Findings Of Fact Florida Export Tobacco Co., Inc., Petitioner, operates, as a concessionaire, duty-free stores at Miami International Airport. The premises are owned by the Dade County Aviation Department and the stores are leased to Petitioner pursuant to the terms of a lease and concession agreement dated 19 July 1977, effective 1 August 1977 and continuing until 30 September 1987. (Exhibit 1 to Deposition) Pursuant to this agreement Petitioner occupies six stores and additional warehouse space at the Terminal Building and the International Satellite Facility. Article II in Exhibit 1 entitled Rental Charges and Payments provides for rental payments for each store and space occupied based upon a fixed fee of $X per square foot per year with the dollar per square foot cost varying with the space occupied. In addition to this minimal rental fee, Section 2.03 of this agreement provides: County Profit Participation: As additional consideration for the rights and privileges granted Concessionaire herein, Concessionaire shall pay the County a portion of its profits. As a convenience and in order to eliminate requirements for detailed auditing of expenditures, assets and liabilities and in order to provide an even flow of annual revenues for budgeting and bond financing purposes, said portion of the profits of the Concessionaire shall be calculated as the amount by which sixteen percent of the monthly gross revenues, as defined in Arti- cle 2.07, exceeds the sum of monthly rental payments required by Articles 2.01 and 2.04. Concessionaire shall pay such portion of its profits to County by the twentieth (20th) day of the month following the month in which the gross revenues were received or accrued. For the period October 1, 1982 through September 30, 1987, the percent of monthly gross revenues to be paid by Concessionaire as a portion of its profits shall be eighteen percent, payable and calculated in the same manner as above. The lessor provides air conditioning, garbage and sewage disposal facilities, security, and many other services to the lessee in addition to the space leased. From October 1976 through September 1977 Petitioner paid $40,499.66 in additional sales tax over the guaranteed minimum amount; for the year ending September 1978 this additional sales tax was $66,284.85; for the year year ending September 1979 this additional sales tax was $93,837.15; and for the year ending September 1980 this additional sales tax was $137,521.87. (Exhibit 2 to the Deposition) As the owner of the facility Dade County has the option of operating the various facilities and services available to the public or having these operated by a concessionaire. Dade County has opted for the manner it believed more profitable to the county and in the case of the duty free stores this has resulted in leasing the space to a concessionaire. The hotel at the airport is operated by the Aviation Department under a management contract. It is Petitioner's and Dade County's position that a sales tax should not be paid on the county profit participation charges because, if the Aviation Department operated the stores there would be no sales tax on any rental income and the County operates the facilities at the airport so as to maximize profits to the county. Therefore by requiring the concessionaire to pay sales tax, this reduces the profit available to share with the County.
Findings Of Fact On October 7, 1982, petitioner's employee took samples of gasoline offered for sale at respondent's Beacon Store No. 7 in Milton, Florida, including a sample of regular gasoline mixed with alcohol, known as "regularhol." The regularhol sample reached petitioner's laboratory in Tallahassee on October 11, 1982, and tests done the following day revealed that the 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the mix as a whole was 151 degrees Fahrenheit. Otherwise the tests revealed no problem with any of the gasolines sampled. A stop sale notice issued on October 13, 1982, and, after bond in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) was posted, in lieu of confiscation of 3,865 gallons, the "regularhol" was released on November 8, 1982. Respondent began mixing regular gasoline with ethanol and selling it as regularhol in 1978 at the same price as regular gasoline. Until recently, Mocar made less on regularhol sales than on sales of regular gasoline. It originally offered regularhol as its way of helping to reduce the national consumption of petroleum. It has now discontinued sales of regularhol. The Phillips' terminal in Pensacola was respondent's source of the regular gasoline it mixed to make regularhol. This gasoline reached Pensacola by barge, and petitioner's employees sampled and tested each barge's cargo. The 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the regular gas Mocar bought from Phillips varied over a range of more than 30 degrees Fahrenheit upwards from 181 degrees Fahrenheit. Mixing ethanol with the gasoline lowered its distillation temperature, but with the single exception of the batch sampled on July 14, 1982, Mocar's regularhol had passed the testing petitioner has regularly (once every three or four months) conducted. There had also been a problem with gasohol once before.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner retain five hundred dollars ($500.00) and return five hundred dollars ($500.00) to the respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 2nd day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Milton Wilson, Esquire 201 E. Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32598 Doyle Conner, Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioners are responsible for unpaid taxes as alleged in the Notices of Final Assessment issued in this cause.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner Nana's Petroleum, Inc. (hereinafter "Nana's"), has been licensed by the Department to sell special fuel (diesel) and gasoline. At all times material hereto, Emilio Perez has been the vice president of Nana's, and Edilia Perez has been the secretary. At all times material hereto, Nana's has been required to file with the Department on a monthly basis, and Nana's did so file, Special and Alternative Fuel Tax Returns, including Local Option Tax Schedules, and Refiner, Importer and Jobber Gasoline Tax Returns. Although the Department cannot locate its copy of Nana's May 1988 return, the Department does have copies of the other returns for the six years in question. If the Department had not received the May 1988 return from Nana's, it would have sent a delinquency notice at that time, and no delinquency notice was sent to Nana's. Nana's purchased its fuel from two suppliers at Port Everglades: Belcher Oil Co., n/k/a Coastal States Refinery and Marketing, and Union Oil Co. of California under the same procedures. Nana's sent its trucks to Port Everglades. The driver used a loading card (similar to a credit card) which carried the identification number of the purchaser. The driver put the loading card in the loading rack and received a manifest, which the driver signed and dated, noting the time on it. After the truck was loaded and left the Port, an invoice was issued by the supplier, referencing the manifest and specifying the amount of fuel obtained and when, and whether the fuel was diesel or gasoline. The invoice also specified the amount and kind of taxes charged, or if the purchase was tax exempt, and provided a total purchase figure. The invoices were then sent by the suppliers to Nana's, and Nana's paid those invoices within ten days in order to obtain a 1 percent discount. Nana's kept each invoice, using each to provide the detailed information required on its monthly tax returns. Also, when the Department audits a license holder such as Nana's, the Department audits the invoices against the invoice numbers shown on the tax returns. Each Special and Alternative Fuel Tax Return filed by Nana's itemized fuel acquired or received in Florida by invoice number, the date received, the point of origin, the point of delivery, the name and license number of the supplier, and the invoiced gallonage. Nana's computed any tax due by county for local option taxes. It itemized any gallonage exempt from taxes and why. It further included an itemization of the number of gallons sold, the purchaser's name and license number, the point of delivery, and the invoice number and date. The Refiner, Importer and Jobber Gasoline Tax Returns filed by Nana's were similar and contained a detailed listing of fuel acquired or received in Florida tax paid, specifying the county of origin, the county of destination, the supplier's name and license number, the date, the invoice number, and the number of gallons. Nana's was audited by the Department in 1987, with the audit running through November of that year. As a result of that audit, Nana's hired an accountant in January of 1988 in order to assure that its books and records were properly kept. In 1992, the Department began another audit by sending an employee to the office of Nana's for one day. The Department then contacted Nana's and advised that it was too far for them to come from Ft. Pierce to the office of Nana's in Pahokee and told Nana's to bring its books and records to the Department. Nana's took boxes of records to the Ft. Pierce office. Two weeks later, the Department contacted Nana's, advising that the Department would not be completing the audit and that Nana's should come and pick up its records. In April of 1994, pursuant to a subpoena, Nana's supplied 35 or 36 boxes of records to the Department. Those boxes contained Nana's original invoices from 1987 forward and the original certificates it had obtained from its purchasers reflecting tax exempt status. On April 25, 1994, the Department issued to Edilia Perez as secretary of Nana's its Notice of Final Assessment for Fuel Tax, Penalty and Interest Due for the period of December 1987 through June 1990 in the amount of $414,714.67. That Notice of Final Assessment was accompanied by a Notice of Jeopardy Findings. On April 25, 1994, the Department issued to Emilio Perez as vice president of Nana's its Notice of Final Assessment for the period of December 1987 through June 1990 in the amount of $515,240.25. That Notice of Final Assessment was accompanied by a Notice of Jeopardy Findings. On April 25, 1994, the Department issued to Nana's its Notice of Final Assessment for the period of April 1992 through August 1993 in the total amount of $27,947.84. That total figure represented tax due in the amount of $18,083.17, interest of $2,786.23, and penalty of $7,078.44. That Notice of Final Assessment was accompanied by a Notice of Jeopardy Findings. On September 13, 1990, the Department had previously issued to Nana's its Notice of Final Assessment for the period of December 1987 through June 1990 in the total amount of $573,988.67. That total figure represented tax due of $414,714.67, penalty of $97,201.36, and interest of $62,072.64. That Notice of Final Assessment was accompanied by a Notice of Jeopardy Findings. On September 13, 1990, the Department had previously issued to Emilio Perez d/b/a Nana's Stations its Notice of Final Assessment for the period April 1988 through June 1989 in the amount of $147,291.20. That total figure represented tax due of $100,625.58, penalty of $25,156.43, and interest of $21,509.19. That Notice of Final Assessment was accompanied by a Notice of Jeopardy Findings. On May 23, 1994, an evidentiary hearing was conducted by the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Palm Beach County on a Petition for Review of the Jeopardy Findings filed by the Petitioners in this cause. In a detailed Order Reversing the Department of Revenue's Jeopardy Findings and Releasing Seizure of Assets, entered June 2, 1994, Circuit Judge Lucy Brown analyzed the deficiency of the notice given by the Department in its two groups of Jeopardy Findings and accompanying Notices of Final Assessments: the September 13, 1990, group and the April 25, 1994, group. In her factual determinations, Judge Brown determined that the Department had not provided notice as required of the Department as to its September 13, 1990, Notices of Final Assessment and Notices of Jeopardy Findings issued to Nana's and to Emilio Perez d/b/a Nana's Stations in that the Department knew at the time that Emilio Perez was the principal of Nana's and that Perez was not at the time present at the address used by the Department to serve notice on him and on Nana's, that no officer or director or employee of Nana's was shown to have received notice of the issuance of the Notices of Final Assessment and Notices of Jeopardy Findings, and that the Department made no attempt to effectuate personal service. It was further found that no notice or knowledge of the outstanding September 19, 1990, Notices of Final Assessment and of Jeopardy Findings was received prior to April 1994. After concluding that the Department did not fulfill its obligation to provide notice of its September 13, 1990, Notices of Final Assessment and Notices of Jeopardy Findings, and after concluding that the Department had not shown the existence of jeopardy upon which its April 25, 1994, Notices of Jeopardy Findings were based, Judge Brown reversed both groups of Notices of Jeopardy Findings and further set aside and vacated the Department's seizure of Petitioners' assets. The Department did not file an appeal from that Order. Accordingly, the Circuit Court determination that Petitioners were not notified that the Department was seeking additional taxes from them until April 1994 cannot be disputed herein. The Special and Alternative Fuel Tax Returns filed with the Department by Nana's for the months of February 1990 through June 1990 each declared that money was due from Nana's to the Department. The Department has no record of payment being received with each of those returns or thereafter. The Department's summary sheet itemizes the tax due with penalty and interest computed through August 1990 as follows: Nana's Petroleum 10011605 DATE TAX DUE AS REPORTED PENALTY THRU 8/19/90 INTEREST THRU 8/14/90 TOTAL DUE 2/90 26,376.57 6,594.14 1,274.75 34,245.46 3 16,459.04 3,291.81 627.70 20,378.55 4 8,287.07 1,243.06 234.31 9,764.44 5 11,339.26 1,133.93 205.04 12,678.23 6 11,822.56 591.13 97.17 12,510.86 74,284.50 12,854.07 2,438.97 89,577.54 Accordingly, Nana's is responsible for unpaid taxes in the amount of $74,284.50, together with the increasing penalty and interest until date of payment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining Petitioners' contest of the assessments issued against them but for that portion of the September 13, 1990, Notice of Final Assessment issued to Nana's encompassing the months of February 1990 through June 1990 wherein Nana's reported tax due in the total amount of $74,284.50 but failed to pay that amount to the Department, together with the statutory penalty and interest on that amount through date of payment. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 16th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioners' six un-numbered paragraphs in that portion of its proposed recommended order entitled "Factual Findings" have been adopted to the extent that they include any findings of fact which were intermingled with Petitioners' conclusions of law and argument of counsel contained within those un-numbered paragraphs. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 21, and 34 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 10, 13-18, 20, 22- 27, 29, 39-47, 49, and 50 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 11 has been rejected as being irrelevant. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 19, 28, 30-33, 35-38, and 48 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew Helgesen, Esquire Harris, Kukey, and Helgesen 11380 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite 201 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Dean L. Willbur, Jr., Esquire 319 Clematis Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 6917 West Palm Beach, Florida 33405-0917 Lealand L. McCharen, Esquire Francisco M. Negron, Jr., Esquire Office of the Attorney General Capitol Building - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue Whether Petitioner owes tax in the amount of $4,554.80 plus a penalty and interest on the sale of special fuel between December 1, 1976, and December 31, 1979.
Findings Of Fact Miami Tiresoles, Inc., sells both new and retreaded tires for cars and trucks. The company also sells gasoline and diesel fuel. It is licensed by the Department as a dealer in special fuels. As far as this case is concerned special fuel is number 2 diesel oil. Unless an exemption is met each gallon of special fuel sold by MTS is taxed by the Department at a rate of eight cents per gallon. The Department has given BITS a revised notice of proposed assessment of tax for the sale of special fuel in the amount of $4,551.88 plus a penalty of $455.48 and interest in the amount of $735.11 (through April 21, 1980). The tax figure on the assessment appears to reflect a typographical error. The Department's records (Exhibit A) indicate that for the period in question, 2/ MTS sold 56,936 gallons of special fuel subject to tax according to the Department's interpretation of the law. If a tax at a rate of eight cents per gallon is due, then the amount due should be $4,554.88 and not $4,551.88. The correct tax figure is reflected on the Department's work sheets but was probably misread when the figure was transferred to the revised Notice of Assessment issued on April 21, 1980. The foregoing assessment is based on MTS' invoices which reflect sales of special fuel to customers in amounts of more than 110 gallons at one time. Those sales were made to MTS customers who have filed with MTS a document called "Purchaser's Exemption Certificate". A typical example of such a certificate states: PURCHASER'S EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE The undersigned hereby certifies that the motor duel (sic) and/or special fuel pur- chased on 1-19-79 is for the following purpose as checked in the space provided. (X) Purchased for home, industrial, com- mercial, agricultural or marine purposes for consumption other than for the propul- sion of a motor vehicle. ( ) Purchased at bulk plant or terminal in volumes of not more than 110 gallons for delivery into a receptacle not connected to the fuel supply system of a motor vehicle for consumption other than for the propulsion of a motor vehicle. Purchaser is aware that if this exemption if (sic) falsely claimed, or if this certificate is not rescinded at the time he fails to quality (sic) for the exemption, he shall be liable for the taxes imposed under Chapter 206, F.S. Furthermore, by issuing this certificate, the purchaser also certifies that he does not have any motor vehicles which use special fuel for propulsion. This certificate is to continue in force until revoked by written notice to MIAMI TIRESOLES, INC. Purchaser Trade Name A ACME SANDBLASTING, INC. Street Address 9521 W. Oakmont Dr. ,Hialeah,Fla. 33015 BY /s/ The industrial customers of MTS (those who have filed an exemption certificate) are engaged in the construction business. They use the diesel fuel to operate bulldozers, front-end loaders, back hoes, sandblasters and similar equipment. None of the fuel is used for the operation of motor vehicles on the public highways of Florida. All the fuel in question is sold on the premises of MTS. At the time of sale it is placed either in the fuel tank of a particular piece of equipment such as a back hoe, or it is placed in a fuel storage tank mounted on the back of a truck. The storage tanks are not connected so they can provide fuel for the propulsion of the truck. They are used to transport fuel to the purchaser's particular job site. The storage tanks have a capacity of between 100 to 300 gallons. MTS does not have delivery trucks of its own and has no facilities for taking fuel to its customers' job sites. A single invoice of MTS which indicates a sale of 110 gallons of special fuel to an individual customer is frequently the result of a sale where multiple fuel tanks are filled at one time. For Instance, the customer may have a back hoe sitting on the rear of a flat-bed truck. He will fill the fuel tank in his back hoe and then perhaps fill an additional 55 gallon drum or two which would be on the truck. This would occur all in one transaction. The reason why the Department seeks to tax special fuel sold by MTS to its industrial customers in an amount exceeding 110 gallons is because the fuel was placed in the customers' own fuel tanks on the premises of MTS and not on the premises of the customer or at the customer's job site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a final order affirming its assessment for a special fuel tax against the Petitioner in the amount of $4,554.88 plus penalty and interest computed pursuant to Section 206.44, Florida Statutes (1979). DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of March 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 March 1981.
