." Third, he reviewed the invoices through which Petitioner made general purchases of tangible personal property used in the day-to-day operation of its business. The sampling methodology was used for the audit of Petitioner's "cash and carry sales," the inventory purchases related to the "installation sales," and the general purchases. The methodology was not used for the audit of Petitioner's fixed-asset purchases; Mr. Coleman reviewed all of the available records for the fixed-asset purchases during each year of the audit period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's retail "cash and carry sales" identified 29 invoices during year-2000 on which no sales tax or less than the full sales tax was paid by the customer. Those invoices amounted to $17,451.30, on which $1,178.11 in total sales tax was due, but only $552.97 was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $625.14 for the retail sales during the sample period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's purchases of floor covering that was later sold in the "installation sales" identified a considerable number of purchases during year-2000 on which no sales tax or less than the full sales tax was paid by Petitioner to the supplier or distributor of the materials. Those purchases amounted to $123,398.52, but only $123,397.80 of that amount was taxable. On the taxable amount, $8,330.07 in total sales tax was due, but only $6,810.68 was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $1,519.41 for Petitioner's inventory purchases during the sample period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's "general purchases" identified 10 sales during year-2000 on which sales tax was not paid. Those invoices amounted to $2,914.76, on which $196.77 in sales tax was due, but none of which was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $196.77 for the general purchases during the sample period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's fixed-asset purchases identified only two transactions during the entire audit period on which Petitioner did not pay the full sales tax. Those transactions amounted to $5,078.92, on which $330.14 in total sales tax was due, but none of which was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $330.14 for the fixed-asset purchases during the audit period. The tax deficiencies calculated by Mr. Coleman for year-2000 for each category described above take into account any sales tax collected by Petitioner from its customers or paid by Petitioner to its vendors. After Mr. Coleman computed the tax deficiencies based upon his audit of the year-2000 records, he calculated a "percentage of error" for each category of sales/purchases. The percentage of error is the ratio used to extrapolate the results of the audit of the year-2000 records over the remainder of the audit period. No percentage of error was calculated for the fixed-asset purchases because Mr. Coleman reviewed the available records for those purchases over the entire audit period, not just year-2000. The percentage of error was calculated by dividing the sales tax deficiency identified in a particular category for the year-2000 by the total sales/purchases in that category for the year-2000. For the year-2000, Petitioner had retail sales of $1,143,182.45; general purchases of $21,254.88; and inventory purchases of $1,214,016.24. As a result, the applicable percentages of error were 0.000547 ($625.14 divided by $1,143,182.45) for the retail sales; 0.009258 ($196.77 divided by $21,254.88) for the general purchases; and 0.001252 ($1,519.41 divided by $1,214,016.24) for the inventory purchases. The percentages of error were then multiplied by the total sales in the applicable category for the entire audit period to calculate a total tax deficiency in each category. Petitioner's total retail sales over the audit period were $4,455,373.40. Therefore, the total tax deficiency calculated for that category was $2,437.12 (i.e., $4,455,373.40 multiplied by 0.000547). Petitioner's total general purchases over the audit period were $110,741.49. Therefore, the total tax deficiency calculated for that category was $1,025.25 (i.e., $110,741.49 multiplied by 0.009258). Petitioner's total inventory sales over the audit period were $3,130,882.10. Therefore, the total tax deficiency calculated for that category was $3,919.86 (i.e., $3,130,882.10 multiplied by 0.001252). Petitioner's total tax deficiency was computed by adding the deficiencies in each category, as follows: Retail Sales $2,437.12 General Purchases 1,025.25 Inventory Purchases 3,919.86 Fixed-asset purchases 330.14 TOTAL $7,712.37 Of that total, $6,863.02 reflects the state sales tax deficiency; $313.77 reflects the indigent care surtax deficiency; and $535.58 reflects the local government infrastructure surtax deficiency. The sales tax rate in effect in Hillsborough County during the audit period was 6.75 percent. The state sales tax was six percent; the remaining 0.75 percent was for county surtaxes, namely the local government infrastructure surtax and the indigent care surtax. That rate was used by Mr. Coleman in calculating the tax deficiencies described above. On October 4, 2002, Mr. Coleman hand-delivered