Findings Of Fact Prior to the hearing the parties jointly moved to consolidate the two (2) above styled cases and stated the stipulation would cover both 76-2197, D.O.A.H., and 77-604, D.O.A.H. The former involved six (6) deeds and the latter three (3) deeds. The following facts were stipulated to by the parties: The Respondent, Department of Revenue, imposed a documentary stamp tax upon six (6) deeds which transferred the title to properties from individual persons to Petitioner Corry. The transfer came about as a result of the following: In each of the six (6) transfers under question, Petitioner Corry sold property to certain individuals. The Petitioner gave to the individuals a deed and took back a purchase money mortgage. The purchasers made essentially no payments on the mortgage to Petitioner Corry and ultimately the purchasers deeded the property back to the Petitioner. The deeds were recorded in the courthouse records. In one of the deeds there is a specific statement that the deed is executed in lieu of foreclosure and that the purchaser is released from all liability. There is no such specific statement in the other deeds. By a Proposed Notice of Assessment dated August 3, 1976, the Respondent, Department of Revenue, sought to impose a documentary stamp tax upon the six (6) deeds. The consideration upon which the tax is based in cases like the instant case is usually the amount of mortgage debt forgiven but in the instant case no such information was provided and the tax was based on the assessed values of the property. Petitioner Corry is contesting the legal liability of Petitioner for the assessment and is not contesting the legal liability of Petitioner for the assessment and is not contesting the mathematical computation of the amount allegedly due. It is Petitioner's contention that the six (6) deeds are not subject to documentary stamp taxation inasmuch as the Petitioner paid nothing for the deeds and were signed by the mortgagors at the request of the Petitioner to clear title of the equitable owner. It is the Respondent Department of Revenue's contention that the six (6) deeds are subject to documentary stamp taxation since they are deeds in lieu of foreclosure or are deeds given when debts are rendered unenforceable. At the time the six (6) deeds were recorded on December 22, 1975, in Taylor County, the Deputy Clerk asked Petitioner how much he paid for the six (6) deeds in question and when he responded that he paid nothing for the deeds the Deputy Clerk advised him that he owed no documentary stamp tax or surtax thereon. Relying on the Deputy Clerk's advice, the deeds were recorded and no taxes were paid, only the recording fees. The Hearing Officer further finds: The deeds in question were secured for the purpose of clearing title to the equitable owner. The Petitioner paid nothing to the mortgagor for the deeds. The stipulation controls both cases No. 76-2197 and 77-604.
Recommendation Hold the assessments as valid assessment. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Caroline C. Mueller, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William W. Corry, Esquire Post Office Box 527 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 1977.
Findings Of Fact John F. Cole, David J. Hayes and Andre LeClerc conveyed certain real estate situated in Broward County ("the property") to respondent by quitclaim deed dated December 16, 1976, and recorded on December 29, 1976. This instrument reflects payment of a documentary stamp tax in the amount of thirty cents ($0.30) as well as a documentary surtax. On September 30, 1971, Thomas N. Sprague and Peggy A. Sprague had mortgaged the property to Merle Ford to secure repayment of the principal sum of twenty-three thousand five hundred dollars ($23,500.00). On October 1, 1971, the Spragues mortgaged the property to Atlantic Federal Savings and Loan Association of Fort Lauderdale to secure repayment of the principal sum of one hundred three thousand dollars ($103,000.00) On November 21, 1973, John A. Kasbar, as trustee, mortgaged the property to the Spragues to secure repayment of the principal sum of twenty- three thousand one hundred dollars ($23,100.00) On June 5, 1969, Esther E. Adams conveyed the property by warranty deed to Andre LeClerc, as trustee. The warranty deed reflected payment of a documentary stamp tax in the amount of five hundred forty-three dollars ($543.00). The property which was the subject of these transactions is evidently worth a substantial sum of money, but the evidence fails to establish the value of the interest quitclaimed on December 16, 1976, and does not establish what consideration for the quitclaim deed was given, if any was given.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the notice of proposed assessment be withdrawn. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Mr. Ronald Payne, Esquire 621 South Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Findings Of Fact On or about August 15, 1979, Mead Timber Company and Scott Timber Company conveyed certain property located in Suwannee County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), to Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch (hereinafter referred to as the "Original Conveyance"). The warranty deed for the Original Conveyance was recorded on August 15, 1979, at Official Records Book 187, page 444, of the Public Records of Suwannee County, Florida. In connection with said Original Conveyance the closing statement therefor showed a purchase price of Two Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,400,000.00), said amount being the actual amount of the purchase and sale. In connection with the deed for said Original Conveyance, the closing statement indicated that Seven Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($7,200.00) of documentary stamp taxes were paid based upon Thirty Cents ($.30) per One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) of consideration, and said Seven Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($7,200.00) for documentary stamps was in fact paid. In connection with said Original Conveyance, a first mortgage and security agreement was given by Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch, to the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, said mortgage dated and filed August 15, 1979, at Official Records Book 187, page 451, of the Public Records of Suwannee County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as "First Mortgage"). The mortgage secured a note with a face amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) dated August 15, 1979. The First Mortgage showed a face amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00). In connection with the First Mortgage, pursuant to the loan commitment dated April 13, 1979, only One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000.00) was disbursed thereunder. The parties thereto anticipated that an additional One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000.00) would be disbursed at some future date, subject to conditions precedent that (a) the Borrowers place all of the Property encumbered thereby into cultivation, after having first cleared and prepared same for cultivation, and (b) that the Borrowers install twenty (20) 12-inch irrigation wells which would be appropriately drilled and equipped, and (c) that the Borrowers install twenty (20) automatic center-pivot irrigation systems thereon. The aforementioned conditions precedent have not been accomplished to date. The time period during which the conditions precedent set forth in paragraph seven (7) above could be completed, and during which time period the Borrowers could require the First Mortgage lender to make the additional disbursement under the First Mortgage, has expired, and the Borrowers have no further legal right to require any additional disbursements under the First Mortgage. The Petitioner has waived any right to seek or obtain the additional One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000.00) from the holder of the First Mortgage. In connection with the First Mortgage for the Original Conveyance, the Borrowers paid Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500.00) as documentary stamp taxes on the promissory note secured by the First Mortgage, and paid Six Thousand ($6,000.00) in intangible taxes. In connection with the Original Conveyance, a second mortgage was given by Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd and Alvin C. Futch to Mead Timber Company and Scott Timber Company in the original principal sum of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00), said mortgage dated and filed August 15, 1979, at Official Records Book 187, page 461, of the Public Records of Suwannee County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Mortgage"). On