Recommendation Based on the evidence presented at the hearing on September 22, 1989, the hearing officer recommends that the attorney fees awarded to Ganson be in the following amounts: Attorney fees for the Administrative Phase: $16,550.00 Attorney fees for the Appeal Phase: 23,550.00 Attorney fees for the Attorney Fee Phase: 8,150.00 TOTAL ATTORNEY FEE RECOMMENDATION $48,250.00 Based on the evidence presented at the hearing on September 22, 1989, the Hearing Officer recommends that the costs awarded to Ganson be in the following amounts: Administrative Phase $401.94 Appeal Phase 100.00 Attorney Fee Phase 0.00 TOTAL COSTS RECOMMENDATION $501.94 Respectfully submitted and entered this 12th day of October 1989, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN GANSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DOAH CASE NO. 89-4818F, 1st DCA CASE NO. 88-01568 The following is a summary of the rulings at hearing on all of the exhibits offered by all parties at the evidentiary hearing on September 22, 1989. Exhibits offered by Petitioner Ganson: Petitioner Ex. 1: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 2: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 3: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 3A: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 4A: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 4B: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 5. Objection on grounds of relevancy. Objection overruled and exhibit received. [Objection on the grounds of hearsay might have resulted in a different ruling, but there was no hearsay objection.] Petitioner Ex. 6: Objection on grounds of relevancy. Objection overruled and exhibit received. [Objection on the grounds of hearsay might have resulted in a different ruling, but there was no hearsay objection.] Petitioner Ex. 7: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 8: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 9: Officially recognized without objection. Petitioner Ex. 10: Officially recognized without objection. Petitioner Ex. 11: Objection sustained. [Included in record as rejected exhibit.] Petitioner Ex. 12. Officially recognized without objection. Petitioner Ex. 13: Officially recognized without objection. Exhibits offered by Respondent Department: Department Ex. 1: Received without objection. Department Ex. 2: Received without objection. Department Ex. 3: Objection on grounds exhibit constitutes statement made in negotiations concerning a compromise. Objection sustained. [Included in record as rejected exhibit.] Department Ex. 4: Objection on grounds exhibit constitutes statement made in negotiations concerning a compromise. Objection sustained. [Included in record as rejected exhibit.] COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Kenneth D. Franz, Esquire 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Raymond D. Rhodes, Clerk District Court of Appeal First District State of Florida 300 Martin Luther King Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1850 ================================================================= DISTRICT COURT OPINION ================================================================= IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA TERRI J. GANSON, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. vs. CASE NO. 88-1568 DOAH CASE NO. 89-4818F STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE, Appellee. / Opinion filed December 22, 1989. Appeal from an order of the Department of Administration. Kenneth D. Kranz, of Eric B. Tilton, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellant. Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., General Counsel, Department of Administration, Tallahassee, for appellee. OPINION AND ORDER ON ATTORNEY FEE BARFIELD, J. By direction of this court the matter of attorney fees payable to appellant was submitted to Michael M. Parrish, Hearing Officer, for a recommendation on the amount of fee to be awarded. His Report and Recommendation follows. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION By opinion filed July 7, 1989, reported at 14 FLW 1594, the District Court of Appeal, First District, reversed and remanded a final order of the Department of Administration. The opinion included the following disposition of Ganson's motion for costs and attorney fees: Appellant's motion for attorney fees under section 120.57(1)(b)10, Florida Statutes (1987), based upon her assertion that the agency action which precipitated the appeal was a gross abuse of the agency's discretion, is granted. The parties may, within twenty days of the date this decision becomes final, file with this court a stipulation regarding the amount of reasonable attorney fees to be awarded. In the event the amount of the attorney fees cannot be agreed upon by the parties within the time allotted, the Department shall promptly refer the matter to Michael Parrish, the Division of Administrative Hearings hearing officer, for an immediate evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees. The hearing officer's recommendations thereon shall be filed with this court within sixty days after this opinion shall have become final, at which time this court will enter an appropriate order awarding attorney's fees. Purvis v. Department of Professional Regulation, 461 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Johnston v. Department of Professional Regulation, 456 So.2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The parties were unable to reach a stipulation regarding the amount of reasonable attorney fees to be awarded. On August 28, 1989, the Department of Administration referred the matter to Michael Parrish, a hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees. In order to accommodate scheduling difficulties of counsel, at the request of the parties the court extended the sixty-day period for the filing of the hearing officer's recommendations until October 13, 1989. (See Motion For Extension of Time filed September 7, 1989, and order granting same issued September -14, 1989.) An evidentiary hearing was originally scheduled for September 15, 1989. At the request of counsel for the Department of Administration, the evidentiary hearing was continued until September 22, 1989. At the hearing on September 22, 1989, Ganson presented the testimony of Kenneth D. Kranz, Esquire, the attorney who performed all of the services for which fees are claimed. Ganson also offered numerous exhibits including the affidavits of two local attorneys (Vernon T. Grizzard, Esquire, and Fishel Philip Blank, Esquire), both of which included expert opinions regarding the reasonableness of the attorney fees sought by Ganson. The Department also called Mr. Kranz as a witness and offered four exhibits. [Rulings on all exhibits offered by all parties are contained in the appendix to this report and recommendation.] The Department did not call any expert witnesses to oppose the opinions expressed by Messrs. Kranz, Grizzard, and Blank. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were allowed until September 29, 1989, within which to file memorandums of law, which have been carefully considered during the preparation of this report and recommendation. The statutory provision pursuant to which the court has granted an award of attorney fees, Section 120.57(1)(b)(10), Florida Statutes (1987), reads as follows, in pertinent part: When there is an appeal, the court in its discretion may award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party if the court finds that the appeal was frivolous, meritless, or an abuse of the appellate process or that the agency action which precipitated, the appeal was a gross abuse of the agency's discretion. Attorney Fees Ganson's Proposal For Amount Of Attorney's Fees And Costs Of Litigation suggests that there may be some disagreement between the parties as to whether the court's award of attorney fees encompasses all phases of this litigation, or is only an award of attorney fees for legal services on appeal. It would appear from the court's specific mention of Purvis v. Department of Professional Regulation, 461 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and Johnston v. Department of Professional Regulation, 456 So.2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), that the court envisioned an award of attorney fees "at the hearing level," as well as on appeal. And it also appears to be well settled that attorney fees may also be recoverable for the time spent litigating entitlement to attorney fees. See Bill Rivers Trailers, Inc. v. Miller, 489 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); B & L Motors, Inc. v. Big Inotti, 427 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also Albert Heisler v. Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, 11 FALR 3309 (DOAH Final Order issued May 19, 1989). For purposes of this report and recommendation, I have assumed that the court's award of attorney fees encompassed all three phases of activity in this litigation; the "administrative phase" (from the commencement of the administrative claim until the Department's final order), the "appeal phase" (from the Department's final order until the appellate court opinion), and the "attorney fee phase" (from the appellate court opinion to the present). Accordingly, I have included in this report and recommendation discussion and recommendations as to the appropriate attorney fee award for all three phases of the litigation. Where it appears helpful to do so, issues regarding the three phases are discussed separately. The methodology to be followed in determining the amount of reasonable attorney fees to be awarded to a prevailing party is set forth in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). There, the Florida Supreme Court decided to "adopt the federal lodestar approach for computing reasonable attorney fees" and, at pages 1150-51, set forth the following methodology: The first step in the lodestar process requires the court to determine the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation. Florida courts have emphasized the importance of keeping accurate and current records of work done and time spent on a case, particularly when someone other than the client may pay the fee. To accurately assess the labor involved, the attorney fee applicant should present records detailing the amount of work performed. Counsel is expected, of course, to claim only those hours that he could properly bill to his client. Inadequate documentation may result in a reduction in the number of hours claimed, as will a claim for hours that the court finds to be excessive or unnecessary. The "novelty and difficulty of the question involved" should normally be reflected by the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation. The second half of the equation, which encompasses many aspects of the representation, requires the court to determine a reasonable hourly rate, for the services of the prevailing party's attorney. In establishing this hourly rate, the court should assume the fee will be paid irrespective of the result, and take into account all of the Disciplinary Rule 2-106 factors except the "time and labor required," the "novelty and difficulty of the question involved," the "results obtained," and "[w]hether the fee is fixed or contingent." The party who seeks the fees carries the burden of establishing the prevailing "market rate," i.e., the rate charged in that community by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation, for similar services. The number of hours reasonably expended, determined in the first step, multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, determined in the second step, produces the lodestar, which is an objective basis for the award of attorney fees. Once the court arrives at the lodestar figure, it may add or subtract from the fee based upon a "contingency risk" factor and the "results obtained." The number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation. Ganson's attorney has submitted contemporaneously prepared, detailed time records evincing his labors at all three phases of this litigation. These records reflect that Ganson's counsel recorded 66.2 hours at the administrative phase, 94.2 hours at the appeal phase, and 32.6 hours at the attorney fee phase, for a grand total of 193 hours. To support the application for fees, Ganson introduced the affidavits of two members of the Florida Bar, both of whom practice administrative law in the Tallahassee area, and both of whom opined that the