the Notice of Intent to Make Audit Change (NOI) to Petitioner. The NOI is the end-product of Mr. Coleman's audit. The NOI identified the total tax deficiency set forth above, as well as a penalty of $3,856.26, which is the standard 50 percent of the tax deficiency amount, and interest of $2,561.63, which is calculated at a statutory rate. The NOI included copies of Mr. Coleman's audit work- papers which showed how the taxes, penalties, and interest were calculated. The NOI also included a copy of the "Taxpayers' Bill of Rights" which informed Petitioner of the procedure by which it could protest the audit results reflected on the NOI. On October 29, 2002, the Department issued three NOPAs to Petitioner. A separate NOPA was issued for each type of tax -- i.e., sales tax, indigent care surtax, and local government infrastructure surtax. The cumulative amounts reflected on the NOPAs were the same as that reflected on the NOI, except that the interest due had been updated through the date of the NOPAs. Interest continues to accrue on assessed deficiencies at a cumulative statutory rate of $1.81 per day. The NOPAs were sent to Petitioner by certified mail, and were received by Petitioner on November 1, 2002. By letter dated November 5, 2002, Petitioner protested the full amount of the taxes assessed on the NOPAs and requested a formal administrative hearing. The letter was signed by Mr. Testa on Petitioner's behalf. The protest letter does not allege that the methodology used by Mr. Coleman was improper or that the results of the audit were factually or legally erroneous. Instead, the protest letter states that Petitioner was disputing the results of the audit because it was "following procedures set forth by an agent from a previous audit who established the manner in which [Petitioner was] to compute sales tax on the items being questioned by the current auditor." Mr. Testa made similar comments to Mr. Coleman during the audit. When Mr. Coleman requested documentation from Mr. Testa to corroborate those comments about the procedures allegedly established by the prior auditor, Mr. Testa was unable to provide any such documentation. The record of this proceeding is similarly devoid of evidence to support Petitioner's allegation on this point. The record does not contain any evidence to suggest that Petitioner ever modified or revoked Mr. Testa's authority to represent it in connection with the audit or this protest, which Mr. Testa initiated on Petitioner's behalf. Petitioner, through Mr. Testa, had due notice of the date, time, and location of the final hearing in these cases. Neither Mr. Testa, nor anyone else on Petitioner's behalf, appeared at the final hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order imposing the taxes, interest, and penalties against Petitioner in the full amounts set forth in the three Notices of Proposed Assessment dated October 28, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2003.
The Issue Petitioners' liability for corporate income tax deficiency under Chapter 220, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Georgia Corporation doing business as a heavy electrical contractor in Georgia and eight other states including Florida. In 1972, Petitioner submitted a request to the Department of Revenue that it be allowed to use "separate accounting" as the method for determining the amount of its adjusted federal income that was subject to taxation by the State of Florida under Chapter 220,Florida Statutes. By letter of October 3, 1972, T.H. Swindal, Respondent's Chief of the Corporation Income Tax Bureau, denied Petitioner's request with the following language: "The economics of large scale interstate construction operations, as we understand them, necessitate maximum utilization of a company's resources. At particular times and in a particular locale or with respect to particular types of construction activity contracts may be initially or regularly bid upon and undertaken which, on an individual contract basis, will be minimally profitable, if at all. Nevertheless, because these contracts permit cost absorption, continuing use and charge for equipment, trained crews and know-how; permit maximum employment of the company's capital and credit accomo- dations; permit initial entry into a new field of construction activity or a new locale, these contracts indirectly but significantly add to the profitability of the enterprise as a whole. We recognize too, that separate accounting essentially serves management and that management must evaluate competitive tax implications. "Separate accounting" does not, in our view, measure the impact of these cir- cumstances. We are of the opinion that Florida's three factor formula does measure the impact of these circumstances upon profit and thus provides a fairer Florida tax base." (Complaint, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Respondent however, pursuant to a request of Petitioner, permitted the latter to leave its 1972 return as filed, but instructed it to file in the future utilizing the "three-factor" formula. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed its 1973 and 1974 tax returns utilizing the "three-factor" formula" as directed by the Respondent, and paid the appropriate tax due. By letter, dated September 15, 1975, Mr. Swindal informed Petitioner that examination of its returns for the years 1972 thru 1974 had resulted in a net proposed deficiency of $12,417.60. An accompanying report showed that the primary basis for the deficiency was Respondent's determination that the Florida portion of adjusted federal income for the years 1973 and 1974 should have been increased by the amounts of $87,772.93 and $160,117.83, respectively, based on a "separate accounting" computation. The reason given for this determination was stated as follows in the report: "Florida Statute 214.73(1) says in part that if the apportionment methods of Florida Statute 214.71 and 214.72 do not fairly represent the extent of a taxpayer's base attributable to this state, the department may require separate accounting. The department has determined the taxpayer should use separate accounting in accordance with the above-mentioned, statute." (Complaint and exhibits thereto) Respondent had not notified Petitioner between 1972 and 1975 of its apparent change in position with respect to the required method of accounting. At a conference held on February 19, 1976, between Petitioner's representatives and Mr. William T. Lutschak who represented the Respondent, Petitioner protested the asserted deficiency and requested that the Respondent adhere to its former determination that the "three-factor method" be applied in computing the tax. Petitioner's protest was denied orally at the conference and such denial w-s confirmed by Mr. Swindal's letter of February 24, 1976, as follows in pertinent part: "Careful analysis of the taxpayer's Florida activity and the financial results of that activity clearly demonstrate that the amount of income set forth in the auditor's report for the years at issue are attributable to taxpayer's Florida business and that F.S. 214.73(1), rather than F.S. 214.71, fairly represents the extent of the taxpayer's tax base attributable to this state." (Comp. & Exh. thereto) Respondent's auditor of Petitioner's 1973 and 1974 tax returns found nothing unusual concerning the latter's business operations during the above tax periods and is of the opinion that based on formulary accounting Petitioner's returns "fulfill the letter of the law". He also acknowledged that Petitioner met the criteria of a "unitary business". He testified that he was unable to determine the amount of property used by Petitioner on its various jobs in and out of Florida while at the audit site at Petitioner's home office in Alabama and that without such information it would be impossible to determine Petitioner's tax liability under the "three-factor method" because property is one of the factors. The auditor, after making a request of Petitioner for such figures during his audit, which did not produce immediate results, did not pursue the matter because he "had to go back to Tallahassee". In fact, such information was available in Petitioner's records. Respondent changed its policy with respect to the method of accounting required of Petitioner after consideration of a textbook on the concept of separate accounting and a resulting determination that the contracting business in general is a unique industry warranting special tax treatment. (Testimony of Harnden, Puckett, Malone, Exhibit 1, Pleadings). The alleged deficiency of $12,417.60 is correctly computed and properly due and owing if "separate accounting" is validly required with respect to Petitioner's tax returns. (Stipulation).
Recommendation That Petitioner be relieved from payment of the proposed assessment based on any tax deficiency produced by the requirement of separate accounting under Section 214.73, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED 21st day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: E. Wilson Crump, II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Division Northwood Mall Tallahassee, Florida 32303 James R. English, Esquire HENRY & BUCHANAN, P.A. P.O. Drawer 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact At the time and place scheduled for final hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of petitioner and no evidence was adduced.
Recommendation It is, accordingly recommended that respondent dismiss petitioner's request for a formal administrative proceeding. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Thomas Herndon, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Vicki Weber, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Kevin J. O'Donnell, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Louise J. Allen, Esquire Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. 150 W. Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner owes unpaid sales and use tax, interest, and penalties for the period of February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings are made. Petitioner, Macfarlane, Ferguson, & McMullen, P.A., ("Macfarlane"), is a law firm located in Tampa, Florida. In May 1993, Macfarlane entered into a Copy Control Services Agreement ("1993 Contract") with Copy Control Center ("CCC"). The 1993 Contract, which was effective for three years, called for CCC to provide copying services within the physical confines of the MacFarlane law firm. CCC provided the personnel and MacFarlane provided the equipment and space for copying. The 1993 Contract called for a flat rate charge to Macfarlane. This stated flat rate charge covered a maximum number of copies each month. Pursuant to the terms of the 1993 Contract, so long as MacFarlane did not make more than 160,000 copies per month, it was charged a flat rate of $10,000 per month. Additional copy-related work over the flat rate charge for the maximum of 160,000 copies was at additional cost. An appendix to the 1993 Contract set forth the additional costs not covered by the flat monthly fee. If no copies were made under the contract, the base fee of the $10,000 would still have to be paid by Macfarlane. Paragraph 4 of the 1993 Contract required CCC to bill Macfarlane "monthly for the preceding month's copies." That paragraph of the 1993 Contract also provides that, "[i]ncluded with the invoice will be a detailed monthly usage report." The invoices issued under the 1993 Contract listed all costs for the month or preceding month. At the bottom of each invoice, CCC listed a total "sale amount" which consisted of the total of the copying facilities management charge and the additional charges. Between May 1993 and January 1994, Macfarlane paid sales tax on the total amount invoiced under the 1993 Contract (i.e. for all goods (copies) and services). In 1993 and 1994, the Department audited CCC. The audit was conducted by Elizabeth Sanchez, an auditor employed by the Department. Based on the 1993 and 1994 audit of CCC, the Department, through its auditor, Ms. Sanchez, alleged that CCC was not properly collecting sales tax from its clients, such as Macfarlane. Specifically, Ms. Sanchez determined that CCC should not have been taxing the entire cost of the 1993 Contract since a portion of the contract was related to services. Instead, the auditor represented that CCC should only tax the direct materials for the photocopy process (paper, toner, developer, and other supplies). Ultimately, CCC was assessed $16,000 in back taxes because it failed to pay sales tax on direct materials. During the aforementioned audit of CCC, Ms. Sanchez developed a formula which CCC could use in charging sales and use taxes to its clients. The formula was discussed with CCC personnel. CCC believed that the formula devised by Ms. Sanchez required or allowed the allocation of tax between nontaxable services and taxable photocopy consumables. Based on its understanding of the formula, CCC quit taxing Macfarlane for the entire amount of the monthly invoices issued under the 1993 Contract. Rather, consistent with its understanding of what was allowed under Ms. Sanchez's formula, CCC modified its billing to allocate tax between what CCC considered to be the facilities management services rendered under the 1993 Contract and the photocopy consumables used under that contract. The Department does not dispute that Ms. Sanchez developed a formula during the 1993 and 1994 audit of CCC. In fact, in the Department's Response to Petitioner's Request for Admissions, the Department admits that "Ms. Sanchez did audit Copy Control Center . . . and did develop a formula during that audit." However, the Department contends that the formula developed by Ms. Sanchez has no basis in law and fact and her actions are contrary to Rule 12A-1.0161(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code. According to the Department, that Rule requires both a statement of the actual cost of the taxable sales and the nontaxable services and the separation of taxable sales from non-taxable services in a contract or invoice for the service to be untaxed. In 1996, Macfarlane executed a new Copy Control Services Agreement with CCC (the "1996 Contract"). The 1996 Contract, dated May 22, 1996, was in effect from May 1996 through April 30, 2000. The 1996 Contract contained similar terms and conditions as the 1993 Contract, including a flat-rate charge and a maximum number of copies before additional charges were imposed. The flat-rate charge in the 1996 contract was $10,200 and the maximum number of copies before additional charges were imposed increased to 170,000. Additional copy- related work over the flat rate charge was at additional cost. The additional costs not covered by the flat monthly fee were set forth in an appendix to the 1996 Contract. Paragraph 6 of the 1996 Contract was entitled "Invoices." That section provides in pertinent part the following: A summary invoice for all Customer Locations shall be sent by Copy Control to the bill-to address and contact person of the Customer set forth hereinbelow, on a monthly basis. The monthly minimum base charge will be invoiced on the first day of each month. Additional charges for copies in excess of target volume or additional services from the previous month will be included with this invoice. In addition, Copy Control specifically agrees to provide to such Customer contact person, on a monthly in arrears basis, a summary report of the C.C.M. [Copy Control Management] Services transaction activity at, (A) all Customer Locations; and, (B) the Copy Control back-up facility, if any ("Summary Report"). Each