or about October 1, 1980, Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch conveyed a portion of the Property to Timber River, Inc., a Florida corporation, by warranty deed which instrument was filed October 2, 1980, at Official Records Book 203, page 790, of the Public Records of Suwannee County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Conveyance"). In connection with the deed for said Second Conveyance, only minimum documentary stamps in the amount of Forty Cents ($.40) were attached and affixed thereto. The Respondent herein has alleged that, since the Second Conveyance was subject to both the First Mortgage and the Second Mortgage, the taxable consideration should be Three Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,300,000.00)(the face amount of the two [2] mortgages combined), and therefore the documentary stamps which should have been affixed to the deed would be Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($13,200.00), leaving an additional tax due in the amount of Thirteen Thousand One Hundred Ninety-nine and Sixty One-hundredths Dollars ($13,199.60). Timber River, Inc., the grantee of the Second Conveyance, is a corporation which was wholly owned by Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch in equal proportions at the time of the Second Conveyance. Timber River, Inc., in consideration of Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch conveying to said corporation the property described in the deed of the Second Conveyance, issued its common stock to said individuals in equal proportions. Timber River, Inc., took the Property subject to the First Mortgage and second Mortgage, and did not assume or agree to assume either the First Mortgage or the second Mortgage. Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch, individually, have at all times been or are presently liable to the mortgagee, Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, and are personally responsible for making all payments under said mortgage. All payments under said mortgage both prior to and subsequent to the Second Conveyance have been made by Tommy M. Faircloth, Sam L. Rudd, and Alvin C. Futch, individually.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Petitioners are entitled to refund of documentary stamp taxes paid pursuant to Sections 201.01 and 201.08 Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Both Petitioners are limited partnerships validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Florida. (Petitioner's exhibits No. 1 and No. 5.) Sugar Creek Business Center Phase I, Ltd. ("Sugar Creek") As to this Petitioner, the parties have further stipulated: On or about March 27, 1986, Petitioner and First Union National Bank, a national banking association, with its principal office located in Charlotte, North Carolina (the "Lender"), entered into a certain Construction Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement"). Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, Lender agreed to make and Petitioner agreed to accept a loan in the amount of $6,300,000.00 (the "Loan") to be used solely for the purpose of paying for the cost of developing and constructing a commercial building in Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina. The Lender retained the law firm of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P. A., Post Office Box 1438, 501 E Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700, Tampa, Florida 33602, as its Florida counsel in connection with closing the Loan. Petitioner retained the law firm of Peirsol, Boroughs, Grimm, Bennett & Griffin, Professional Association, Post Office Box 3309, Orlando, Florida 32802, as its counsel in connection with closing the Loan. On or about March 27, 1986, the General Partners of Petitioner executed a promissory note in the amount of $6,300,000.00 payable to Lender (the "Note"), a Deed of Trust and Security Agreement securing the Note in favor of Gibson L. Smith, Jr. Trustee, and First Union National Bank, Beneficiary (the "Mortgage"), and all other loan closing documents pursuant to the Loan Agreement. The Mortgage encumbers only land and the improvements thereon located in Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina and was filed in the Public Records of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina on March 27, 1986, subsequent to closing upon the Loan Agreement. The proceeds of the Loan evidenced by the Note and secured by the Mortgage were used solely to develop and construct a commercial building upon the land encumbered by the Mortgage in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Florida documentary stamps were purchased from the area office of the Department of Revenue located in Tampa, Florida on May 1, 1986 and affixed to the Note to evidence payment of Florida documentary stamp tax with respect to the Note in the amount of $9,450.00 pursuant to Sections 201.00 and 201.08, Florida Statutes. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1) John Simpson, Jr., Esquire of Peirsol, Boroughs, Grimm, Bennett and Griffin, P. A. represented Sugar Creek in the purchase of property and the acquisition and closing of construction financing for improvements. The loan documents were mailed to him. He gave them to his client in Orlando, who signed and delivered them back to him in escrow. Simpson took the documents to Charlotte, North Carolina, for the closing on or around March 27, 1986. The purchase of property and loan closed simultaneously and the funds were disbursed in Charlotte. (Testimony of John Simpson, Jr., Esquire) One Dezavala Center, Ltd. As to this Petitioner, the parties have stipulated: On or about July 30, 1985, Petitioner and the First National Bank of Chicago, a national banking association, with its principal office located in Chicago, Illinois (the "Lender"), entered into a certain Construction Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement"). Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, Lender agreed to make and Petitioner agreed to accept a loan in the amount of $6,600,000.00 (the "Loan") to be used solely for the purpose of paying for the cost of developing and constructing four commercial buildings located in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. The Lender retained the law firm of Holland & Knight, 1200 Brickel Avenue, Post Office Box 015441, Miami, Florida 33101, as its Florida counsel in connection with closing the Loan. Petitioner retained the law firm of Peirsol, Boroughs, Grimm, Bennett & Griffin, Professional Association, Post Office Box 3309, Orlando, Florida 32802, as its counsel in connection with closing the Loan. On or about July 30, 1985, the General Partners of Petitioner executed a promissory note in the amount of $6,600,000.00 payable to Lender (the "Note"), a Deed of Trust, Mortgage, and Security Agreement securing the Note in favor of Harry M. Roberts, Jr., Esquire, Trustee (the "Mortgage"), and all other loan closing documents as required under the Loan Agreement. The Mortgage encumbers only land and the improvements thereon located in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas and was filed in the Public Records of Bexar County, Texas on August 1, 1985, subsequent to closing upon the Loan Agreement. The proceeds of the Loan evidenced by the Note and secured by the Mortgage were used solely to develop and construct four commercial buildings on the land encumbered by the Mortgage in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Florida documentary stamps were purchased from the area office of the Department of Revenue located in Miami, Florida on August 5, 1985, and affixed to the Note to evidence payment of Florida documentary stamp with respect to the Note in the amount of $9,900.00 pursuant to Sections 201.00 and 201.08 Florida Statutes. John Simpson, Jr., Esquire, also represented One Dezavala in the closing for the acquisition of the property and the loan. The note and other loan documents were signed in Orlando by Petitioner's General Partners. The documents were given to the lender's Florida Counsel in escrow, who sent the documents to the lender's Texas counsel. Closing on the acquisition of property and the loan took place simultaneously in San Antonio, Texas and the funds were disbursed in San Antonio. (Testimony of John Simpson, Jr., Esquire) Photocopies of the notes and stamps were admitted as Exhibits No. 3 and No. 7. The parties, by oral stipulation at the final hearing, agreed that before the Comptroller could be compelled to issue a Final Order authorizing the refund of such money as may properly be found owing Petitioners, Petitioners would make available to the Comptroller or his representatives, for inspection, cancellation and/or obliteration, the original documentary stamps forming the basis for the request for refund.