total number of hours claimed was reasonable and that the number of hours claimed for each of the three phases of the litigation was also reasonable. Although the Department argues that many of the hours claimed by Ganson's attorney are excessive, the Department did not offer any expert witness testimony to support its arguments. Part of the Department's argument in this regard is that the hours claimed by Ganson's attorney should be reduced because the attorney prepares his own legal documents, including pleadings, notices, motions, and briefs, by typing on a computer. Mr. Kranz explained in his testimony that such preparation is no different and no more time-consuming than preparation of documents by such means as oral dictation or handwriting, and the Department has not offered any evidence that Mr. Kranz, document preparation methods are more time-consuming than the methods of other attorneys. Also, without benefit of expert opinion or other evidence, the Department argues that the amount of time spent by Ganson's attorney on writing the brief in the appellate court should be reduced from the claimed 51 hours to an arbitrary figure of 26 hours. There is simply no basis in the record for such a reduction. Nor is there any record basis for the Department's contention that the hours spent by Ganson's attorney in preparation for oral argument should be arbitrarily reduced from the claimed 13 to a mere 4. The Department has raised challenges to several other details of the hours claimed by Ganson's attorney, but all of the challenges fail for want of expert opinion or other evidence to support them. Based on the evidence presented, all of the hours claimed by Ganson's attorney are reasonable. Accordingly, the first step in the lodestar calculation consists of a total of 193 hours broken down as follows: 66.2 hours at the administrative phases, 94.2 hours at the appeal phase, and 32.6 hours at the attorney fee phase. The reasonable hourly rate for the services of Ganson's attorney. The parties disagree on what constitutes a reasonable hourly rate for Ganson's attorney. Ganson contends that the rate should be $125 per hour, basing the contention largely on the opinions in the Blank and Grizzard affidavits to the effect that $125 is the "market rate" in the Tallahassee legal community for services of the nature provided in this case. The Department contends, based primarily on its notions about the experience level of Mr. Kranz and on what Mr. Kranz has charged other clients for legal work, that a reasonable hourly rate would be $75 for legal work at the administrative phase and $100 per hour for legal work at the appeal phase and thereafter. Ganson's contentions are supported by evidence; the Department's are not. Further, Ganson's contentions are consistent with the second step methodology of Rowe, supra, while the Department's are not. Rowe places on the party seeking attorney fees the burden of establishing "the rate charged in that community by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation, for similar services." The evidence shows that rate to be $125 per hour. The calculation of the lodestar amount. The calculation of the lodestar amount under the Rowe methodology is normally a simple arithmetic task; the multiplication of the reasonable number of hours times the reasonable hourly rate. Here, the calculation is as follows: For the administrative phase, 66.2 hours x $125.00 $8,275.00; for the appeal phase, 94.2 hours x $125.00 $11,775.00; and for the attorney fee phase, 32.6 hours x $125.00 $4,075.00. Adding the three components together produces a lodestar of $24,125.00. But the Department argues, on the basis of cases such as Miami Children's Hospital v. Tamayo, 529 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1988), that the fee to be awarded in this case must be limited to the maximum fee that Ganson was obligated to pay to her attorney; an amount which the Department contends is only $500.00. Disposition of this issue requires a closer look at the nature of Ganson's fee arrangement and at a couple of other more analogous cases. The fee arrangement between Ganson and her attorney is described as follows in one of the Kranz affidavits (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, at pp. 8 and 9): Our agreement was that: 1) no fee would be owed if we were not successful in her claim; and 2) we would attempt to secure an award of fees against the Department, and in the event that we, were successful in that claim, attorney's fees would be whatever were awarded. Upon being advised at the outset that an eventual award of fees appeared very unlikely, the client initially insisted that she wanted to pay me something if we ultimately won on the merits, but did not prevail on the issue of fees. I perceived that it was very important to her not to consider herself to be taking advantage of me. I agreed and said that we would decide on a fee later if that situation arose. We never discussed an amount certain, but it was my intention that, if we ended up in this situation, I would charge her, if anything, a token amount only large enough to make her comfortable. Realistically, no significant fee (if any) would have been paid by the client; any fees bearing any rational relationship to the work required in this case could only have come from an award against the Department. In his testimony at the hearing, Mr. Kranz testified that if Ganson had won on the merits, but had not been awarded attorney fees against the Department, and if Ganson had insisted on paying a fee for legal services, he would probably have charged her about $500.00. But Mr. Kranz clarified that under those circumstances, the fee would have been more in the nature of what Ganson wanted to pay, rather than anything she would have been required to pay. In brief summary; although under certain speculative circumstances which might have, but never did, come about, Ganson might have wanted to pay a nominal fee to her attorney, her attorney had no intention of collecting a fee from any source other than an award of attorney fees against the Department. Specifically, Ganson's attorney did not have an agreement to share in any percentage of any recovery he might obtain for Ganson. Ganson's fee agreement with her attorney is unlike the agreement in Miami Children's Hospital, supra, and is quite similar to the fee agreements addressed in Quanstrom v. Standard Guaranty Insurance Company. 519 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), and State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Palma, 524 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The fee agreement in Quanstrom, supra, "was to the effect that if the attorney ultimately prevailed..., the attorney would be entitled to a fee which would be the amount the court allowed as an attorney's fee under Section 627.428, Florida Statutes, rather than a percentage of the recovery." And in Palma, supra, the contingency fee agreement provided that "the amount of the fee agreed to under the contract was a fee to be awarded by the court." In both Quanstrom and Palma, the courts held that the usual Rowe factors should be used to calculate reasonable attorney fees, and in neither case was the fact that no fee was due from the client found to be a basis for limiting the fee. In view of the nature of the fee agreement in this case, and on the basis of Quanstrom and Palma, the usual Rowe factors should be applied here. Effect of "results obtained" on the lodestar amount. In the Rowe decision the court observed, at page 1151: The "results obtained" may provide an independent basis for reducing the fee when the party prevails on a claim or claims for relief, but is unsuccessful on other unrelated claims. When a party prevails on only a portion of the claims made in the litigation, the trial judge must evaluate the relationship between the successful and unsuccessful claims and determine whether the investigation and prosecution of the successful claims can be separated from the unsuccessful claims. In this case, Ganson was successful on her entire claim against the Department. Therefore, the "results obtained" component of the Rowe methodology does not provide a basis for reducing the fee. Application of the "contingency risk" factor to the lodestar amount. Ganson argues that a "contingency risk" factor of 2.5 should be applied to the lodestar amount. The Department argues, for a number of different reasons set out below, that no contingency risk factor should be applied in this case. At page 1151 of the Rowe decision, the court tells us the following about contingency risk factors: Based on our review of the decisions of other jurisdictions and commentaries on the subject, we conclude that in contingent fee cases, the lodestar figure calculated by the court is entitled to enhancement by an appropriate contingency risk multiplier in the range from 1.5 to 3. When the trial court determines that success was more likely than not at the outset, the multiplier should be 1.5; when the likelihood of success was approximately even at the outset, the multiplier should be 2; and, when success was unlikely at the time the case was initiated, the multiplier should be in the range of 2.5 and 3. (emphasis added) The use of the phrase "entitled to enhancement" supports a conclusion that the application of a multiplier is mandatory in contingent fee cases, and Florida appellate courts in two districts have so held. See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 524 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Quanstrom v. Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, 519 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). But several decisions in the Third District Court of Appeal have concluded that the contingency risk multiplier is not mandatory. See Bankers Insurance Company v. Valmore Gonzalez, 14 FLW 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); National Foundation Life Insurance Company v. Wellington, 526 So.2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Travelers Indemnity Company v. Sotolongo, 513 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA (1987). Although the matter is not entirely free from doubt, unless and until the matter is further clarified by the Florida Supreme Court, it would appear that the better reasoned view, and the most widely accepted view, is that the contingency risk multiplier should be treated as mandatory in cases where the party seeking fees has entered into a contingent fee agreement. The Department argues that, even if mandatory, a contingency risk multiplier is inappropriate here because the fee agreement between Ganson and her attorney was never reduced to writing. In this regard, the Department relies on FIGA v. R.V.M.P. Corp., 681 F.Supp 806 (S.D. Fla. 1988), in which a federal court applying Florida law held: Because this contingency fee arrangement was never reduced to a writing, it is an unconscionable contract. The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, in particular Rule 4-1.5(D)(1), (2)(1987), provide that every lawyer who accepts a contingency fee arrangement must reduce the arrangement to a writing signed by the client and a lawyer for the law firm representing the client. This obviously is not the case here. Because the proposed arrangement violates this rule of professional responsibility, the contingency fee agreement here is unconscionable and, therefore, void. See Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Mabry, 102 Fla. 1084, 136 So. 714 (1931). Because the contingency fee arrangement here is unconscionable, the court will not apply a contingency risk factor. See Aperm of Fla., Inc. v. Trans-Coastal Management Co., 505 So.2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Because of the views quoted above, the court in FIGA declined to apply a contingency risk factor, but did, on a quantum merit theory, award a substantial attorney fee. For several reasons, FIGA does not appear to be controlling here. First, the conclusion in FIGA is not based on Florida case law, nor does there appear to be any Florida appellate court decision which has followed FIGA. Second, the facts in FIGA are different from the facts in this case. FIGA involved a contingency fee agreement in which the attorney was to receive one- third of the amount recovered and, if no amount was recovered, the client would pay the costs, but not the fees, of the litigation. As discussed above, the contingency fee agreement in this case does not contemplate the attorney taking a share of the client's recovery or otherwise receiving a fee from the client. Rather, as in Quanstrom and Palma, supra, the only source from which the attorney seeks a fee is the opposing party. Because of these differences, FIGA is inapplicable to the instant matter. The Department also argues that on the basis of Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens, Council for Clean Air, 483 U.S. 711, 107 S.Ct. 3078, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987), the use of the contingent fee multiplier should be limited or omitted. In response to an identical argument, the court in Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Casalotti, 544 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), held: We are unable to entertain that suggestion, for the Florida Supreme Court in Rowe expressly authorized multipliers and prescribed the permissible range. The same result should obtain here. See also, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 524 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), and Quanstrom v. Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, 519 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). (Contingent fee multipliers are mandatory.) The Department argues that no multiplier should be used because it would result in an attorney fee many times larger than Ganson's recovery and would be a fee with no reasonable relationship to the size of the recovery. In answer to a similar argument, the court in Quanstrom v. Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, 519 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) , held: As to the argument that the contingency risk multiplier may, in the trial court's opinion, result in an unreasonably large fee in a given case (such as when, as here, it is compared only to the amount in controversy), the answer is that the factors other than the contingency risk factor, such as the hours expended and the routinely charged fee rate, are equally implicated. If any formula considers only relevant factors, and all of them, and correctly weighs those factors, the result necessarily will be correct. If the result is unsatisfactory to those having the responsibility and authority in the matter, then they should change the formula by reassessing the factors to be considered and the weight to be given each. We who are bound to follow the authority of others should not omit factors or juggle the weight given a factor, beyond the perimeters given the exercise of discretion, in order to reach a preferred result. And it should also be noted that in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palmer, 524 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), an attorney fee in the amount of $253,500.00, calculated pursuant to the Rowe factors, was approved on appeal even though the amount recovered by the plaintiff was only $600.00. (The Palma court noted that the litigation in that case had become protracted due to "stalwart defense" and "militant resistance;" characteristics which are to some extent shared by the litigation in this case.) On the basis of the foregoing, the mere size of the fee, if properly calculated pursuant to the Rowe methodology, is not a basis for reduction of the fee. For all of the reasons set forth above, it is concluded that a contingency risk multiplier should be applied in this case. What remains to be done is to select the appropriate multiplier. Although Ganson argues otherwise, upon consideration of the evidence, it appears that at the outset the likelihood of success in this case was approximately even. To borrow from Appalachian, Inc. Ackmann, 507 So.2d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), in which a multiplier of 2 was approved, at the outset the outcome of this case "was tentative and incapable of a comforting prediction of success. Under such circumstances, Rowe requires a multiplier of 2. Application of that multiplier yields the following results: For the administrative phase, $8,275.00 x 2 $16,550.00; for the appeal phase, $11,775.00 x 2 $23,550.00; and for the attorney fee phase, $4,075.00 x 2 $8,105.00. The total for all three phases of the litigation is calculated as $16,550.00 + $23,550.00 + $8,150.00 - $48,250.00. On the basis of all of the foregoing, a reasonable attorney fee pursuant to the Rowe methodology totals $48,250.00 Costs Ganson's motion before the appellate court was titled "Motion For Attorney's Fees," but the opening sentence of the motion requests an award of "attorney's fees and costs." (emphasis added) The motion also concludes with a request for an award of "reasonable attorney's fees and costs." (emphasis supplied) The court's opinion in this case grants Ganson's "motion for attorney fees," but never specifically awards costs. Similarly, the court's opinion does not specifically direct the hearing officer to make any recommendation regarding costs. Nevertheless, the court's specific mention of Purvis v. Department of Professional Regulation, 461 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and Johnston v. Department of Professional Regulation, 456 So.2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), leaves open the possibility that it was the court's intention to award costs as well as fees to Ganson. Because of that possibility, I include the following discussion of Ganson's costs. The costs which Ganson seeks to recover are itemized in the three Kranz affidavits designated as Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, and 3A. Broken out into the three phases of this litigation, the costs claimed are summarized as follows: Administrative Phase Expert witness fee (Dr. Whitley) 100.00 Expert Witness fee (Dr. Munasifi) 125.00 Deposition transcript (Dr. Munasifi) 151.94 Copying charge for medical records 25.00 Miscellaneous copying charges 89.00 Miscellaneous postage charges 3.41 Sales tax on certain expenses 13.16 Total claimed for this phase 507.51 Appeal Phase District Court of Appeal filing fee 100.00 Copying charges--Initial Brief 57.46 Copy/Binding Charge -Reply Brief 19.44 Miscellaneous copying charges 39.15 Miscellaneous postage charges 5.85 Total claimed for this phase 221.90 Attorney Fee Phase Photocopying charge--Proposal For Fees Exhibits--Tallahassee Copy & Printing & 84.80 Total claimed for this phase 84.80 The necessity or reasonableness of the costs are not addressed in the affidavits of Blank and Grizzard. The Kranz affidavits itemize the costs, but contain no opinion concerning the reasonableness of the expert witness fees claimed nor any opinion that the other costs claimed were reasonably and necessarily incurred in the prosecution of Ganson's case. The evidence does show that the client has voluntarily paid all but the last few dollars of the costs claimed, which is some evidence of the reasonableness of the costs. Further, facial examination of the costs claimed reveals nothing out of the ordinary. With regard to the expert witness fees paid to Dr. Whitley and Dr. Munasifi, the necessity of such testimony can hardly be doubted in a case in which the central issue concerned the nature of Ganson's medical condition before and after her employment with the state. Finally, the Department of Administration has not argued that any of the costs claimed are unnecessary or unreasonable. The Department's failure to object notwithstanding, the copying charges (with the exception of the charges for copies of medical records) and the postage charges are not the types of costs that are normally assessed against an opposing party. See Statewide Uniform Guideline For Taxation Of Costs In Civil Actions. Accordingly, the miscellaneous copying charges ($89.00) and miscellaneous postage charges ($3.14) should be deducted from the costs for the Administrative Phase; the initial brief ($57.46), the reply brief ($19.44), and miscellaneous ($39.15) copying charges and the miscellaneous postage charges ($5.85) should be deducted from the costs for the Appeal Phase; and the photocopying charge ($84.80) should be deducted from the costs for the Attorney Fee Phase. With these reductions, the costs Ganson should recover, if it is the intention of the court to award costs, are as follows: Administrative Phase $401.94 Appeal Phase 100.00 Attorney Fee Phase 0.00 Total allowable costs $501.94
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1985, Petitioner, Nicholas Cozzo, entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement for the sale of sixty (60) shares of the issued and outstanding capital stock of C & S Deli Sandwich and Fish, Inc., a Florida corporation, (the Company) to Robert A. Krueger and Joe Ellen Krueger (collectively, the Kruegers). As a result of the sale, Petitioner retained ownership of no further stock of the Company. (Exhibit A) On October 14, 1985, the Kruegers executed two (2) promissory notes in the amounts of $53,000.00 and $5,000.00, respectively, to Petitioner and a Security Agreement securing payment of the notes. (Composite Exhibit B and Exhibit C) On October 14, 1985, Petitioner tendered his resignation as Director, President and Treasurer of the Company. (Exhibit D) Petitioner's security interest to the furniture, furnishings, fixtures, equipment and inventory of the Company (the "collateral") was duly perfected by the filing of a Uniform Commercial Code Financing Statement with the Uniform Commercial Code Bureau, Florida Department of State, on October 21, 1985. (Exhibit E) A Uniform Commercial Code Financing Statement was recorded by the Petitioner in the Public Records of Pasco County, State of Florida, on October 15, 1985, in Official Records Book 1451, page 0493. (Exhibit F) In early 1987, the Kruegers defaulted under the terms of the promissory notes. Prior to April 24, 1987, Petitioner repossessed the furniture, furnishings, fixtures, equipment and inventory of the Company. No consideration was paid by Petitioner to the Company or the Kruegers upon his repossession of the foregoing described collateral. At no time did ownership of any of the capital stock of the Company revert back to Petitioner. On May 5, 1987, Petitioner by private sale disposed of the collateral to Vincent Lopez and Glen Delavega. (Exhibits G, H, and I) No surplus funds resulted from the sale of the repossessed collateral by Petitioner to Vincent Lopez and Glen Delavega. At no time material hereto did the Florida Department of Revenue issue a tax warrant against the Company respecting any unpaid sales tax. On or about May 6, 1987, Petitioner paid under protest to the Respondent Department of Revenue the delinquent unpaid sales tax of the Company in the amount of $1392.53. The Department is still attempting to verify that amount at this date. The Petitioner maintains he paid the amount in order for the Department to issue a sales tax certificate and number to Vincent Lopez and Glen Delavega. The Department maintains its procedure at the time was to issue a sales tax number to the new owners and then proceed against them under Section 212.10, Florida Statutes. It is the position of the Respondent that the Petitioner's repossession of the collateral constituted a sale within the purview of Section 212.10(1), Florida Statutes (1985), and Rule 12A-1.055, Florida Administrative Code, which places tax liability on the successor of a business whose previous owner has not satisfied outstanding sales tax obligations. Respondent further notes that the case Petitioner relies on, General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Tom Norton Motor Corp., 366 So.2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) was issued on January 10, 1979, while Section 679.105(5), Florida Statutes, which upholds tax laws when in conflict with security agreements, took effect January 1, 1980. Petitioner on the other hand claims that a lawful repossession of collateral under Florida's Uniform Commercial Code, Section 679.504, Florida Statutes (1985), does not constitute a "sale" of a business making him liable for the Company's unpaid sales tax. Petitioner continues to rely on GMAC, supra, and notes that it was cited by American Bank v. Con's Cycle Center, 466 So.2d 255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). A refund application was submitted by Petitioner to the Department of Revenue on June 10, 1987. This application was denied by the Department of Revenue by letter dated January 28, 1988. (Exhibit J)
The Issue Whether or not Sohio, a subsidiary of BP Oil Company, Inc., is liable for the payment of certain local option gas taxes to the Department of Revenue under the facts of this case.
