The Issue Whether Petitioner, as President of Bella Donna Couture, Inc., is liable for a penalty equal to twice the total amount of the sales and use tax owed by that entity to the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent is the agency charged with administering the revenue laws of the State of Florida, including chapter 212, which imposes and authorizes the collection of sales and use tax in Florida. Petitioner was President of Bella Donna Couture, Inc. ("Taxpayer"), a women's clothing store formerly located at 5819 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida. Taxpayer is registered with Respondent as a dealer pursuant to section 212.18 and was issued Sales and Use Tax Certificate of Registration Number 23-8012167329-8. Events Giving Rise to the Notice of Assessment Taxpayer did not remit sales tax for November 2003, January 2004, June 2005, September 2005, January 2006, July 2006, September 2006, and November 2006, and so was delinquent in its statutory obligation to remit sales tax for these reporting periods. To collect these outstanding tax liabilities, on January 17, 2007, Respondent issued Warrant No. 40490. The warrant stated that Taxpayer owed $11,471.59 in taxes, $2,060.00 in penalties, $1,623.22 in interest, and a filing fee of $20.00, for a total liability of $15,174.81. The warrant was recorded in the public records of Miami-Dade County on January 24, 2007. In an effort to compromise and resolve Taxpayer's outstanding tax liabilities, on April 25, 2008, Respondent entered into a Stipulated Time Payment Agreement ("STPA") with Taxpayer. The STPA was executed by Petitioner, as Taxpayer's President.3/ Under the STPA, Taxpayer committed to pay $13,526.72, consisting of $9,078.36 in taxes, $1,220.70 in penalties, $3,187.66 in interest, and $40.00 in fees. The STPA established an amortization schedule under which Taxpayer would pay a specified amount per month for a 13-month period. Pursuant to the STPA's terms, Taxpayer, by entering into the STPA, waived any and all rights to challenge the taxes and other liabilities assessed under the warrant giving rise to the STPA. Other key terms were that interest accrued at a rate of 12% per annum until the tax liability was paid; that Taxpayer agreed to meet each payment term on the amortization schedule; and that the STPA would become void if Taxpayer failed to follow the payment terms, file all tax returns that became due, or remit all taxes that became due and payable. The STPA further provided that Respondent was authorized to assess the responsible corporate officer a 200% penalty for failure to pay the taxes due. In accordance with the STPA's terms, Taxpayer made a $2,000 downpayment and three $450 monthly payments, for a total payment of $3,350.00. However, Taxpayer failed to make the stipulated monthly payment due on August 25, 2008. Thus, pursuant to the STPA's terms, it became void, and all taxes, penalties, interest, and fees owed under Warrant No. 40490 became due and payable as of that date. Section 213.75(2) establishes the order of priority for applying payments toward outstanding tax and other liabilities when a warrant has been filed and recorded. Specifically, payments are applied in the following order, with any remaining amounts applied to the subsequent obligation: (1) costs of recording the warrant; (2) administrative collection processing fee; (3) accrued interest; (4) accrued penalty; and (5) taxes due. Once Taxpayer breached the STPA, all payments made under the STPA were applied as payments on Warrant No. 40490 in accordance with section 213.75(2). After the $3,350.00 paid under the STPA was applied toward Warrant No. 40490, and $434.44 was paid on the warrant from a bank levy, Taxpayer continued to owe $9,172.57 in taxes, as well as interest and penalties from its outstanding obligations for November 2003, January 2004, June 2005, September 2005, January 2006, July 2006, September 2006, and November 2006. Pursuant to the terms of the warrant, interest on the amount of taxes due continued to accrue at a rate of 12% per annum. Taxpayer subsequently failed to remit its sales tax for December 2008. In response, Respondent levied Taxpayer's MetroBank account in the amount of $4,000.00 on February 18, 2009. Portions of this levy were applied toward previously- issued Warrant No. 110461 and toward Notices of Liability for outstanding taxes due for the December 2008 and September 2008 sales tax collection periods. In early 2009, Taxpayer and Respondent attempted to negotiate another STPA to again compromise the amount of taxes, interest, penalties, and fees that Taxpayer owed for the November 2003, January 2004, September 2005, January 2006, July 2006, September 2006, and November 2006 sales tax collection periods. However, the parties were unable to reach agreement, so Respondent continued its collection efforts. In March 2011, Respondent again attempted to work with Taxpayer to resolve its outstanding tax and other liabilities. To that end, Barbara Chin, a revenue specialist with Respondent, attempted to contact Petitioner by telephone. Her telephone messages went unanswered, so on March 22, 2011, Ms. Chin sent Petitioner a Demand to Appear, informing Petitioner that an appointment had been set with Respondent for April 4, 2011, for her to discuss Taxpayer's outstanding liabilities. The Demand to Appear specifically informed Petitioner that failure to comply with the letter would result in issuance of a tax warrant and any other legal action Respondent deemed necessary to collect the outstanding taxes. Petitioner failed to appear, so Ms. Chin made a follow-up telephone call to Petitioner, which also went unanswered. Taxpayer failed to remit its sales tax or file a return for April 2011. In response, Respondent issued Warrant No. 219580, for the amount of $1,500.00 due in taxes. The warrant was recorded in the Miami-Dade County public records on June 14, 2011. Petitioner subsequently contacted Ms. Chin to discuss Taxpayer's outstanding liabilities. At this time, Petitioner informed Ms. Chin that she was going to file for bankruptcy of Taxpayer. In response, Ms. Chin sent a letter to the NAFH Bank, with which Taxpayer had an account, freezing the transfer of Taxpayer's credits, debts, and personal property in the bank's control. On June 6, 2011, Petitioner sent Respondent a completed Closing or Sale of Business form, dated May 30, 2011, indicating that Taxpayer's business had been closed. Ms. Chin made two site visits to Taxpayer's location in or about May 2011. On her first visit, Ms. Chin discovered that a business bearing the name "Alexis Nicolette Design Studio and Boutique" was operating at this location, and that Petitioner was working there. Ms. Chin informed Petitioner that this entity needed to obtain its own sales tax number. On Ms. Chin's second visit, Petitioner showed her a certificate of registration for Alexis Nicolette Design Studio and Boutique having the same sales tax number but showing a different business location.4/ Ms. Chin again informed Petitioner that the owner of this entity needed to obtain a new sales tax number for the entity for the new location. Ms. Chin reviewed the Articles of Incorporation for Alexis Nicolette Design Studio and Boutique; this document showed this entity's business address as being the same as Taxpayer's address. Ms. Chin surmised that Petitioner was attempting to avoid Taxpayer's sales tax liabilities and obligations by operating Taxpayer's business under a new name. Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Assessment ("NOA") dated June 20, 2011, setting forth Taxpayer's outstanding tax liabilities and notifying her that Respondent was personally assessing a penalty against her for double the amount of tax owed by the Taxpayer. The NOA included the taxes owed under Warrant Nos. 40490 and 219580, and specifically stated that the penalty being assessed was for the period from November 2003 through April 2011. It is undisputed that between November 2003 and April 2011, Petitioner was the President of Taxpayer, and thus was the person having administrative control over the collection and payment of sales tax by Taxpayer for purposes of section 213.29. Petitioner's Defenses Against the Notice of Assessment The parties disagree on the amount of taxes that Taxpayer owes. Petitioner claims that Taxpayer owes approximately $194.00 in taxes, while Respondent claims that Taxpayer owes $9,182.60 in taxes. Petitioner claims that pursuant to section 213.29(1), Respondent incorrectly applied Taxpayer's payments made under the STPA, and that all payments Taxpayer made should have been applied first toward outstanding taxes, then interest, then penalties, then toward any applicable fees. This argument is the linchpin of Petitioner's position that the assessments in the June 20, 2011, NOA are incorrect. Petitioner also asserts that the April 2008 STPA is defective because it does not contain a detailed amortization schedule. Petitioner further claims that subsections 95.091(2) and (3)(a)1.a. time-bar Respondent from bringing an action to collect taxes that were due before June 21, 2006. Finally, Petitioner argues that under any circumstances, Respondent did not establish that she sought to willfully evade or defeat Taxpayer's tax liabilities, so she cannot be held personally liable for the penalty assessed under the NOA. Findings of Ultimate Fact In this proceeding, Respondent has the initial burden under section 120.80(14)(b)2., to establish a prima facie case showing that an assessment was made against Taxpayer, and that the assessment was factually and legally correct. Once Respondent meets this burden, the ultimate burden of persuasion shifts to Petitioner to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent's assessment is incorrect, departs from the requirements of law, or is not supported by any reasonable hypothesis of legality. Upon consideration of the credible and persuasive evidence in the record, it is determined that Respondent met its prima facie burden and that Petitioner failed to meet its ultimate burden of persuasion in this proceeding. Petitioner's position that all payments made by Taxpayer under the STPA, as well as payments made toward other warrants, should first have been applied toward its tax liability lacks merit. That argument may have had force if warrants against Taxpayer had not been filed and recorded. However, in this case, by the time Taxpayer began making payments toward its outstanding tax liabilities, those liabilities were the subject of Warrant No. 40490 and other warrants. Once Taxpayer breached the STPA, it became void and all liabilities under Warrant No. 40490 became immediately due. The payments under the STPA were applied to Warrant No. 40490, and other payments toward liabilities not addressed in the STPA made were applied to Warrant No. 40490 and other outstanding warrants, all in accordance with section 213.75(2). Thus, the payments were allocated first toward fees, then penalties, then interest, and, finally, taxes. Respondent established the correctness of amounts assessed, and Petitioner did not show that Respondent incorrectly applied the payments pursuant to section 213.75(2) or that the taxes and other liabilities set forth in the June 20, 2011, NOA were inaccurate. Petitioner's argument that the STPA was "defective" as lacking a detailed amortization schedule also lacks merit. The STPA contained a "Stipulation Amortization Table" that established a detailed 13-month repayment schedule specifying the date on which each payment was due and the specific amount due for each payment.5/ The NOA is not time-barred by section 95.091(2). That statute imposes a five-year limitation period for filing an action to collect taxes if a lien to secure the payment is not provided by law. However, this proceeding was brought against Petitioner to impose penalties for willful nonpayment of Taxpayer's tax liabilities; it is not an action against Taxpayer to collect taxes. Thus, by its plain terms, section 95.091(2) does not apply to this proceeding. Section 95.091(3)(a)1.a. also does not time-bar the NOA. That statute authorizes Respondent to determine and assess the amount of tax, penalty, or interest with respect to sales tax within three years after the date that the tax is due, any return with respect to such tax is due, or such return is filed. Here, Respondent filed warrants and assessments as far back as January 2003 to collect taxes owed by Taxpayer; all were filed well within any applicable three-year limitation period. The greater weight of the evidence also supports the determination that Petitioner, as the corporate officer required to collect and pay sales tax on behalf of Taxpayer, willfully attempted to evade or defeat payment of Taxpayer's tax obligations. Of particular significance is Petitioner's lack of responsiveness to Ms. Chin's multiple attempts to communicate with her to resolve Taxpayer's obligations, and her evasiveness regarding the relationship between Taxpayer and the business entity operating under a new name at Taxpayer's business address and using Taxpayer's sales tax collection number. The evidence gives rise to the inference that Petitioner was attempting to operate the same business under a new name to evade or defeat Taxpayer's outstanding tax liabilities.6/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent, the Department of Revenue, enter a Final Order determining that Petitioner, Astrid Sarmentero, is liable for to Respondent for a penalty of $18,345.14. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 27th day of November, 2012.
Findings Of Fact At the time and place scheduled for final hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of petitioner and no evidence was adduced.
Recommendation It is, accordingly recommended that respondent dismiss petitioner's request for a formal administrative proceeding. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Thomas Herndon, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Vicki Weber, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Kevin J. O'Donnell, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Louise J. Allen, Esquire Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. 150 W. Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this cause, Robert W. Pope has been the holder of license no. 62-600, series 4-COP, SRX, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage to trade as The Wedgewood Inn, located at 1701, 4th Street, South, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. When the Respondent, Pope, began to operate the licensed premises he was given a registration sales tax number by the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. This number was provided in accordance with 212, F.S. That law required the remittance of the collected sales tax on a month to month basis, the period beginning with the first day of the month and ending with the last day of the month. The remittance was due on the first day of the following month and payable by the 20th day of the following month. Failure to pay by the 20th would result in a 5 percent penalty and 1 percent interest per month. The sales tax remittance due from the licensed premises for December, 1975 through August, 1976 was not made, and a lien was filed to aid collection of the tax. In mid 1976, the Respondent, contacted the State of Florida, Department of Revenue to discuss term payments of the sales tax remittance. The Respondent in October, 1976 tried to effect a partial release of the tax claim by paying $2,900. In keeping with their policy the Department of Revenue rejected these efforts. Subsequently, in February, 1977, the Respondent made a $10,000 initial payment and three monthly installments to satisfy the lien on this licensed premises and another licensed premises which the Respondent owned. At present all taxes due and owing under 212, F.S. are current. The above facts establish that the Respondent failed to comply with the provisions of 212, F.S. pertaining to the remittance of sales tax from the Respondent to the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. This violation, thereby subjects the Respondent to the possible penalties of 561.29, F.S.