Findings Of Fact At the beginning of the hearing in this cause, it was stipulated and agreed to that certain pleadings and exhibits would constitute the factual basis for consideration of the case. Specifically, the parties agreed that the First Amended Petition and its parts that were admitted by the Respondent; together with interrogatories propounded by the Respondent to the Petitioner and the answers thereto; and Exhibits A and C attached to the First Amended Petition; would be the underlying facts that could be examined in arriving at a statement of the facts, and ultimate conclusions of law. A further refinement in the stipulation and agreement of the parties was their acceptance of the stated amount of $952.05 in surtax owed, if it were concluded that any amount of surtax was properly assessed. Finally, the parties agreed that copies of the aforementioned Exhibits A and C could be utilized in deliberating this case. (Copies of the First Amended Petition, Answer to that Petition, Interrogatories propounded by the Respondent and Answers provided by the Petitioner, and Exhibits A and C attached to the First Amended Petition, are hereby made a part of the record herein and forwarded to the agency head in lieu of a transcript.) The Petitioner in this action is Wisconsin Real Estate Investment Trust, whose address is Marine Plaza, 111 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202. On or about April 11, 1975 the Petitioner was a grantee in the certain Warranty Deed from James E. Russell, Jr., as trustee to Wisconsin Real Estate Investment Trust, dated April 11, 1975, and recorded May 20, 1975, in Official Records Book 2620, Page 1812, Public Records of Orange County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Warranty Deed"). A copy of the said Warranty Deed is a part of the First Amended Petition found as Exhibit A. The conveyance of the property as set forth in the Warranty Deed was subject to certain mortgages described in detail upon Exhibit A attached to the Warranty Deed and identified briefly as follows, to wit: A first mortgage to Prudential Insurance Company of America in the amount of three million three hundred thousand dollars ($3,300,000); Four "Second" mortgages to the Petitioner herein, said mortgages being in the total amount of eight hundred sixty five thousand, eight hundred fifty four dollars ($865,854); A "third" mortgage granted by Orlando Quadrant Development Limited to United Associates, Inc. in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). Exhibit A to the Warranty Deed also contained the following provision: "It is the intent of the Grantor and the Grantee that this conveyance shall not cause a merger of the mortgages held by the Grantee which are described above, and the fee simple title of the Grantee received hereby in that said mortgage shall remain in full force and effect and shall continue to be a lien on the property." Documentary stamps were paid with respect to the full amount of the purchase price in the amount of four million, six hundred sixty five thousand, eight hundred fifty four dollars ($4,665,854.) and minimum stamps for surtax in the amount of fifty five cents ($.55) were paid. On or about August 20, 1975, the Respondent delivered to Petitioner a form letter styled "Request for Information and Response" requesting the reason why minimum surtax was paid. Petitioner replied that minimum surtax was paid because the transaction constituted a sale and not a deed in lieu of foreclosure. A copy of the "Request for Information and Response" was attached as Exhibit B to the First Amended Petition. On or about November 20, 1975, the Respondent sent to Petitioner a "Proposed Notice of Assessment" informing Petitioner of a proposed imposition of tax in the amount of nine hundred fifty two and 05/100 dollars ($952.05) and a penalty in the amount of nine hundred fifty two and 05/100 dollars ($952.05), for a total assessment of one thousand nine hundred four and 10/100 dollars ($1,904.10). A copy of the "Proposed Notice of Assessment" was attached to the First Amended Petition as Exhibit C. In response to the Proposed Notice, the Petitioner, through counsel, wrote to Respondent on December 11, 1975, questioning the necessity for surtax charge under the present status of Florida Law. In that letter there was a formal request for conference within thirty (30) days of the proposed assessment to discuss the assessment before it became final. A copy of the letter of December 11, 1975 was Exhibit D to the First Amended Petition. On December 24, 1975, the Petitioner wrote the Respondent with respect to a telephone conference that was held with Respondent wherein the Respondent indicated there was a legal authority for imposition of surtax against Petitioner. The Respondent sent the information to Petitioner under cover of a letter dated January 2, 1976, and the Petitioner responded to said letter by letter dated January 9, 1976 wherein the position of the Petitioner with respect to the imposition of the surtax was set forth in detail. A copy of the Petitioner's letter of January 9, 1976, was made Exhibit E to the First Amended Petition. Subsequent to the letter of January 9, 1976, Respondent requested by telephone that Petitioner provide Respondent with a copy of the Declaration of Trust of Petitioner, which said Declaration of Trust was sent to Respondent under cover letter dated June 7, 1976. On September 8, 1976, Respondent sent Petitioner a notice that a Tax Warrant and Execution had been prepared and would be filed. A copy of said letter of September 8, 1976 was made Exhibit F to the First Amended Petition. Informal efforts to resolve the dispute were not effective and this led to a formal hearing. A closer look at the events involved in the conveyance of the Warranty Deed points out that the first mortgage held by Prudential Life Insurance Company of America was in default at that time, and the institution of foreclosure proceedings was eminent. The Grantee, Petitioner, held three mortgages subordinate to the first mortgage held by Prudential Life Insurance Company, and it was felt that the conveyance from Grantor to Grantee was the best method of protecting Grantee's interest. The conveyance did not provide for merger of the ownership interest and the mortgage interest in favor of the Grantee, on the face of the Warranty Deed. In fact, the Warranty Deed disclaims such merger, as stated before. There was no agreement either in writing or verbally between the Grantor and the Grantee with respect to payment or non-payment of the second mortgages held by the Grantee, subsequent to the transfer. None of the second mortgages held by the Grantee, Petitioner, have been satisfied of record at the time of conveyance or since that time. There has been no payment of principal and interest on the second mortgages in question since the conveyance under the Warranty Deed. The Petitioner advances its argument in opposition to the documentary surtax premised on the assertion that such tax does not apply to amounts of existing mortgages on the real estate sold, and therefore no surtax should be levied, because the four second mortgages at issue are still in existence. In stating this position the Petitioner refers to 201.021, F.S. which states: "(1) A documentary surtax, in addition to the tax levied in s. 201.02, is levied on those documents taxed by s. 201.02 at the rate of 55 cents per $500 of the consideration paid; provided, that when real estate is sold, the consideration, for