Findings Of Fact This cause was initiated by the Petition for Formal Hearing filed with the Department of Revenue on or about February 2, 1989. This petition was in response to the Department's assessment of February 29, 1988. During the period from January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1987, Petitioner Sohio made sales of gasoline to various customers including 290,698 gallons of gasoline to Enos Ying (Ying), and 634,555 gallons of gasoline to Basil Roberts (Roberts). Petitioner's sales to Ying and to Roberts occurred at their respective places of business in Broward County, Florida, which imposed a six cent per gallon local option gas tax, pursuant to Chapter 336, F.S. during 1986 and 1987. At all times material, Petitioner was licensed in the State of Florida as a "refiner". Petitioner collected motor fuel tax under Chapter 206, F.S., but did not collect or remit local option gasoline tax under Chapter 336, F.S., with regard to its sale of gasoline to Ying and to Roberts. Petitioner did not obtain resale certificates or affidavits from Ying or Roberts covering its sales to them. On November 1, 1985, the Department of Revenue published an "Important Notice to all Retail Gasoline Dealers" which stated that: Effective January 1, 1986, Sections 336.021 and 336.025, Florida Statutes, requires (sic) the Retail Gasoline Dealer to collect and remit the local option gas tax and the voted gas tax on the sale of motor or special fuel at the retail level within a county which imposes one of the above taxes. On January 17, 1986, the Department of Revenue issued an "Important Notice to Motor Fuel Wholesalers, Importers or Distributors Concerning 1986 Licenses" and a list of retail service stations licensed for 1986 as of January 10, 1986, which notice stated: Those accounts that are unlicensed in 1986 will be receiving notification concerning their account and should secure their licenses immediately in order to prevent further complications, On the reverse side of the aforesaid notice, it was stated, Those accounts that are licensed in 1986 are responsible for remitting the local option gas taxes under Chapter 336, Florida Statutes. If you sell to an unlicensed retail dealer, the wholesaler, importer or refiner is responsible for collecting and remitting the local option taxes due under Chapter 336, Florida Statutes. Evidence should be obtained from the retail dealers as to his (sic) current status with the Department prior to selling to the account on a tax-free (Chapter 336, F.S.) basis. No rules or regulations of the Respondent Department under Chapter 336, F.S. or which make specific reference to Chapter 336, F.S. were promulgated by the Department during the period in question. On February 29, 1988, the Respondent issued a notice of delinquent local option gas tax, penalty and interest due and assessed against Petitioner in the amount of $1,302,545.13 (tax of $956,420.65, penalty of $229,806.11 and interest of $116,318.37) regarding sales made by the Petitioner to its customers including Ying and Roberts. A schedule describing the items forming the basis of the assessment was enclosed therewith, which schedule described the transaction subject to the assessment as being sales made to unlicensed retail dealers. The Respondent has never pursued collection of the tax, penalty and interest at issue from either Ying or Roberts. Petitioner did not know or have reason to know whether or not Ying or Roberts had paid the tax in question. On March 17, 1988, Petitioner filed a protest with the office of the General Counsel of the Florida Department of Revenue objecting to the entire assessment on the grounds Petitioner was not liable for the local option tax in regard to the subject transactions and in the alternative, that the retail dealers involved were either listed by the Department of Revenue as being licensed or had filed returns and previously paid their tax. By letter dated April 5, 1988, Petitioner was informed by Christine F. McCann, Special Programs Analyst, Bureau of Enforcement of the Florida Department Revenue, that the above referenced assessment had been revised downward to reflect the liability of $253,260.11 (tax of $182,813.42, penalty of $45,370.91, and interest of $25,075.78) on the grounds that the Petitioner had identified certain dealers as being licensed by the Department, who were part of a transaction for which the Respondent sought to tax Petitioner. As a result of an informal conference held on May 27, 1988, a Notice of Reconsideration was issued on December 7, 1988 which further reduced the assessment against Petitioner to a total of $80,463.39 (tax of $57,769.38, interest of $8,251.61 and penalty of $14,442.40) on the grounds that the Petitioner either identified additional dealers as being licensed by the Department or demonstrated that the retail dealers though not licensed by the Department, had paid the tax in question in regard to the subject transactions. The assessment as revised by the Department's Notice of Reconsideration continues to be in error in that it yet includes certain retail dealers although not licensed and other than Ying and Roberts, who have already paid the tax in question and therefore the assessment should be revised downward further. After the above-referenced adjustment, there remains and is now in controversy in this case the following amounts: SALES TO YING SALES TO ROBERTS Tax $17,436.48 Tax $38,073.30 Penalty 4,359.13 Penalty 9,518.37 Interest to Interest to 4/20/89 4,073.15 4/20/89 9,679.30 TOTAL $25,868.76 $57,270.97 GRAND TOTAL $83,139.73 as of 4/20/89. Should the Respondent prevail in this matter, interest will continue to accrue until the tax is paid. During the course of the informal protest procedures before the Department of Revenue, Petitioner established that all the sales which were the subject of the original notice, except those to Ying and to Roberts, were either to licensed gasoline retailers or to unlicensed gasoline retailers who had collected and remitted the local option tax due. Upon the testimony of Charles (Chuck) M. Reed Jr., Retail Marketer, who has been a dealer lease and supply agent for Ying and for Roberts from Gulf BP, parent corporation of Petitioner Sohio, it is found that Sohio's customary sales both to Ying and to Roberts were made exclusively by filling underground gasoline tanks at the respective establishments of Ying and of Roberts on delivery by the truckload of no less than 7,100 gallons and no more than 8,402 gallons at a time. Also upon the basis of his testimony and the photographs he took which were admitted in evidence, it is found that Ying and Roberts made retail sales to the general motoring public. More specifically, signs posting product affiliation and prices [see Section 206.01 (7) F.S.] which were observed by Mr. Reed identified each of these establishments as retail outlets. The sales agreements between Petitioner and Ying and between Petitioner and Roberts are also clearly in support of this finding. It is also proper to infer from Mr. Reed's testimony that he watched a majority of the gasoline gallons sold to Roberts and to Ying pumped into their respective underground tanks and then observed them pumping gasoline out of those tanks into motorists' cars via the traditional hose arrangements found in commercial gasoline stations, that it was the same Sohio gasoline which was pumped and sold by Ying and Roberts at retail. It was not necessary for Mr. Reed to physically observe the gasoline coursing through the hoses or account specifically day by day from delivery in bulk by Sohio to dispensation one car gasoline tank at a time by Ying and by Roberts in light of the exclusivity clauses of their contracts with Sohio. Therefore, Sohio established that the gasoline it sold to Ying and to Roberts was resold by Ying and by Roberts to the general motoring public. Ying and Roberts therefore fall in the category of being gasoline retailers unlicensed by the Department of Revenue, of whom it is undetermined whether they submitted their county local option gas tax due and from whom Petitioner Sohio, licensed as a refiner, did not obtain resale certificates or affidavits covering Sohio's sales to them. Petitioner did not establish that Ying and Roberts had collected and remitted the local option gasoline tax in controversy. There is no statute or rule which precludes Petitioner selling to an unlicensed dealer. Respondent Department of Revenue requested that Petitioner Sohio provide information which would indicate whether Ying and Roberts had collected and remitted the local option gasoline tax. Since all of the revisions and reductions of the original assessment against Petitioner as set out above were done by the Respondent based on information supplied by the Petitioner, the Respondent anticipated that Petitioner also would be able to provide information on Ying and Roberts. Respondent could have searched its records to find out if Ying and Roberts had paid their tax, and then gone directly to Ying and Roberts to find out why they did not pay the tax, if that were the case. However, due to the agency's search system which is geared to retailer license numbers, Department of Revenue employees asserted that such a search is probably impossible and certainly is impractical. All retail gasoline dealers are required to be licensed in order to sell gasoline. Accordingly, income tax forms are mailed by the agency only to those retail dealers who have obtained a license, despite the assertion in the agency's Notice described in Finding of Fact 8 that unlicensed retailers who had paid their tax without such a number/license were traceable. The problem appears to be that Petitioner sold to persons (unlicensed retailers Ying and Roberts) who had no vehicles (respective retail license numbers) by which to submit the local option gas tax. Instead of pursuing Ying and Roberts for payment of the county local option gas tax, the agency chose to come back against Petitioner for either the certificates or affidavits specifically required with regard to collection and remittance of the state motor fuel tax under Section 206.425 F.S., or for other proof of Roberts' and Ying's compliance concerning the county local option gas tax. According to Mr. Zych, Administrator of the Disposition Section of the Office of the General Counsel and superior to Ms. McCann, the agency would have accepted properly executed retail certificates if Petitioner had gotten them. Without such proof forthcoming from Petitioner, the agency held Petitioner liable for the local option gas tax imposed by the statute upon the retailer. So far as Ms. McCann, Respondent's Special Program Analyst, was concerned, this election to proceed against Sohio was completely in the discretion of her superior. There is no rule that requires Petitioner to get an exemption certificate or affidavit before they sell to a retail dealer.