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Robert W. Pope, be required to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 or have the license no. 62-600, series 4- COP, SRX, suspended for a period of 10 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Division of Beverage 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert W. Pope, Esquire 611 First Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner should be assessed sales and use tax for the audit period May 1, 1997 through April 30, 2002, per the Notice of Proposed Assessment dated July 3, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Wales is a Florida S corporation. Its principal place of business is located at 2916 Southeast 6th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Wales' federal employee identification number is 59- 1703273. Wales' Florida sales and tax number is 16-03-095273- 26/1. By letter dated June 6, 2002, the Department issued to Wales a Notice of Intent to Audit Books and Records (Notice of Intent). The Notice of Intent identified the audit number as A0205310975. On July 10, 2002, the Department's auditor assigned to perform the audit conducted an initial interview with Wales. The auditor discussed, among other things, the audit and sample methods that would be employed during the audit. On August 13, 2002, the auditor began examining Wales' books and records at Wales' business location. Wales was cooperative during the audit. Wales provided all available books and records for the audit. The sole shareholders of Wales are Stewart Levy and Diane Levy. Wales leased its business location from Element Two Enterprises, Inc., ( Element Two) a related entity. Stewart Levy and Diane Levy are also the sole officers of Element Two, president and secretary, respectively. Element Two is the record owner of the improved real property located at 2916 Southeast 6th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, (realty). The address for the realty is also the address for Wales' place of business. Element Two mortgaged the realty leased by Wales. Wales paid monthly monetary consideration to Element Two in lease payments, which directly correlated to the amount of the monthly mortgage payments. Ad valorem taxes and property insurance were included in the monthly mortgage payments. Wales paid the ad valorem taxes and property insurance on the leased property. The lease payments to Element Two by Wales included the amount of the ad valorem taxes, property insurance, and common areas of maintenance. Wales did not pay sales tax on any of the lease payments to Element Two. Element Two did not charge or remit sales tax to the Department on the lease payments by Wales. Element Two was not registered with the Department as a dealer. Only dealers that are registered can remit sales tax on lease payments. Consequently, Element Two could not remit sales tax on the lease payments by Wales. Wales did not utilize all of the property it leased. Wales sub-leased a portion of the leased property to an unrelated entity. A prior sales and use tax audit was conducted of the sub-lessee, which included the period May 1997 through December 1998. The Department examined the sublease audit to determine whether Wales owed additional sales tax. The Department's examination of that audit revealed that the sales and use tax on the rent paid by the sub-lessee for the period May 1997 through September 1998 was assessed and paid by the sub-lessee. For the period May 1997 through December 1998, Wales had neither charged or collected sales tax nor remitted sales tax to the Department on the sub-lessee's payments. No sales tax was charged or paid on the sublease payments for the period October 1998 through December 1998. From January 1999 through April 2002, Wales charged, collected, and remitted sales tax on the sublease payments. The Department credited Wales for sales tax already paid on the subleased portion for the period May 1997 through September 1998 and January 1999 through April 2002. On its general ledger, Wales posted the lease payments to Element Two as rent payments. Element Two posted the lease payments to its general ledger as rent income. On its federal income tax returns, Wales reported the lease payments to Element Two as rent expense. Element Two reported the lease payments on its federal income tax returns as rent income. On November 29, 2002, the Department issued to Wales a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes for audit number A0205310975. Wales requested and the Department agreed to hold an audit conference to discuss the audit findings. Wales claimed that rent payments made were not subject to sales tax because both Wales and Element Two signed the mortgage and promissory note on the realty leased by Wales. However, only Element Two was reflected as the borrower on the loan and only Element Two was the signatory on the mortgage even though both Wales and Element Two signed the promissory note. On January 10, 2003, Wales executed a Consent to Extend the Time to Issue an Assessment or to File a Claim for Refund (Consent). The Consent extended the statute of limitations for the period of time in which an assessment may be issued or a claim for refund may be filed to December 31, 2003. On July 3, 2003, the Department issued, by certified mail, the Notice and an Addendum to Proposed Assessment for audit number A0205310975. The Notice provided, among other things, for the assessment of sales and use tax in the amount of $17,481.73; penalty in the amount of $8,741.10; interest in the amount of $5,756.03, with additional daily interest being computed at the rate of $3.54 per day from July 3, 2003; and a total assessment in the amount $31,978.86. On September 1, 2003, the Notice became a Final Assessment for audit number A0205310975. Wales contested the Final Assessment and requested a hearing. Wales is not contesting that part of the audit which found that Wales failed to pay sales tax on certain fixed assets purchased for use in its business. At hearing, Wales contended that its federal income tax returns could be amended to reflect the payments to Element Two as mortgage payments instead of rent payments, which would, in turn, change the Department's audit to reflect the payments as mortgage not rent. To address this contention, the Department presented the testimony of an expert witness in the area of rental consideration and sales tax audits. The Department's expert testified that the consideration for rental or use of property is the payment between/to one who owns the real property and/from one who uses the property; and concluded that consideration, as rental, was provided to Wales by Element Two based on the Department's taxing statute, Section 212.031, Florida Statutes, and its rules and regulation, Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.070. The expert opined that the mortgage payments were consideration for a lease or license to use the real property and that, therefore, the monthly lease payment, which equaled the monthly mortgage payment, paid by Wales to Element Two was consideration for the lease or license to use the realty. The expert's testimony is found to be credible. The evidence presented shows that the mathematical computations performed by the Department in its audit are correct. Further, the evidence shows that the mathematical computations as to tax, penalty, and interest assessed are correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue's assessment of sales tax, interest, and penalty against Wales Garage Corporation be sustained and that the Department of Revenue enter a final order assessing sales tax, interest, and penalty against Wales Garage Corporation for the period May 1, 1997 through April 30, 2002, consistent herewith. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S. Schnitzer GSS Advisory Services, Inc. 