Summary Report will contain, at a minimum, the following information: The total volume of Copies rendered; The number of Copies rendered per Customer location; The number of Copies above the Targeted Copy Volume, if any, and total Excess Copy Charge therefor by Customer Location and Copy Control back-up facility; The volume of Copies and associated dollar amount rendered at Copy Control's back-up facility, if any; The number of Copies "short" of Targeted Copy Volume; Additional Supplies procured, if any; Amount of overtime paid, if any, for Copy Control Personnel and dates therefor; A description of the Related Services, if any provided by Copy Control and the charge(s) therefore, if any; (emphasis supplied) Consistent with the terms of the 1996 Contract, CCC rendered an invoice to Macfarlane each month during the term of the contract and during the remainder of the audit period covered by that contract. Each invoice listed charges for making copies and off-site copies and other copy-related work and/or materials and products. Under the line for "Copying Facilities Mgt. Billing" were the additional charges made according to the appendix to the contract. The following invoice, dated June 30, 1995, is representative of the monthly invoices issued by CCC to Macfarlane during the period covered by the Department's audit of Macfarlane. That invoice provides in material part the following: COPY CONTROL CENTER INVOICE NO. 131611 3907 W. Osborne Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 SOLD TO: MacFarlane Ausley & et al 23rd Floor LeeAnn Conley 111 E. Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 INVOICE DATE 6/30/95 QYT. ORDERED 1 QTY. SHIPPED 1 ITEM NO. COPIES DESCRIPTION COPIES UNIT PRICE 10000.00 Copying Facilities Mgt.Billing for June 23913 23913 Copies Copies Overage 0.04 1 1 TAX Tax on CCM Material 106.39 1 1 Copies Off Site Services 349.36 1 1 TONER 90 TONER 174.25 9 9 STOCK 8 1/2 x 11 White Paper 2.85 SALE AMOUNT 11612.17 MISC. CHARGES 6.500% SALES TAX 35.70 FREIGHT TOTAL 11647.87 For all the invoices generated under the 1996 Contract, CCC taxed Macfarlane in accordance with its understanding of the formula devised and recommended by Ms. Sanchez. Based on application of this formula, Macfarlane was charged and remitted only sales tax for the consumable goods portion of the contract. During the audit period which is the subject of this proceeding, February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998, the sales tax was either 6.5 percent or 7 percent, whichever was in effect at the time of the invoice. The sales tax listed on the invoices do not reflect tax on the total amount of the invoice. A multiplication of the total amount by either 6.5 or 7 percent reveals that the amount of sales taxes paid by Macfarlane for the audit period in question, February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998, was only on a small portion of the total invoice billing. The 1993 Contract and the 1996 Contract between Macfarlane and CCC do not address, contain language, or speak directly to any "facilities management services." Neither do the contracts define the terms "service," "related services," or "other related services." Although the terms listed in paragraph 22 above are not defined in the 1993 Contract and the 1996 Contract, Mr. Cayo, the regional operations manager of Lanier Professional Services (LPS), formerly CCC, testified that other services included facilities management services. According to Mr. Cayo, "facilities management" at Macfarlane included making deliveries and rounds, key-oping equipment, filing, supporting, and cleaning and setting up conference rooms. Diane Garner, an employee of CCC, was assigned to work at Macfarlane during the time of the audit period which is the subject of this proceeding. Ms. Garner testified that facilities management services or other services provided by CCC included providing coffee service, sorting mail, sending and delivering faxes, sending and delivering Federal Express packages, moving boxes, ordering and delivering office supplies, and making interoffice mail runs. If the above-described facilities management services were provided, none of the invoices sent by CCC to Macfarlane separately listed any charges to Macfarlane for those services. Moreover, CCC did not separately list on its invoices to Macfarlane a charge for "mail delivery," "filing," "charge-back accounting," or "clerical services," or any other such services. If these services were deemed "related services," the provisions of the 1996 Contract quoted in paragraph 16 required that a description of such services be provided on the invoice or summary report. No description of the foregoing services appears on any of the invoices prepared by CCC and issued to Macfarlane. No other contracts existed between CCC and Macfarlane during the audit periods which reflect that the services described in paragraphs 23 and 24 above would be offered or provided by CCC to Macfarlane. The Department audited Macfarlane in 1999. The audit was conducted by Darlene Bebbington, an auditor with the Department. During this audit, contrary to the position of Ms. Sanchez during the aforementioned audit of CCC, the Department stated that