purposes of this tax, shall not include amounts of existing mortgages on the real estate sold. If the full amount of the consideration is not shown on the face of the document, then the tax shall be at the rate of 55 cents on each $500 or fractional part thereof of the consideration." The Petitioner also makes reference to Rule 12A-4.12(4)(e) pertaining to the definition of consideration as found in 201.021, F.S. The pertinent provision of that rule says: "For Consideration - Surtax: The term "consideration" under 201.021, F.S., includes but is not limited to: (e) Conveyance where outstanding mortgage debt, lien or encumbrance is cancelled, satisfied, or otherwise rendered unenforceable by the conveyance." According to the Petitioner the four subject mortgages are not cancelled, satisfied, or otherwise rendered unenforceable by the conveyance, and consequently there is no taxable "consideration". They rely on the aforementioned language of the Warranty Deed which disclaims the merger of the mortgage debt with the equity of redemption when the conveyance was made. Moreover, under the Petitioner's argument, because it has stated its intention not to have a merger that stated intention should control and no merger should apply. For this proposition the Petitioner cites the case of Friedman v. Pohnl, 143 So.2d 690, (3 DCA Fla. 1962). Within the language of the case is reference to the case of Jackson v. Relf, 26 Fla. 465, 8 So. 184 (Fla. 1890). The Jackson case, supra, states that it is the intention of the person in whom the debt and equity of redemption are united that determines if there is a merger of the mortgage debt and equity of redemption, or if the mortgage debt continues to be in force and effect. The Petitioner also argues that the reason it elected not to merge the debt claim and equity of redemption, was to protect its priority position under the second mortgages over the third mortgage holder in the case of any sale to any third party and assumption of a second mortgage by a third party or in the case of any formal foreclosure. The Respondent counters the Petitioner's argument by claiming that the four subject second mortgages have been extinguished, thereby entitling the Respondent to impose a documentary surtax under the authority of 201.021(1), F.S. and Rule 12A-4.12(4)(e) F.A.C. The Respondent feels that you may look behind the disclaimer statement found in the Warranty Deed and by the facts of the conveyance determine that there is a merger for purposes of taxation. The Respondent relies upon a series of case decisions in arriving at this position. The first two cases Gay v. Inter-County Tel & Tel. Co., 60 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1952) and Choctawhatchee Electric Corp. v. Green, 132 So.2d 556 (Fla. 1961), it argues, stand for the proposition that the Documentary Stamp Tax Act in Florida is similar to the Federal Act 26 U.S.C.A. 1800 et. seq. and the same construction given to the federal tax cases in the federal courts, may be given to the Florida documentary stamp tax cases in the Florida cases. Using that theory as a basis for the persuasiveness of the federal authority, the Petitioner then cites the cases of Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. United States, 110 F Supp. 606 (1953) and Railroad Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n. v. United States, 135 F.2d 290. According to the Respondent, the two federal cases were sufficiently close in their facts to be applicable to the case at bar. Furthermore, since these cases required the payment of federal documentary tax, the Respondent believes that the rationale used in those cases would sustain a claim for documentary surtax and penalty in the case sub judice. An examination of the two federal cases shows them to be distinguishable in their facts. Mutual Life, supra, is distinguishable for two reasons. The first reason being that certain mortgage debts spoken of in that case had clauses indicating that the mortgage on the property was not to merge with the fee and that the mortgage would remain with the property notwithstanding conveyance; however, in all those cases a covenant had been given not to sue on the mortgage debt, which extinguished the mortgage debt. No such covenant has been given in the case at bar, and consequently the consideration, constituted of the extinguishment found in Mutual Life, supra, is not found in the case at bar. There is a second distinguishing factor between the Mutual Life case and the present case. That pertains to the fact that the action in Mutual Life involved the laws of the State of New York, which were being applied to a different set of facts. Under the New York Law, consideration was also found to exist notwithstanding a clause which disclaimed any merger of the fee and mortgage. This situation pertained to five mortgage cases in which no covenant not to sue had been given. The New York Law, according to the opinion in Mutual Life, called for the extinguishment of the mortgages in those five cases, due to the statutory statement which prohibited deficiency judgments on the mortgage indebtedness, because the fair market value of the property exceeded the debt claim. Therefore under the statement of the case, the mortgage indebtedness was extinguished as a matter of law, by transferring the interest in the fee to the mortgagee. A tax was placed on that transfer, based upon the extinguishment of the mortgage debt as consideration. The law in Florida does not prohibit a foreclosure suit by the second mortgage holder in the way set forth in the New York Law. In addition, the five mortgages in the Mutual Life case were not surrounded by first and third mortgages as is the case herein. The existence of the first and third mortgages, is a legitimate reason to maintain the second mortgages held by the Petitioner, as a protection against the other mortgagees. The other federal case cited by the Petitioner is the Railroad Federal case, supra. This case involved a deed in lieu of foreclosure and the imposition of a tax on the balance of principal and accrued interest due on the mortgages plus any cash amount paid. These mortgages involved in the Railroad Federal case were later cancelled by the resale or the subsequent purchase subject to the mortgages. The deed also contained an agreement not to seek a deficiency judgment on the part of the mortgagee which made it clear that the mortgagee was taking the property in full satisfaction of the mortgage indebtedness. In fact the mortgagee did not seek a deficiency judgment, nor was any further interest paid or demanded. This is distinguishable from the case at bar, in that the clear intent of the mortgagor and mortgagee herein is to keep active the second mortgages. The Respondent cited several administrative cases namely: Friedman v. State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Case No. 75-1304: Hutner v. State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Case No. 75-1771; and Atico Mortgage Investors v. State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Case No 77-1124. Respondent cited too, Opinion of the Attorney General, 059-203. Without discussing those administrative cases and the Attorney General's Opinion, they are all distinguishable in their facts and would not appear to have application to the case at bar. Based on an analysis of the evidential facts and the argument of the parties, the position of the Petitioner is well founded and the documentary surtax and penalty should not be paid.