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 502 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner owes the taxes, interest, and penalties assessed by the Department of Revenue based upon its audit of Petitioner for the period of August 1, 1996, through July 31, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of selling and installing floor covering materials, such as carpet and tile. Petitioner's business is located in Hillsborough County, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner sales fall into two basic categories: "cash and carry sales" and "installation sales." The "cash and carry sales" are retail sales of floor covering materials to customers that come into Petitioner's store. These sales do not involve any installation work by Petitioner. The "installation sales" are sales in which Petitioner installs the floor covering material in the customer's home or business. These sales are performed pursuant to a lump-sum contract which incorporates the price of the installation and the price of the floor covering materials being installed. Petitioner purchases the floor covering materials from suppliers and distributors. Those purchases become part of the inventory from which Petitioner makes its "installation sales." Petitioner also makes general purchases of goods and services necessary for the day-to-day operation of its business. These purchases include items such as cleaning supplies and vehicle repairs. Petitioner made several fixed-assets purchases during the audit period for use in its business. It purchased a word processor in August 1996, and it purchased equipment and fixtures in December 1996. On those occasions that Petitioner collected sales tax from its customers on the "cash and carry sales" or paid sales tax on its inventory purchases and general purchases, it remitted or reported those amounts to the Department. However, as discussed below, Petitioner did not collect the full amount of sales tax due on each sale, nor did it pay the full amount of sales tax due on each purchase. The Department is the state agency responsible for administering Florida's sales tax laws. The Department is authorized to conduct audits of taxpayers to determine their compliance with the sales tax laws. By letter dated September 10, 2001, the Department notified Petitioner of its intent to conduct a sales tax audit of Petitioner's records for the period of August 1, 1996, through July 31, 2001. The audit was conducted by David Coleman, a tax auditor with seven years of experience with the Department. Petitioner designated its certified public accountant, P.J. Testa, as its representative for purposes of the Department's audit. That designation was memorialized through a power of attorney form executed by Petitioner on March 5, 2002. Mr. Coleman communicated with Mr. Testa throughout the course of the audit. Mr. Coleman conducted the audit using a sampling methodology agreed to by Mr. Testa on behalf of Petitioner. Pursuant to that methodology, Mr. Coleman conducted a comprehensive review of Petitioner's year-2000 purchase and sales invoices and extrapolated the results of that review to the other years in the audit period. The sampling methodology was used because of the volume of records and transactions during the audit period and because of the unavailability of all of the records for the audit period. The year 2000 was chosen as the sample period because Petitioner's records for the other years in the audit period were incomplete or unavailable. Mr. Coleman's audit of the year-2000 invoices focused on three broad types of transactions. First, he reviewed invoices of Petitioner's retail "cash and carry sales." Second, he reviewed the invoices through which Petitioner purchased the floor covering materials that it later sold as part of its "installation sales." Third, he reviewed the invoices through which Petitioner made general purchases of tangible personal property used in the day-to-day operation of its business. The sampling methodology was used for the audit of Petitioner's "cash and carry sales," the inventory purchases related to the "installation sales," and the general purchases. The methodology was not used for the audit of Petitioner's fixed-asset purchases; Mr. Coleman reviewed all of the available records for the fixed-asset purchases during each year of the audit period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's retail "cash and carry sales" identified 29 invoices during year-2000 on which no sales tax or less than the full sales tax was paid by the customer. Those invoices amounted to $17,451.30, on which $1,178.11 in total sales tax was due, but only $552.97 was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $625.14 for the retail sales during the sample period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's purchases of floor covering that was later sold in the "installation sales" identified a considerable number of purchases during year-2000 on which no sales tax or less than the full sales tax was paid by Petitioner to the supplier or distributor of the materials. Those purchases amounted to $123,398.52, but only $123,397.80 of that amount was taxable. On the taxable amount, $8,330.07 in total sales tax was due, but only $6,810.68 was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $1,519.41 for Petitioner's inventory purchases during the sample period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's "general purchases" identified 10 sales during year-2000 on which sales tax was not paid. Those invoices amounted to $2,914.76, on which $196.77 in sales tax was due, but none of which was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $196.77 for the general purchases during the sample period. Mr. Coleman's audit of Petitioner's fixed-asset purchases identified only two transactions during the entire audit period on which Petitioner did not pay the full sales tax. Those transactions amounted to $5,078.92, on which $330.14 in total sales tax was due, but none of which was paid. As a result, Mr. Coleman's audit identified a sales tax deficiency of $330.14 for the fixed-asset purchases during the audit period. The tax deficiencies calculated by Mr. Coleman for year-2000 for each category described above take into account any sales tax collected by Petitioner from its customers or paid by Petitioner to its vendors. After Mr. Coleman computed the tax deficiencies based upon his audit of the year-2000 records, he calculated a "percentage of error" for each category of sales/purchases. The percentage of error is the ratio used to extrapolate the results of the audit of the year-2000 records over the remainder of the audit period. No percentage of error was calculated for the fixed-asset purchases because Mr. Coleman reviewed the available records for those purchases over the entire audit period, not just year-2000. The percentage of error was calculated by dividing the sales tax deficiency identified in a particular category for the year-2000 by the total sales/purchases in that category for the year-2000. For the year-2000, Petitioner had retail sales of $1,143,182.45; general purchases of $21,254.88; and inventory purchases of $1,214,016.24. As a result, the applicable percentages of error were 0.000547 ($625.14 divided by $1,143,182.45) for the retail sales; 0.009258 ($196.77 divided by $21,254.88) for the general purchases; and 0.001252 ($1,519.41 divided by $1,214,016.24) for the inventory purchases. The percentages of error were then multiplied by the total sales in the applicable category for the entire audit period to calculate a total tax deficiency in each category. Petitioner's total retail sales over the audit period were $4,455,373.40. Therefore, the total tax deficiency calculated for that category was $2,437.12 (i.e., $4,455,373.40 multiplied by 0.000547). Petitioner's total general purchases over the audit period were $110,741.49. Therefore, the total tax deficiency calculated for that category was $1,025.25 (i.e., $110,741.49 multiplied by 0.009258). Petitioner's total inventory sales over the audit period were $3,130,882.10. Therefore, the total tax deficiency calculated for that category was $3,919.86 (i.e., $3,130,882.10 multiplied by 0.001252). Petitioner's total tax deficiency was computed by adding the deficiencies in each category, as follows: Retail Sales $2,437.12 General Purchases 1,025.25 Inventory Purchases 3,919.86 Fixed-asset purchases 330.14 TOTAL $7,712.37 Of that total, $6,863.02 reflects the state sales tax deficiency; $313.77 reflects the indigent care surtax deficiency; and $535.58 reflects the local government infrastructure surtax deficiency. The sales tax rate in effect in Hillsborough County during the audit period was 6.75 percent. The state sales tax was six percent; the remaining 0.75 percent was for county surtaxes, namely the local government infrastructure surtax and the indigent care surtax. That rate was used by Mr. Coleman in calculating the tax deficiencies described above. On October 4, 2002, Mr. Coleman hand-delivered the Notice of Intent to Make Audit Change (NOI) to Petitioner. The NOI is the end-product of Mr. Coleman's audit. The NOI identified the total tax deficiency set forth above, as well as a penalty of $3,856.26, which is the standard 50 percent of the tax deficiency amount, and interest of $2,561.63, which is calculated at a statutory