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order rescinding its Notice of Assessment against Petitioner with regard to its sales to Ying and Roberts and letting Petitioner go hence without ay. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 16th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0638 The following constitutes specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner' s PFOF: All of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted, but those not adopted have not been adopted because they are unnecessary, subordinate to the facts as found or mere legal argument. Respondent ` s PFOF: 1.-6. Accepted. 7. Accepted as modified to conform to the record and the natural inferences of the evidence of record. 8.-11. Accepted but not necessarily adopted as subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. 12. Accepted. 13.-15. Accepted but not necessarily adopted as subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the competent substantial evidence and the natural logical inferences there from. Accepted but not adopted because not dispositive of any material issue of fact in dispute in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Taylor, Esquire Excise Tax Analyst Ira L Smith, Esquire Director, Ad Volorem Tax Division BP America, Inc. 200 Public Square 38-3600-L Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2375 Lealand McCharen Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 William D. Townsend General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Katie D. Tucker Executive Director 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a public adjuster should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined after his conviction for aiding in the preparation of a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7206(2).
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Mr. Lesser be found guilty of violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes (1987), and that his licensure as a public adjuster be suspended for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of December, 1989. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 28th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-0502 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: 1 and 2. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Adopted in finding of fact 4. Implicit in findings of fact 5 and 6. Adopted in finding of fact 6. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Implicit in finding of fact 11. Rulings on findings proposed by Mr. Lesser: 1-11. Inapplicable. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Adopted in finding of fact 3, to the extent necessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in finding of fact 5. Adopted in finding of fact 5. Adopted in finding of fact 5, though finding of fact 5 includes certain logical deductions or inferences. Made more specific in findings of fact 5 and 6. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 7. Rejected. Not only were the laundering transactions illegitimate because they allowed Benevento Maneri to mischaracterize the source of their income, they also created false expenses for Lesser and Company, Inc., which artificially lowered the income of Lesser and Company, Inc., by the amount of the expense. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 7. It is difficult to determine what Mr. Lesser actually thought the source of the money was, but he knew it was illicit. See, finding of fact 7. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 8. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 9. 25 and 26. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 9. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 10 The extent of Mr. Lesser's danger cannot be determined from this record, although he was in some danger. Covered in finding of fact 9 Adopted as modified in finding of fact 11. Rejected. See, finding of fact 8. The IRS first contacted Mr. Lesser. He then went to Mr. Weinstein to set matters straight. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 11. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 4. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 12. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 12. A light sentence implies the factors set out in finding of fact 35, were taken into consideration, but does not prove that they were all the reasons the U.S. District Judge took into consideration. To the extent necessary, mentioned in finding of fact 12. Rejected as procedural. 38-51. Covered in findings of fact 13 and 14. The proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made in findings of fact 13 and 14. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Robert V. Elias, Esquire Office of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 William W. Corry, Esquire Jack M. Skelding, Jr., Esquire Patrick J. Phelan, Jr., Esquire Parker, Skelding, Labasky & Corry 318 North Monroe Street Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee Florida 32301 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Was the amendment to Section 12B-5.01, Florida Administrative Code adopted on November 8, 1978, adopted in violation of the procedural requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes? Is the amendment to Section 12B-5.01, Florida Administrative Code an invalid exercise of the Department's delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact Miami Tiresoles, Inc. sells both new and retreaded tires for cars and trucks. The company also sells gasoline and diesel fuel. It is licensed by the Department as a dealer in special fuels. As far as this case is concerned special fuel is number 2 diesel oil. Unless an exemption is met each gallon of special fuel sold by MTS is taxed by the Department at a rate of 8 cents per gallon. The Department has given MTS a revised notice of proposed assessment of tax for the sale of special fuel in the amount of $4,551.88 plus a penalty of $455.48 and interest in the amount of $735.11 (through April 21, 1980). The tax figure on the assessment appears to reflect a typographical error. The Department's records (Exhibit A) indicate that for the period in question 2/ MTS sold 56,936 gallons of special fuel subject to tax according to the Department's interpretation of the law. If a tax at a rate of 8 cents per gallon is due, then the amount due should be $4,554.88 and not $4,551.88. The correct tax figure is reflected on the Department's work sheets but was probably misread when the figure was transferred to the revised Notice of Assessment issued on April 21, 1980. The foregoing assessment is based on MTS' invoices which reflect sales of special fuel to customers in amounts of more than 110 gallons at one time. Those sales were made to MTS customers who have filed with MTS a document called "Purchaser's Exemption Certificate". A typical example of such a certificate states: PURCHASER'S EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE The undersigned hereby certifies that the motor duel (sic) and/or special fuel pur- chased on 1-19-79 is for the following purpose as checked in the space provided. (X) Purchased for home, industrial, com- mercial, agricultural or marine purposes for consumption other than for the propul- sion of a motor vehicle. ( ) Purchased at bulk plant or terminal in volumes of not more than 110 gallons for delivery into a receptacle not connected to the fuel supply system of a motor vehicle for consumption other than for the pro- pulsion of a motor vehicle. Purchaser is aware that if this exemption if (sic) falsely claimed, or if this certi- ficate is not rescinded at the time he fails to quality (sic) for the exemption, he shall be liable for the taxes imposed under Chapter 206, F.S. Furthermore, by issuing this certificate the purchaser also certifies that he does not have any motor vehicles which use special fuel for propulsion. This certificate is to continue in force until revoked by written notice to MIAMI TIRESOLES, INC. Purchaser: Trade Name: A ACME SANDBLASTING, INC. Street Address: 9521 W. Oakmont Dr., Hialeah, Fla. 33015 BY: /s/ The industrial customers of MTS (that is those who have filed an exemption certificate) are engaged in the construction business. They use the diesel fuel to operate bulldozers, front-end loaders, back hoes, sandblasters and similar equipment. None of the fuel is used for the operation of motor vehicles on the public highways of Florida. All the fuel in question is sold on the premises of MTS. At the time of sale it is placed either in the fuel tank of a particular piece of equipment such as a back hoe, or it is placed in a fuel storage tank mounted on the back of a truck. The storage tanks are not connected so they can provide fuel for the propulsion of the truck. They are used to transport fuel to the purchaser's particular job site. The storage tanks have a capacity of between 100 to 300 gallons. MTS does not have delivery trucks of its own and has no facilities for taking fuel to its customers job sites. A single invoice of MTS which indicates a sale of 110 gallons of special fuel to an individual customer is frequently the result of a sale where multiple fuel tanks are filled at one time. For instance, the customer may have a back hoe sitting on the rear of a flat-bed truck. He will fill the fuel tank in his back hoe and then perhaps fill an additional 55 gallon drum or two which would be on the truck. This would occur all in one transaction. The reason why the Department seeks to tax special fuel sold by MTS to its industrial customers in an amount exceeding 110 gallons is because the fuel was