Recommendation It is recommended that the subject assessment of documentary surtax and penalty be set aside. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: R. Lee Bennett, Esquire Lowndes, Peirsol, Drosdick & Doster, P.A. Suite 443, First Federal Building Post Office Box 2809 Orlando, Florida 32802 Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Division of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this unadopted-rule challenge is whether Respondent, in connection with the administration of the stamp tax, has formulated a statement of general applicability for allocating undifferentiated, lump-sum payments made in purchase- and-sale transactions involving joint real estate/personal property transfers; which meets the statutory definition of a rule but has not been adopted pursuant to the rulemaking procedure; and, as used by Respondent, has the effect of creating an entitlement to collect tax on 100% of the undifferentiated consideration.
Findings Of Fact On February 23, 2015, Petitioner 1701 Collins (Miami) Owner, LLC ("Taxpayer"), a Delaware limited liability company, entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Agreement") to sell a going concern, namely a hotel and conference center doing business in Miami Beach, Florida, as the SLS Hotel South Beach (the "Hotel Business"), to 1701 Miami (Owner), LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Purchaser"). Purchaser paid Taxpayer $125 million for the Hotel Business. The Hotel Business comprised two categories of property, i.e., real estate ("RE") and personal property ("PP"). The PP, in turn, consisted of two subcategories of property, tangible personal property ("TPP") and intangible personal property ("ITPP"). It is undisputed that the property transferred pursuant to the Agreement included RE, TPP, and ITPP. The sale closed on June 5, 2015, and a special warranty deed was recorded on June 8, 2015, which showed nominal consideration of $10. Pursuant to the Agreement, Taxpayer was responsible for remitting the documentary stamp tax and the discretionary surtax (collectively, "stamp tax"). Stamp tax is due on instruments transferring RE; the amount of the tax, payable per instrument recorded, is based upon the consideration paid for RE. Stamp tax is not assessed on consideration given in exchange for PP. The Agreement contains a provision obligating the parties to agree, before closing, upon a reasonable allocation of the lump-sum purchase price between the three types of property comprising the Hotel Business. For reasons unknown, this allocation, which was to be made "for federal, state and local tax purposes," never occurred. The failure of the parties to agree upon an allocation, if indeed they even attempted to negotiate this point, did not prevent the sale from occurring. Neither party declared the other to be in breach of the Agreement as a result of their nonallocation of the consideration. The upshot is that, as between Taxpayer and the Purchaser, the $125 million purchase price was treated as undifferentiated consideration for the whole enterprise. Taxpayer paid stamp tax in the amount of approximately $1.3 million based on the full $125 million of undifferentiated consideration. Taxpayer paid the correct amount of stamp tax if the entire consideration were given in exchange for the RE transferred to Purchaser pursuant the Agreement——if, in other words, the Purchaser paid nothing for the elements of the Hotel Business consisting of PP. On February 6, 2018, Taxpayer timely filed an Application for Refund with Respondent Department of Revenue (the "Department"), which is the agency responsible for the administration of the state's tax laws. Relying on a report dated February 1, 2018 (the "Deal Pricing Analysis" or "DPA"), which had been prepared for Taxpayer by Bernice T. Dowell of Cynsur, LLC, Taxpayer sought a refund in the amount of $495,013.05. As grounds therefor, Taxpayer stated that it had "paid Documentary Stamp Tax on personal property in addition to real property." Taxpayer's position, at the time of the refund application and throughout this proceeding, is that its stamp tax liability should be based, not on the total undifferentiated consideration of $125 million given in the exchange for the Hotel Business, but on $77.8 million, which, according to the DPA, is the "implied value" of——i.e., the pro-rata share of the lump-sum purchase price that may be fairly allocated exclusively to——the RE transferred pursuant to the Agreement. Taxpayer claims that, to the extent it paid stamp tax on the "implied values" (as determined in the DPA) of the TPP ($7 million) and ITPP ($40.2 million) included in the transfer of the Hotel Business, it mistakenly overpaid the tax.1/ On February 23, 2018, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Make Refund Claim Changes, which informed Taxpayer that the Department planned to "change" the refund amount requested, from roughly $500 thousand, to $0——to deny the refund, in other words. In explanation for this proposed decision, the Department wrote: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the [special warranty deed] was recorded. Please provide supporting information regarding allocation of purchase price on or around the time of the sale." This was followed, on April 2, 2018, by the Department's issuance of a Notice of Proposed Refund Denial, whose title tells its purpose. The grounds were the same as before: "[The DPA] was produced 3 years after the document was recorded." Taxpayer timely filed a protest to challenge the proposed refund denial, on May 31, 2018. Taxpayer argued that the $125 million consideration, which Purchaser paid for the Hotel Business operation, necessarily bought the RE, TPP, and ITPP constituting