rate. The NOI included copies of Mr. Coleman's audit work- papers which showed how the taxes, penalties, and interest were calculated. The NOI also included a copy of the "Taxpayers' Bill of Rights" which informed Petitioner of the procedure by which it could protest the audit results reflected on the NOI. On October 29, 2002, the Department issued three NOPAs to Petitioner. A separate NOPA was issued for each type of tax -- i.e., sales tax, indigent care surtax, and local government infrastructure surtax. The cumulative amounts reflected on the NOPAs were the same as that reflected on the NOI, except that the interest due had been updated through the date of the NOPAs. Interest continues to accrue on assessed deficiencies at a cumulative statutory rate of $1.81 per day. The NOPAs were sent to Petitioner by certified mail, and were received by Petitioner on November 1, 2002. By letter dated November 5, 2002, Petitioner protested the full amount of the taxes assessed on the NOPAs and requested a formal administrative hearing. The letter was signed by Mr. Testa on Petitioner's behalf. The protest letter does not allege that the methodology used by Mr. Coleman was improper or that the results of the audit were factually or legally erroneous. Instead, the protest letter states that Petitioner was disputing the results of the audit because it was "following procedures set forth by an agent from a previous audit who established the manner in which [Petitioner was] to compute sales tax on the items being questioned by the current auditor." Mr. Testa made similar comments to Mr. Coleman during the audit. When Mr. Coleman requested documentation from Mr. Testa to corroborate those comments about the procedures allegedly established by the prior auditor, Mr. Testa was unable to provide any such documentation. The record of this proceeding is similarly devoid of evidence to support Petitioner's allegation on this point. The record does not contain any evidence to suggest that Petitioner ever modified or revoked Mr. Testa's authority to represent it in connection with the audit or this protest, which Mr. Testa initiated on Petitioner's behalf. Petitioner, through Mr. Testa, had due notice of the date, time, and location of the final hearing in these cases. Neither Mr. Testa, nor anyone else on Petitioner's behalf, appeared at the final hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order imposing the taxes, interest, and penalties against Petitioner in the full amounts set forth in the three Notices of Proposed Assessment dated October 28, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2003.
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 18-4475RX, whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.044(5)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in violation of section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.1/ As to DOAH Case No. 18-4992RU, whether the Department of Revenue's ("Department") Standard Audit Plan, Vending and Amusement Machines--Industry Specific, section 1.1.3.3 ("SAP") is an unadopted rule in violation of sections 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Audit Period GBR is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. Gilda Rosenberg is the owner of GBR and a related entity, Gilly Vending, Inc. ("Gilly"). GBR and Gilly are in the vending machine business. At all times material hereto, Amit Biegun served as the chief financial officer of the two entities. The Department is the state agency responsible for administering Florida's sales tax laws pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes. This case concerns the audit period of January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014. GBR's Provision of Vending Machine Services Prior to the audit period, the school boards of Broward and Palm Beach County issued written solicitations through invitations to bid ("ITB"), seeking vendors to furnish, install, stock, and maintain vending machines on school property. The bids required a "full turn-key operation." The stated objectives were to obtain the best vending service and percentage commission rates that will be most advantageous to the school boards, and to provide a contract that will be most profitable to the awarded vendor. The stated goal was that student choices from beverage and snack vending machines closely align with federal dietary guidelines. GBR operates approximately 700 snack and beverage vending machines situated at 65 schools in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade Counties. Of these 65 schools, 43 are in Broward County, 21 are in Palm Beach County, and one is in Miami-Dade County. The snack vending machines are all owned by GBR. Beverage vending machines are owned by bottling companies, such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Of the 700 vending machines, approximately 60 percent of the machines are for beverages and the remaining 40 percent are for snacks. GBR has written vending agreements with some schools. In these agreements, GBR is designated as a licensee, the school is designated as the licensor, and GBR is granted a license to install vending machines on school property in exchange for a commission. Furthermore, GBR is solely responsible to pay all federal, state, and local taxes in connection with the operation of the vending machines. Ownership of the vending machines does not transfer to the schools. However, in some cases the schools have keys to the machines. In addition, designated school board employees have access to the inside of the machines in order to review the meter, monitor all transactions, and reconcile the revenue from the machines. GBR places the vending machines on school property. However, the schools control the locations of the vending machines. The schools also require timers on the machines so that the schools can control the times during the day when the machines are operational and accessible to students. The schools also control the types of products to be placed in the machines to ensure that the products closely align with the federal dietary guidelines. The schools also control pricing strategies. GBR stocks, maintains, and services the vending machines. However, Coca-Cola and Pepsi may repair the beverage machines they own. GBR is solely responsible for repairing the machines it owns. The schools require that any vendor service workers seeking access to the vending machines during school hours pass background checks. GBR route drivers collect the revenue from all of the vending machines and the revenues are deposited into GBR's bank accounts. In exchange for GBR's services, the schools receive from GBR, as a commission, a percentage of the gross receipts. However, neither GBR nor the schools are guaranteed any revenue unless sales occur from the machines. On its federal income tax returns, GBR reports all sales revenue from the vending machines. For the tax year 2012, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $5,952,270. Of this amount, GBR paid the schools $1,363,207, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. For the tax year 2013, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $6,535,362. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $1,122,211, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. For the tax year 2014, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $6,076,255. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $1,279,682, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. Thus, for the audit period, and according to the federal tax returns and general ledgers, GBR's gross receipts or sales were $18,563,887. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $3,765,100, as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. The Department's Audit and Assessment On January 27, 2015, the Department, through its tax auditor, Mary Gray, sent written notice to GBR of its intent to conduct the audit. This was Ms. Gray's first audit involving vending machines at schools. Thereafter, GBR provided Ms. Gray with its general ledger, federal returns, and bid documents. On October 28, 2015, Ms. Gray issued a draft assessment to GBR. The email transmittal by Ms. Gray to GBR's representative states that "[t]he case is being forwarded for supervisory review." In the draft, Ms. Gray determined that GBR owed additional tax in the amount of $28,589.65, but there was no mention of any purported tax on the monies paid by GBR to the schools as a license fee to use real property. However, very close to the end of the audit, within one week after issuing the draft, and after Ms. Gray did further research and conferred with her supervisor, Ms. Gray's supervisor advised her to issue the B03 assessment pursuant to section 212.031 and rule 12A-1.044, and tax the monies paid by GBR to the schools as a license fee to use real property. Thus, according to the Department, GBR was now responsible for tax in the amount of $246,230.93, plus applicable interest. Of this alleged amount, $1,218.48 was for additional sales tax (A01); $4,181.41 was for purchase expenses (B02); $13,790 was for untaxed rent (B02); and $227.041.04 was for the purported license to use real property (B03). Ms. Gray then prepared a Standard Audit Report detailing her position of the audit and forwarded the report to the Department's dispute resolution division. On January 19, 2016, the Department issued the Notice of Proposed Assessment ("NOPA") against GBR for additional tax and interest due of $288,993.31. The Department does not seek a penalty against GBR. At hearing, Ms. Gray testified that the Department's SAP is an audit planning tool or checklist which she used in conducting GBR's audit. Employees of the Department are not bound to follow the SAP, and the SAP can be modified by the auditors on a word document. The SAP was utilized by Ms. Gray during the audit, but it was not relied on in the NOD.4/
The Issue The issue in this case is whether SNS Lakeland, Inc. (Petitioner), collected and remitted the correct amount of sales and use tax on its operations for the audit period.
Findings Of Fact DOR is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the tax laws of the state of Florida. In conjunction with that duty, DOR performs audits of business entities conducting sales and use transactions. At all times material to the issue of this case, Petitioner conducted business as a convenience store located at 811 East Palmetto Street, Lakeland, Florida. Petitioner was obligated to collect and remit sales and use tax in connection with the activities of its business enterprise. Petitioner’s Federal Identification Number is 26-0412370. Petitioner is authorized to conduct business within the state and its certificate of registration number is 63-8013863272-3. In order to properly perform its audit responsibilities, DOR requires that businesses maintain and present business records to support the collection of sales and use taxes. In this case, DOR notified Petitioner that it intended to audit the business operations for the audit period, June 1, 2007, through September 30, 2009. After the appropriate pre-audit notice and exchange of information, DOR examined Petitioner’s financial records. Since Petitioner did not maintain register tapes (that would track sales information most accurately), the Department examined all records that were available: financial statements, federal and state tax returns, purchase invoices/receipts, bank records, and register tapes that were available from outside the audit period. Petitioner’s reported tax payments with the amounts and types of taxes that it remitted should have been supported by the records it maintained. Theoretically, the sums remitted to the Department should match the records of the business entity. In this case, the amount remitted by Petitioner could not be reconciled with the business records maintained by the business entity. As a result, the auditor determined the sales tax due based upon the best information available. First, the auditor looked at the actual register tapes for the period November 10, 2010, through November 29, 2010 (sample tapes). Had Petitioner kept its sales receipts, the actual receipts for the audit period would have been used. Nevertheless, the sample tapes were used to estimate (based upon the actual business history of the company) the types and volumes of sales typically made at the store. Secondly, in order to determine the mark-up on the sales, the auditor used Petitioner’s purchase invoices, worksheets, profit and loss statements, and federal and state tax returns. In this regard, the auditor could compare the inventory coming in to the store with the reported results of the sales. Third, the auditor determined what percentage of the sales typically would be considered exempt from tax at the time of acquisition, but then re-sold at a marked-up price for a taxable event. Petitioner argued that 70 percent of its gross sales were taxable, but had no documentary evidence to support that conclusion. In contrast, after sampling records from four consecutive months, the Department calculated that the items purchased for sale at retail were approximately 78 percent taxable. By multiplying the effective tax rate (calculated at 7.0816) by the amount of taxable sales, the Department computed the gross sales tax that Petitioner should have remitted to the state. That gross amount was then reduced by the taxes actually paid by Petitioner. Petitioner argued that the mark-up on beer and cigarettes used by the Department was too high (thereby yielding a higher tax). DOR specifically considered information of similar convenience stores to determine an appropriate mark-up. Nevertheless, when contested by Petitioner, DOR adjusted the beer and cigarette mark-up and revised the audit findings. Petitioner presented no evidence of what the mark-up actually was during the audit period, it simply claimed the mark-up assumed by DOR was too high. On March 30, 2011, DOR issued the Notice of Proposed Assessment for sales and use tax, penalty, and interest totaling $27,645.79. Interest on that amount accrues at the rate of $4.20, per day. In reaching these figures, DOR abated the penalty by 80 percent. The assessment was rendered on sales tax for sales of food, drink, beer, cigarettes, and tangible personal property. Petitioner continues to contest the assessment. Throughout the audit process and, subsequently, Petitioner never presented documentation to dispute the Department’s audit findings. DOR gave Petitioner every opportunity to present records that would establish that the correct amounts of sales taxes were collected and remitted. Simply stated, Petitioner did not maintain the records that might have supported its position. In the absence of such records, the Department is entitled to use the best accounting and audit methods available to it to reconcile the monies owed the state.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining the audit findings, and require Petitioner to remit the unpaid sales and use taxes, penalty, and interest as stated in the Department’s audit findings. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 9th day of November, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Marshall Stranburg, General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Ashraf Barakat SNS Lakeland, Inc 811 East Palmetto Street Lakeland, Florida 33801 Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Revenue Litigation Bureau Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Brent Hanson B and M Business Services, Inc. 6735 Conroy Road, Suite 210 Orlando, Florida 32835 Lisa Vickers, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined. Background Petitioner, Gator Coin Machine Company, Inc. (petitioner or Gator), is a Florida corporation engaged in the vending machine business throughout the northern part of the State extending from Leon County eastward to Duval County. Gator places coin-operated cigarette vending machines in various business locations, such as lounges, package stores, motels and restaurants. In return for allowing the machines to be placed on the premises, the location owner receives a fee for each pack of cigarettes sold from the machine. This fee is paid to the location owner and is considered a commission or rent for allowing Gator to "lease" the real property on which the machines are placed. All such commissions are subject to the sales tax, which rate may vary depending on the sales tax rate in a particular county. The sales tax is included with the commission (rent) paid to the location owner, and the location owner then has the obligation of remitting the tax to the state. However, the burden of showing that the tax has been paid to the location