placed in the customers' own fuel tanks on the premises of MTS and not on the premises of the customer or at the customer's job site. The amendment to Section 12B-5.01, Florida Administrative Code challenged by Petitioner here was adopted by the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the head of the Department of Revenue, on November 8, 1978. No hearing was held on the amendment's adoption because no person requested one. Notice of the Department's intent to adopt the rule was given in the October 13, 1978 issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly. At the time the notice was published a copy of the amendment was available for inspection and copying by the public. The notice published in the Florida Administrative Weekly stated: DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, DIVISION OF MISCELLANEOUS TAX, MOTOR FUEL TAX Rule 12B-5.01 TITLE: Specific Exemption PURPOSE AND EFFECT: To amend the rule which implements Subsection 206.87(4)(a) & (b), F.S. to clarify interpretation of the law. SUMMARY: Provides specifically the requirements necessary in order for the licensed dealer of special fuel to make an exempt sale for home, industrial, commercial, agricultural, or marine purposes and exempt sales of not more than 110 gallons at his place of business, and by cross reference, the records needed to be maintained by the licensed dealer to substantiate the sale. SPECIFIC LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH THE ADOPTION IS AUTHORIZED AND THE LAW BEING IMPLEMENTED, INTERPRETED OR MADE SPECIFIC: SPECIFIC AUTHORITY: 206.14(1), 206.59, FS. LAW IMPLEMENTED: 206.87(4)(a)(b), FS. ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ON ALL AFFECTED PERSONS: There will be no significant economic impact. IF REQUESTED, A HEARING WILL BE HELD AT: TIME: 10:00 A.M. PLACE: The New Capitol, Lower Level 3 DATE: November 9, 1978 A COPY OF THE PROPOSED RULE AND THE ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT MAY BE OBTAINED BY WRITING TO: L. N. Thomas, Chief, Motor Fuel Tax Bureau, Department of Revenue, Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Individual notices of the proposed rule making were not sent to licensed special fuel dealers in Florida. On October 10, 1978, the Department sent the following items to the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee: A copy of the proposed amendment to Rule l2B-5.01. The notice to appear in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The Economic Impact Statement. The "Summary and Justification Sheet" (apparently the Department's term for the facts and circumstances justifying the proposed rules). The following shows how the Department's amendment adopted on November 8, 1978, changed Section 12B-5.01, Florida Administrative Code. Words stricken were deleted; words underlined were added. 12B-5.01 Specific Exemptions. (1) - (2) - No change. HOMES, INDUSTRIAL. COMMERCIAL, AGRICULTURAL OR MARINE. Any sale of special fuel by a licensed dealer, regardless of quantity, when such fuel is to be consumed exclusively for home, industrial, commercial, agricultural, or marine purposes, is exempt from tax, provided the sale is made by a licensed dealer who delivers the fuel into the customer's storage facility, which must be located on the customer's premises, place of business, or job site. (Cross Reference - Rule 12B-5.03(1). (7)(b) - (6) - No change. (7) SALES OF 110 GALLONS OR LESS. A licensed dealer may deliver, at his place of business, tax free, not more than 110 gallons of special fuel to a person who is not a licensed dealer of special fuel, provided the fuel is placed into a receptacle which is furnished by the purchaser and which is not connected to the fuel supply system of a motor vehicle. (Cross Reference - Rule 12B-5.03(1), (7)(b) Any licensed dealer of special fuel who, at his place of business, delivers more than 110 gallons of special fuel to a person who is not a licensed dealer of special fuel, shall be liable for and shall pay to the state taxes, penalties and interest on the total quantity sold even though the fuel may not be ultimately used to propel a motor vehicle on the highway.
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue's ("Department") assessment of tax, penalty, and interest against Nation Auto Sales of South Florida, Inc., is valid and correct.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency responsible for administering the revenue laws of the State of Florida, including the imposition and collection of the state's sales and use taxes. Petitioner, during the period of October 1, 2005, through March 31, 2010 ("assessment period"), was engaged in the business of selling used motor vehicles at retail in Broward County, Florida.1/ Arie Abecasis was Petitioner's president and sole corporate officer. Petitioner was continuously registered with the Department as a "dealer," pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was continuously licensed by the State of Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles ("DMV") as an independent motor vehicle dealer, pursuant to chapter 320, Florida Statutes. On September 3, 2008, the Department issued correspondence to Petitioner advising that the Criminal Investigations process had received a referral from the Department's collection sub process, concerning Petitioner's possible failure to remit all of the sales tax collected from its customers. In order to determine if a discrepancy existed, the Department requested Petitioner to provide: (1) sales invoices/ buyer's orders; (2) sales journals; (3) cash receipt and disbursement journal; (4) general ledger; and (5) bank statements for all depository accounts. On September 9, 2008, Mr. Abecasis met with Robert Taft, a criminal investigator for the Department. Mr. Taft advised Mr. Abecasis that there were two areas of concern: (1) Petitioner's failure to file returns and remit collected sales tax over several collection periods; and (2) that a comparison of the Department and DMV records appeared to reveal a substantial and repeated underreporting and under-remitting of collected sales tax. Mr. Abecasis advised that he would fully cooperate and provide records from 2005 on or before September 17, 2008. Thereafter, Petitioner provided some 2005 records, which Mr. Taft compared with DMV records. After completing a review of the same, on November 7, 2008, Mr. Taft issued correspondence to Petitioner advising that Petitioner's license was used to transfer vehicles for which Petitioner had failed to provide documentation. The same records indicated sales tax collected but never remitted to the Department. Accordingly, Mr. Taft requested all of the documentation originally requested to be produced on or before December 5, 2008. The Department did not receive the requested documentation. Thereafter, Mr. Taft obtained additional records from the DMV regarding a listing of all vehicles titled during the period from October 1, 2005, through March 31, 2010, using Petitioner's motor vehicle dealer's license numbers. Additionally, certified title applications for each of the title transfer transactions were reviewed. From the documents obtained, the Department was able to determine the following information regarding vehicles sold by Petitioner: the acquisition month, dealer number, acquisition date, title number, owner's last name, vehicle make, vehicle body, vehicle ID, and tax credit. The Department established that Petitioner filed with the Department Sales and Use Tax Returns, Form DR-15, that were not accompanied by payment of the tax due, for the following months: April through July, 2008; and February through August 2009. The Department established that Petitioner did not file with the Department Sales and Use Tax Returns, Form DR-15, for February and March, 2010. Petitioner collected at least $810,063.15 in sales tax. Petitioner remitted to the Department $509,735.53 in sales tax. Petitioner failed to remit to the Department at least $300,327.62 in sales tax collected from its customers. On or about November 1, 2010, the Department referred the matter to the Office of the State Attorney for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida for criminal prosecution. On October 31, 2012, in the case styled State v. Abecasis, Case No. 11-0002423 CF 10A, Mr. Abecasis entered a plea of no contest to the criminal charge of theft of state funds in an amount of $20,000 or more, a second-degree felony. As a special condition of his probation, Mr. Abecasis was ordered to make restitution to the Department in the amount of $50,000.00. It is undisputed that, on or before April 10, 2014, Petitioner satisfied the restitution ordered. On April 17, 2014, the Department issued to Petitioner a Notice of Jeopardy Finding and a Notice of Final Assessment. The Notice of Final Assessment notified Petitioner that $192,501.80 in tax, $20,190.35 in penalty, and $66,031.36 in interest were due.2/ The Notice of Jeopardy Finding averred that the Department found "one or more of the jeopardy conditions provided in Rule 12-21.005, Florida Administrative Code, which tend to prejudice or render wholly or partly ineffectual the normal conditions for collection of tax, penalty, or interest." The stated jeopardy condition was delay. On April 21, 2014, the Department recorded a warrant for collection of delinquent sales and use tax against Petitioner in the amount contained in the Notice of Final Assessment. Petitioner testified that, due to the nature of his business, it was a frequent occurrence that potential vehicle purchasers would require financing. Petitioner testified that it was Petitioner's practice to allow the customer to obtain the vehicle prior to financial approval from the lending institution. Accordingly, when the customer was not ultimately approved for financing or when the vehicle was repossessed, a true "sale" did not occur, and, therefore, sales taxes were not collected and remitted. The undersigned finds Petitioner's testimony not credible and not otherwise supported by the record evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Revenue enter a final order that validates the assessment against Nation Auto Sales of South Florida, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 26th day of November, 2014.