the going concern; and, therefore, because stamp tax is due only on the consideration exchanged for RE, and because there is no requirement under Florida law that the undifferentiated consideration exchanged for a going concern be allocated, at any specific time, to the categories or subcategories of property transferred in the sale, Taxpayer, having paid stamp tax on consideration given for TPP and ITPP, is owed a refund. The Department's tax conferee determined that the proposed denial of Taxpayer's refund request should be upheld because, as he explained in a memorandum prepared on or around December 27, 2018, "[t]he taxpayer [had failed to] establish that an allocation of consideration between Florida real property, tangible personal property, and intangible property was made prior to the transfer of the property such that tax would be based only on the consideration allocated to the real property." The Department issued its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial on January 9, 2019. In the "Law & Discussion" section of the decision, the Department wrote: When real and personal property are sold together, and there is no itemization of the personal property, then the sales price is deemed to be the consideration paid for the real property. [2] Likewise, when the personal property is itemized, then only the amount of the sales price allocated for the real property is consideration for the real property and subject to the documentary stamp tax. The first of these propositions will be referred to as the "Default Allocation Presumption." The second will be called "Consensual-Allocation Deference." The Department cited no law in support of either principle. In its intended decision, the Department found, as a matter of fact, that Taxpayer and Purchaser had not "established an allocation between all properties prior to the transfer" of the Hotel Business. Thus, the Department concluded that Taxpayer was not entitled to Consensual-Allocation Deference, but rather was subject to the Default Allocation Presumption, pursuant to which the full undifferentiated consideration of $125 million would be "deemed to be the consideration paid for the" RE. Taxpayer timely requested an administrative hearing to determine its substantial interests with regard to the refund request that the Department proposes to deny. Taxpayer also filed a Petition to Determine Invalidity of Agency Statement, which was docketed under DOAH Case No. 19-3639RU (the "Rule Challenge"). In its section 120.56(4) petition, Taxpayer alleges that the Department has taken a position of disputed scope or effect ("PDSE"), which meets the definition of a "rule" under section 120.52(16) and has not been adopted pursuant to the rulemaking procedure prescribed in section 120.54. The Department's alleged PDSE, as described in Taxpayer's petition, is as follows: In the administration of documentary stamp tax and surtax, tax is due on the total consideration paid for real property, tangible property and intangible property, unless an allocation of consideration paid for each type of property sold has been made by the taxpayer on or before the date the transfer of the property or recording of the deed. If the alleged PDSE is an unadopted rule, as Taxpayer further alleges, then the Department is in violation of section 120.54(1)(a). The questions of whether the alleged agency PDSE exists, and, if so, whether the PDSE is an unadopted rule, are common to Taxpayer's separate actions under sections 120.57(1) and 120.56(4), respectively, because neither the Department nor the undersigned may "base agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule." § 120.57(1)(e)1., Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the Rule Challenge was consolidated with Taxpayer's refund claim for hearing. It is determined that the Department, in fact, has taken a PDSE, which is substantially the same as Taxpayer described it. The undersigned rephrases and refines the Department's PDSE, to conform to the evidence presented at hearing, as follows: In determining the amount stamp tax due on an instrument arising from the lump-sum purchase of assets comprising both RE and PP, then, absent an agreement by the contracting parties to apportion the consideration between the categories or subcategories of property conveyed, made not later than the date of recordation (the "Deadline"), it is conclusively presumed that 100% of the undifferentiated consideration paid for the RE and PP combined is attributable to the RE alone. According to the PDSE, the parties to a lump-sum purchase of different classes of property (a "Lump—Sum Mixed Sale" or "LSMS") possess the power to control the amount of stamp tax by agreeing upon a distribution of the consideration between RE and PP, or not, before the Deadline.2/ If they timely make such an agreement, then, in accordance with Consensual-Allocation Deference, which is absolute, the stamp tax will be based upon whatever amount the parties attribute to the RE. If they do not, then, under the Default Allocation Presumption, which is irrebuttable, the stamp tax will be based upon the undifferentiated consideration. The Department has not published a notice of rulemaking under section 120.54(3)(a) relating to the PDSE. Nor has the Department presented evidence or argument on the feasibility or practicability of adopting the PDSE as a de jure rule. It is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that the PDSE has the effect of law because the Department, if unchecked, intends consistently to follow, and to enforce compliance with, the PDSE. Because, in the Department's hands, the PDSE creates an entitlement to collect stamp taxes while adversely affecting taxpayers, it is an unadopted rule.