owner rests upon the vending machine owner. Respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the Florida Revenue Act of 1949, as amended. Among other things, DOR performs audits on taxpayers to insure that all taxes due have been correctly paid. To this end, in 1990 a routine audit was performed on Gator covering the audit period from June 1, 1985, through April 30, 1989. After the results of the audit were obtained and an initial assessment made, on January 22, 1991, DOR issued a revised notice of intent to make sales and use tax audit changes wherein it proposed to assess Gator $35,561.67 in unpaid sales taxes, $8,887.82 in delinquent penalties, and $12,934.34 in accrued interest on the unpaid taxes through the date of the revised notice, or a total of $57,383.83. The unpaid taxes related to taxes allegedly due on commissions paid to location owners during the audit period and were assessed against Gator on the grounds the taxpayer had not separately stated the tax on its evidence of sale and failed to provide internal documentation to verify that the taxes had actually been paid. On April 19, 1991, a third revision of the proposed assessment was issued which decreased slightly the unpaid taxes and corresponding penalties but increased the size of the assessment to $57,945.10 due to the continuing accrual of interest. On July 1, 1991, Gator was offered the opportunity to informally contest the assessment. A letter of protest was filed on July 29, 1991, wherein Gator generally contended that (a) its records conformed with the industry practice and that an adequate audit trail existed to substantiate the payment of taxes, and (b) the responsibility for payment of the taxes ultimately rested with the location owner rather than Gator. On February 10, 1992, DOR issued its notice of decision rejecting Gator's position but offering to reduce the penalty on the unpaid sales taxes to 5%. At the same time, and although Gator had not challenged the auditor's method of computing the amount of sales tax, DOR upheld the auditor's determination on that point. After a petition for reconsideration was filed by Gator on March 10, 1992, in which Gator raised for the first time a claim that it was due a refund of $11,015 for overpayment of taxes on cigarette sales during the audit period, DOR issued its notice of reconsideration on June 12, 1992, denying the petition and offering Gator a point of entry on these issues. Such a request was timely filed and this proceeding ensued. The Tax The tax for which petitioner has been assessed became effective on July 1, 1986, and is found in Section 212.031, Florida Statutes. On an undisclosed date, DOR mailed each vending machine company in the state a flier which summarized the new changes in the tax law. The flier noted that the sales tax would be levied on each "license to use or occupy property" and specifically included "an agreement by the owner of real property granting one permission to install and maintain full-service coin-operated vending machines on the premises." Because the vending machine owner is considered to have been granted a license to use the real property of the location owner, the fee (rent) paid by the vending machine owner to the location owner was thus subject to the new sales tax. The notice further provided that the tax "must be collected by the person granting the privilege to use or occupy any real property from the person paying the license fee and is due and payable at the time of receipt." This flier constituted the only notice by DOR concerning the imposition of the new tax. There was no notice to the vending machine owners that they must separately state the sales tax from the commission when paying the commission to the location owner. This was because the flier's main purpose was to put the taxpayers on notice that they were subject to the new tax. Sometime after the tax became effective, DOR developed a rule to implement the new law. Specifically, it amended Rule 12A-1.044, Florida Adminstrative Code, to provide guidance to taxpayers in the coin-operated industry as to who had the taxpaying and collecting responsibility. However, the rule simply stated that the owner of the vending machine was responsible for paying the tax on the rental fee paid to the location owner and did not state how this payment was to be documented or recorded by the lessee. In the absence of any guidance from DOR, the Florida Amusement Association, of which Gator is a member, held meetings around the state to inform the members of their responsibilities under the new law. One method thought to be acceptable to establish payment of the sales tax was to keep internal documentation as to commission rate and tax paid to the various locations. As will be discussed hereinafter, Gator and other vending machine owners began following this practice. On May 11, 1992, or three years after the audit period had ended, and almost six years after the imposition of the tax, DOR adopted an amendment to rule 12A-1.044(10) to provide that "the tax must be separately stated from the amount of the lease or license payment." This constituted the first notice to vending machine owners that they were required to state separately on the check remitted to their locations each month the commission plus tax. It should also be noted that DOR has never specified the exact type of documentation required by this rule or the format in which the information should be submitted. The Industry Practice Petitioner is one of many coin-operated vending machine companies doing business in the state of Florida. The evidence shows that of some twenty representative companies doing business in the state, including Gator, all operate in the same manner. Generally, the vending machine owner has a low investment in equipment which is easily relocated from one place of business to another. Because it is not unusual for the businesses in which equipment is placed to frequently change ownership, and often times the location owner can shop around and obtain a better commission from another vending machine company, it is fairly common to have machines placed in a location for as few as six or seven months. Therefore, it is a common practice in the industry to do business on a handshake and without a formal written agreement. In other words, the agreement to allow the machines to be placed on the premises and the amount of commission (rent) to be paid for leasing that space is based largely on a handshake between the two owners. This accounts in part for the lack of documentation such as a charge ticket, sales slip or invoice between the two owners concerning the amount of sales tax associated with the rent since such documents or evidence of sale are not practicable. The lack of documentation is also attributable to the fact that until May 1992 DOR never advised the vending machine companies that some type of "evidence of sale" was needed. In determining the commission rate to be paid to the various locations, the vending machine owner must first ascertain what the market will bear in terms of selling a pack of cigarettes in the machine. After calculating his overhead, the vending machine owner then bargains with the location owner as to how much of the remaining difference between the cost of cigarettes and overhead and the selling price should be paid to the location owner. This amount of money agreed upon by the vending machine and location owners, and expressed in a per pack rate, is commonly known as the commission expense and includes the total sum of rent plus sales tax. For example, if the total commission is twenty cents per pack of cigarettes sold from each machine, the rent would be approximately 18.2 cents while the sales tax would make up the remainder of that amount. All vending machine owners, including Gator, made it explicitly clear to the location owner that the commission check was tax inclusive. During the audit period, it was standard industry practice for the vending machine owner to write a tax inclusive check to the location owner each month. In other words, a check for the amount due the location owner, including rent and tax, is paid to the location owner each month without any notation on the check as to what portion represents the rent and what portion represents the tax. In the case of Gator, its checks carried only the stamped notation "CIG- COM", which