Macfarlane was required to pay tax on the full amount of the invoices. This conclusion was reached by Ms. Bebbington based on the information contained on each invoice. The invoices did not itemize or otherwise separately list or detail products, materials, and/or services that were exempt from tax. To address issues raised by Ms. Bebbington during the audit, Macfarlane sought information from CCC regarding the sales tax amounts that were listed on the invoices. In response, CCC provided two letters to Macfarlane, one dated April 29, 1999, and the second one dated September 22, 1999. In the April 29, 1999, letter to Macfarlane, Mr. Cayo explained how the company handled the sales tax issue for Facilities Management customers and the rationale for doing so. Mr. Cayo stated that during the Department's audit of CCC, Ms. Sanchez indicated that "Facilities Management" was a service and it "was not subject to be taxed." In the letter, Mr. Cayo also stated that all equipment and material used in the performance of these services needed to be taxed, but not the total "Facilities Management" charge. The September 22, 1999, letter was from Andrew Schutte, Finance Manager of LPS, formerly CCC, to Macfarlane and was in response to a specific inquiry from Macfarlane. In that letter, Mr. Schutte stated that the two full-time CCC employees working at the Macfarlane office assigned 87 percent of their collective time performing various facilities management services and spent approximately 13 percent of their collective time making photocopies. However, the letter did not indicate how Mr. Schutte arrived at the quoted percentages or the time period for which those percentages applied. Based on CCC's claim that the formula devised by Ms. Sanchez was used to calculate the amount of sales tax it should charge Macfarlane, Ms. Bebbington pulled CCC's audit file from the Department's records. The Department contends that any agreement to use a formula such as the one described in paragraph 10, should have, by Department policy, been in writing, signed by the auditor and the supervisors, and placed in the audit file. However, upon a review of the Department's records, no such written agreement or documentation was in the CCC audit file. In light of the Department's admission noted in paragraph 13 above, Ms. Sanchez devised a formula which was shared with CCC, but she apparently did not include this formula or her discussions with CCC in the audit file. After Ms. Bebbington completed the audit of Macfarlane and based on the results thereof, the Department notified Macfarlane that it intended to impose additional sales and use tax, interest, and penalties. After the audit report was issued Macfarlane objected to the findings and requested that the Department reconsider the assessment. On or about April 10, 2001, the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration ("Notice") based on Macfarlane's protest of the Department's audit findings for the period of February 1, 1994 through June 30, 1998. The Notice showed that Macfarlane owed additional sales and use tax of $35,958.27, a penalty of $17,979.37, and interest through April 6, 2000, of $16,701.32, and additional interest through April 12, 2000, of $3,606.12. The notice also indicated that interest would continue to accrue at $9.72 per day from April 12, 2001. According to the Notice, Macfarlane made a payment of $6,407.65 to the Department on April 6, 2000, leaving an unpaid balance of $67,837.43. Macfarlane asserts that it should not have to pay sales and use tax on the full amount of the invoice because a portion of that amount is for services that are exempt from sales and use tax. Contrary to this assertion, the auditor found that the invoices and other documentary evidence provided to the Department did not provide substantial competent evidence that any portion of the invoice amounts were attributable to products, materials, or services that were exempt from tax. Accordingly, based on the information provided by Macfarlane, the Department properly concluded that the total amount of each invoice was subject to sales and use tax. Because there is no substantial competent written documentation evidencing what tax exempt services were performed by CCC for Macfarlane and what specified portion of the monthly costs invoiced to Macfarlane were for those "claimed" tax exempt services, Macfarlane is liable for the entire amount on the invoices for the audit period. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Macfarlane did not timely pay the total amount of the invoices, including the amount attributable by CCC to sales and use tax. But for CCC's changing the manner in which it calculated the sales and use tax for its customers in early 1994, Macfarlane would have continued paying the tax on all goods and services as it did prior to January 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be entered sustaining the assessment for sales and use tax against Petitioner, but compromising the entire interest and penalty amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 6th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James W. Goodwin, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2300 Tampa, Florida 33602 Bruce Hoffman, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Jarrell L. Murchison, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Eric J. Taylor, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 David Adams, Esquire Charles Moore, Esquire Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2300 Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner, a corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, is in the business of operating movie theatres both within and without the State of Florida. At these theatres Petitioner Operates concession stands which sell both candy items and drinks in various sizes at different prices to persons who frequent the theatres. For the period of time from September, 1985 through May, 1985, Petitioner remitted to the Department of Revenue sales tax on the total taxable value of all taxable items sold at its concession stands in all of its Florida theatres, in accordance with the presumptive effective rate of tax of 5.63 percent contained in Rule 12A-1.11(37), Florida Administrative Code. As a result of an audit for a previous period dated October 1, 1982, Petitioner remitted to the Department of Revenue the amount of $10,637.00 for sales tax on taxable items sold at its concession stands during this audit period in accordance with the presumptive effective tax rate of 4.5 percent as contained in Rule 12A-1.11(37), Florida Administrative Code during the audit period. On August 15, 1985, Petitioner filed with the Department of Revenue, as agent for Respondent, two (2) applications for sales tax refund in the amount of $16,876.52 and $10,637.00. The applications were dated August 13, 1985, and were timely filed. During the refund periods at issue in this matter, the Petitioner: (a) posted and charged flat prices for the various items offered for sale, which prices included sales tax (b) kept records of daily and weekly sales of taxable items at each of its Florida theatres (c) kept records of daily attendance at each movie shown by each Florida theatre and (d) kept records of weekly calculations, through inventory analysis, of sales of drinks and candy items, including the number, size and price of each item sold at each of its Florida theatre. During the refund periods at issue in this matter, the Petitioner did not maintain cash registers at its concession stands in its Florida theatres and did not maintain records made contemporaneously with the sale of taxable items from the concession stands which separately itemized the amounts of sales tax collected on each sale transaction occurring at the theatres' concession stands. Rather, Petitioner chose, for its own convenience, to operate a "cash box" operation at each of its concession stands in its Florida theatres and willingly remitted sales tax to the Department of Revenue pursuant to the presumptive effective tax rate contained in Rule 12-1.11(37), Florida Administrative Code for the relevant periods. In April, 1985, Petitioner placed computerized cash registers in each of its Florida theatre concession stands. These cash registers provided tapes of each individual transaction each day, specifically recording each taxable and nontaxable sale and the amount of sales tax due on each taxable sale with a daily summation on each tape at each theatre. Rule 12A-1.11(37), Florida Administrative Code, requires concessionaires such as Petitioner to remit sales tax at a rate of 5.63 percent of taxable sales under the present 5 percent statutory sales tax schedule and at 4.5 percent of taxable sales under the previous statutory sales tax schedule unless a concessionaire, through its records, shows another effective rate by "proof to the contrary". Petitioner produced an effective tax rate of 5.13 percent for the month of April 1985, for all its Florida theatres by dividing the total sales tax collected during April, 1985 by the total taxable sales during April, 1985, as evidenced by the cash register tapes from all of Petitioner's concession stands in Florida. Petitioner then used that tax rate as a base to retroactively reconstruct an effective tax rate for the refund periods by assuming that the product sales mix (product mix of products sold) and the transactional sales mix (the number of items purchased together in a single transaction by a customer) experienced during the refund periods were the same as that experienced during the month of April, 1985. There was no competent evidence that the product sales mix or the transactional sales mix experienced during the refund periods were the same as that experienced during the nonth of April, 1985. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support Petitioner's reconstructed effective tax rates that were used to calculate the refunds. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to show "proof to the contrary" that its reconstructed effective tax rates are correct or that the presumptive effective tax rate contained in Rule 12A-1.11(37), Florida Administrative Code were incorrect for the refund periods at issue in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Comptroller enter his final order DENYING Petitioner's refund applications. Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1986.