The Issue By this petition, American Foam Rubber Distributors, Inc. (AFRD) and Edward Rothbard seek to have the Department of Revenue's assessment for documentary stamp tax and penalties on a transfer of real property by quit claim deed from Edward Rothbard to AFRD set aside. Petitioners contend that the transfer was without consideration and therefore nontaxable under sec. 201.02, F.S. , while Respondent contends that consideration flowed to the grantor by virtue of the grantee making the mortgage payments; and therefore, documentary tax stamps were due on the deed of conveyance computed on the amount of the mortgage at the time of transfer. One witness testified in behalf of Petitioners and four exhibits were admitted into evidence. From the pleadings, interrogatories and evidence presented at the hearing, the facts are largely undisputed and are as follows:
Findings Of Fact Edward Rothbard owns 100 percent of the outstanding stock of AFRD and he has been the sole shareholder and chief executive officer of the company since the company s inception in 1962. On March 9, 1973 the Seaboard Coastline Railroad (SCL) entered into an agreement with AFRD to sell a tract of land in Miami to the latter at an agreed price of $116,978.00 with certain conditions. The principal condition was that the grantee erect a warehouse on the property within one year from the date of the transfer. By deed dated August 23, 1973 the property was conveyed by SCL to Edward Rothbard rather than as per the contract. This deed was apparently delivered in late October, 1973 and the proper documentary stamp tax was paid on this transaction. Mr. Rothbard's testimony that the sole reason for taking the property in his name was to expedite the transaction was not rebutted. In exhibits 1 and 2 copies of letters from SCL dated September 21 and 26, 1973, SCL referred to Rothbard as nominee of AFRD to be grantee of the property. Exhibit 4, the title page of an interim title insurance binder, indicates that the title insurance policy on the property purchased from SCL was intended to be in the name of AFRD. In August, 1974 the building erected on the site for the use and benefit of AFRD was completed and Edward Rothbard mortgaged the property to secure a note in the amount of $550,000.00. His wife also executed the note and mortgage. AFRD occupied the building in September, 1975 and made all mortgage payments to the mortgagee including the first payment. By quitclaim deed executed February 26, 1975 Edward Rothbard conveyed the property here involved to AFRD subject to the mortgage. Minimum documentary tax stamps were placed on this deed. On February 26, 1975 the outstanding balance due on the mortgage was $543,969.59.
Findings Of Fact The area of dispute involves an alleged insufficiency of payment of documentary stamp tax and documentary surtax, and associated penalties for the insufficiencies, in transactions which are reflected in the Exhibit "C" to the Petition. The parties did not dispute the accuracy of the computation found in the Exhibit "C" to the petition, which was prepared by an investigator of the Respondent. The Petitioner contends that he is only responsible for paying the amount of documentary stamp tax and documentary surtax on the value of the real estate which was conveyed to the several grantees shown in Exhibit "C", as opposed to paying documentary stamp tax and documentary surtax on the value of the real estate, together with the value of the home which was built on that real estate. The facts show that the Petitioner has only paid documentary stamp tax and documentary surtax on the value of the real estate which he conveyed to the several grantees in Exhibit "C". In describing the arrangement between the Petitioner and his wife with the several grantees, The Petitioner and Respondent stipulated that Petitioner's Exhibit #1 accurately represents the documents involved in the initial contact between the Petitioner and the grantee. The Petitioner's Exhibit #1 is a composite exhibit which shows a blank sales contract and installment contract prepared by the Petitioner, together with a copy of an executed sales contract and installment contract in behalf of one of the several grantees. This document has as its function providing a rough estimate in behalf of the parties on the question of the cost of a lot and home, together with the attendant tangible property items that go with the sale. This document is subject to the special conditions of the Farmers Home Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture and is not binding on the grantee. The parties stipulated that Petitioner's Exhibit #2, a composite exhibit, was utilized in the case of the several grantees in this matter. The Petitioner's Exhibit #2 is a construction contract in blank form and a form as executed in behalf of one of the grantees. This construction contract is prepared by the Farmers Home Administration, United States Department of Agriculture. This construction contract identifies the price and contains a general description of the lot which was sold by the Petitioner, and is executed after the grantee has met with the Farmers Home Administration and been approved for a loan. Prior to the execution of the construction contract, the grantees came to the place of business of the Petitioner, which is an office in the back of his home. This meeting was not pursuant to any advertising other than communication by other parties who had sought the services of Jerry W. Thomas, who is a general contractor, certified by the Farmers Home Administration to build homes which the Farmers Home Administration is financing. The grantee would come to Mr. Thomas's office and discuss the construction of a home, and, in the case of the grantees in Petitioner's Exhibit "C", it is contemplated that that home would be built on a lot which Mr. Thomas and his wife owned and would convey to the grantee. In fact, in every instance reflected in Exhibit "C" the home was constructed by Mr. Thomas and was constructed on a lot which Mr. Thomas and his wife sold to the grantee. Before the construction contract was signed, it was necessary for the grantee to be approved for financing by the Farmers Home Administration. It was also necessary under the system that was utilized in financing the matters set forth in the Exhibit "C", that the Petitioner sign an irrevocable option to purchase realty, which was executed in favor of the several grantees. A replica of this form is made a part of the record as Petitioner's Exhibit #4. The meaning of the option to purchase real property, was that the Petitioner stated a price for his real estate and he was bound by that price and must sell the real estate to the grantee, whether or not the Petitioner ever built a home on the real estate. This option to purchase real property was a precondition to the overall financing scheme which was utilized by the Farmers Home Administration. This particular method was identified as a contract method. Should the appraisal of the property as conducted by the Farmers Home Administration indicate that the asking price stated in the option to purchase real property was in excess of the appraised value, then the Petitioner could have refused to sell. In the case of all the grantees found in Exhibit "C", the price stated for the real property was acceptable and the contract was consummated. The technique for executing the contract conditions once the option to purchase real property had been completed and accepted was as follows: A closing was held at which point a warranty deed was executed by the Petitioner and his wife in favor of the several grantees. Payment for the real estate was made from a supervised account in behalf of the several grantees. The warranty deed, which form is shown in Petitioner's Exhibit #3 and is stipulated as being the form utilized in all conveyances alluded to in Petitioner's Exhibit "C" was then recorded. At the moment of recording, documentary stamp tax and documentary surtax was paid on the amount of the real property only. On the day that the warranty deed was recorded, a mortgage and note was also recorded in favor of the Farmers Home Administration for the amount financed by the grantees. Subsequent to the closing alluded to in paragraph one and two of this explanation, the grantee, at his option, had the home constructed. The option referred to, pertains to the ability to hire any contractor that he desired to construct the home on the property which had been conveyed to him. The Petitioner would not have had the right to oppose the grantees' choice of contractor. Had the several grantees desired to choose other contractors, then the Petitioner would have been required to sell his real estate at the option price and that would have concluded the contract. In all cases shown in the Exhibit "C" to the petition, Mr. Thomas not only conveyed the property but constructed the homes on the property as the chosen contractor and was paid out of the supervised account through scheduled payments and a final disbursement made at the 100 percent completion point. Subsequent to the time that the warranty deed conveying the lot, together with the mortgage and note, were recorded, an audit was performed by the Respondent and an assessment placed for the additional value reflected in the the cost of constructing the home. This assessment was for the unpaid documentary stamp tax, documentary surtax and penalties associated with those deficiency assessments.
Findings Of Fact The facts in this case are derived from the exhibits submitted into evidence at the hearing and the testimony of petitioner H.R. Thornton, Jr. The pertinent documents show that a portion of a lot located in the toxin of St. Cloud, Florida, owned by Garold D. Doak, Sr. and Susan E. Doak, his wife, was mortgaged by the Doaks to Peachtree Mortgage Corporation on December 28, 1972, in the amount of $16,850.00. On January 4, 1973, Peachtree Mortgage Corporation assigned the Mortgage to the Hamilton Federal Savings and Loan association of Brooklyn, New York. On February 6, 1976, a lis pendens was filed against the property by the assignee of the mortgage in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Osceola County, Florida, incident to an action to foreclose the mortgage. On March 15, 1976, the Doaks executed quitclaim deeds on the property to Stephene J. Houseman. On April 6, 1976, a final judgement of foreclosure was entered in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in favor of Hamilton Federal Savings and Loan Association of Brooklyn, New York. (Exhibit 1-6) On April 27, 1976, Houseman executed a quitclaim deed on the property to petitioners. On April 30, 1976, the Thorntons conveyed their interest in the property by warranty deed to Jaiies Francis Wiczorek and Shirley Lillian Wiczorek, his wife. The deed recited that it was subject to the outstanding mortgage to Hamilton Federal Savings and Loan Association with a principal balance of sec. 16,224.52 which the grantees agreed to assume and pay. The deed further recited a consideration of $4,000.00 and documentary stamp tax in an appropriate amount was paid based on a consideration which included the cash payment and the mortgage amount. On July 30, 1976, the mortgage in question was satisfied. (Exhibits 8-10) Only minimal documentary stamp tax of thirty cents was paid on the quitclaim deed from Houseman to petitioners. Respondent issued a notice of proposed assessment of additional documentary stamp tax in the amount of $48.60, surtax in the amount of $17.60, penalties in like amounts, and interest thereon, for a total of $158.51, on March 21, 1977. The proposed assessment was based on consideration stated to be the existing mortgage on the property in the amount of $16,224.52. On April 29, 1977, petitioners filed their petition for an administrative hearing, challenging the proposed assessment on the grounds that there was no evidence to show the taxable consideration as found by respondent. By an amended and revised notice of proposed assessment, dated April 29, 1977, the amount for documentary surtax, penalty and interest thereon was deleted leaving only the sums relating to documentary stamp tax, penalty, and interest in the amount of $102.30. (Exhibit 8) Petitioner H.R. Thornton, Jr. took the quitclaim deed in question to cancel a $100.00 debt owed him by Houseman. He had no intent to make the mortgage payments or payments or pay any other consideration for the transfer. (Testimony of Thornton)
Recommendation That petitioners be held liable for payment of documentary stamp tax, penalty and interest under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, as modified herein with respect to the penalty. Done and Entered this 29th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 H. R. Thornton, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 345 St. Cloud, Florida 32769
Findings Of Fact On January 15, 1975, Gerardo Benesch, Jitka Benesch, H. Albert Grotte, Regina Grotte, Milorad Dordevic, Catalina Dordevic, Milodrag Savovic and Marina Savovic executed an agreement associating themselves in a general partnership, Andean Investment Company. The stated purpose of the partnership was to engage in the business of real estate development, selling, renting, and dealing generally in real estate of all kinds. It was recited in the agreement that, by forming the partnership, the parties wished to reduce their prior expense of managing separate properties through separate managerial agreements. To this end, they transferred certain real estate by quit-claim deed to the partnership, and these properties represented its capital. The agreement provided in Article IV that the net profits or net losses of the partnership would be distributed or chargeable, as the case might be, to each of the partners in percentage proportions based on the amount of their investment in the partnership. The property consisted of warehouses located in Deerfield Beach and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from which rentals were derived (Petition and Exhibits thereto). All of the properties were encumbered by mortgages of varying amounts and all but two of the quit-claim deeds transferred title subject to the mortgage thereon. Two deeds provided specifically that the partnership assumed the existing mortgage. Although Petitioner's counsel states that this was not intended and was a "scrivener's error", Petitioner partnership has, in fact, made the mortgage payments on all of the properties since their transfer under the aforesaid deeds (Composite Exhibit 1, Stipulation). Petitioner paid only minimal documentary stamp tax on the deeds. Respondent thereafter issued four proposed Notices of Assessment of Documentary Stamp Tax, Surtax, and Penalty against the Petitioner on January 6, 1976, in the total amount of $3,797.00. The tax was computed under Rule 12A-4.13(10)(c), F.A.C., based on transfers of realty (Composite Exhibit 2, Testimony of Dahlem). At the hearing, Petitioner disputed the manner in which Respondent had computed the documentary stamp tax in that each assessment dealt with a husband and wife who held individual percentage interests in the net worth of the partnership. Respondent's computation did not take into consideration the double interest in each assessment. The parties therefore agreed that a recomputation would be made by Respondent and submitted as a late-filed exhibit. This was done and the new computation reflects a total tax liability, including surtax and penalty, in the total amount of $4,053.40 (Composite Exhibit 3).
Recommendation That Petitioner's request for relief from tax liability be denied, and that Petitioner's liability for documentary stamp tax, surtax, and penalties in the total amount of $4,053.40 be sustained. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of May, 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 Allan F. Meyer, Esquire Suite 1500 Post Office Box 14310 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Zayle A. Bernstein, Esquire Post Office Box 14310 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302