represented the words "cigarette commissions." The record shows that except for one small company with relatively few clients, all representative vending machine companies operated in this manner. Gator's Recordkeeping Like other vending machine companies, Gator's records consisted only of hand-written records on index cards. Indeed, Gator kept no computerized records at the time of the audit. More specifically, all calcuations as to taxes owed, the price of cigarettes, tax calculated on cigarettes vended through any given machine, and any additional information pertaining to the individual machines were kept on 8 x 10 white and pink index cards. These cards were commonly referred to as location cards and were updated each time the machine was moved from one location to another and when the price of cigarettes was changed. At the time of the audit, more than 99% of the original white and pink cards from the sample time period requested by the auditor were available for her inspection. The only documentation existing between the location and vending machine owners was the machine or route ticket, which is no different than merchandising tickets showing the number of units sold. This document reflected the amount of packs sold and the amount of money received from each machine but did not contain a separation of commission plus tax. This information was used by Gator to determine the number of packs sold from each machine during the month. The number of packs was then multiplied by the "rate" for that machine to ascertain the commission due the location owner. Although route tickets were contemporaneously prepared by a route (service) man, they were discarded before the audit began. This is probably because in a prior audit conducted in 1983 or 1984 DOR auditors expressed no interest in reviewing the route tickets. In any event, the route tickets are not essential to a resolution of the issues. A pink card was generated by Gator for each machine placed in a lessor's place of business. The card contained information, all written in pencil and amended as necessary, regarding inventory, location of machine, selling price of cigarettes, the negotiated commission rate to be paid to the location owner, and the tax computed on the license fee. The latter item was recorded in the top right hand side of the index card and, when coupled with the independent accounting firm's representation as to the integrity of the accounting system, provides reliable evidence that the commission paid to the location owner was tax inclusive. For example, petitioner's exhibit 2 received in evidence, which contains representative pink cards, reveals that on November 7, 1986, machine number 175 was installed at "River Walk Cruises #1" in Jacksonville and the location owner was thereafter paid a per pack commission of fourteen cents, of which 13.15 cents represented the rent while the remainder represented the sales tax. It is noted again that more than 99% of these cards from the sample period audited were available for inspection. A white card was also prepared for each machine and listed the number of packs sold, the per pack rate, and the amount paid to the location owner. However, it did not contain a breakdown between commission expense and the related tax. In addition, Gator maintained what was known as a monthly report, which was a summation and accumulation of sales information derived from the white cards. The report listed the rate and number of packs sold for each machine. Like the white card, the monthly report did not contain a breakdown between the rent and sales tax. Finally, journals and ledgers were prepared containing summaries of information taken from the machine cards. Expert testimony by two certified public accountants (CPAs) and a longtime industry representative established that petitioner's records (general accounting records, route tickets, location cards and ledgers) were in conformity with good accounting practice and the industry norm. If anything, Gator's records were more comprehensive than most other vending machine companies and satisfied the requirements of applicable rules and statutes. More specifically, by maintaining location cards which show the sales price per pack of cigarettes with a breakdown between the tax and rent, Gator's records were consistent with good accounting practices and the type of recordkeeping maintained by the industry. It was further established that the industry practice is to conduct business on a "tax inclusive" basis, that is, to issue checks without separately stating what portion of the amount is taxes. In addition, cancelled checks, bank statements, journals and ledgers were available to verify commissions paid to various locations. DOR did not challenge the accuracy of this supporting documentation and agreed, for example, that the month-end commission summaries tied into petitioner's journals and checks. Both financial experts concluded, and the undersigned so finds, that the records establish that the taxes were paid. During final hearing, and for the first time during the administrative hearing process, DOR challenged both the testimony of the experts and the reliability of petitioner's records on the ground the CPAs who testified were not present when the checks were written and thus had no personal knowledge that the checks were tax inclusive. However, the CPAs established the integrity of petitioner's recordkeeping and accounting system and the fact that the system used by Gator produces accurate information that can be relied upon by third party users. This was not credibly contradicted. It can be reasonably inferred from these facts that the hand-written notations on the pink cards concerning the sales tax computed on the license fee were accurate and that the corresponding checks paid to the location owners were tax inclusive. DOR also suggested that the penciled entries on the pink cards pertaining to the tax may have been prepared solely for purposes of this litigation and were not contemporaneous. For the reason stated above, this assertion is also rejected. It should be noted further that except for the allegations themselves, DOR did not challenge the authenticity of the records nor produce any evidence of circumstances that would show the records lacked trustworthiness. DOR further contended that because there was no written contract or other tangible evidence of sale between the two owners where the tax was separately stated, there was insufficient evidence to support petitioner's claim that the taxes were paid. Put another way, DOR contended that Gator needed not only internal documents (such as location cards) to verify the payment of taxes, it also needed documents submitted to the location owner reflecting the separation of tax and commission. However, prior to the 1992 amendment to rule 12A-1.044(10), there was no formal or informal requirement to do so nor had DOR given notice of such a need, and since the internal documentation confirms the payment of the taxes, no other evidence is required. Finally, the evidence shows that a vending machine company has never been considered a "dealer" within the meaning of Subsection 212.07(2), Florida Statutes, as asserted by DOR, and thus the requirement in that subsection that a dealer separately state the amount of tax on the evidence of sale is not applicable. Indeed, this interpretation of the statute is consistent with the language in Rule 12A-1.086, Florida Administrative Code, which characterizes the lessor (location owner) rather than the lessee as the dealer. Refund Issue Gator contends that using an error rate of two or three percent, a recomputation of its taxes paid during the audit period reveals that it is owed a refund of $11,015 occasioned by its bookkeeper incorrectly computing the tax due on the gross sales price of cigarettes rather than on the net price. Since the alleged overpayment of taxes occurred during the period from June 1, 1985, through April 30, 1989, the last alleged overpayment of taxes would have occurred shortly after April 30, 1989. Prior to March 10, 1992, when Gator filed its petition for reconsideration with DOR, Gator had not filed a request for a refund on DOR Form 26 (DR-26), which is the form on which refunds must be requested. In its petition for reconsideration, Gator noted that "a Petition for Refund will be filed in the immediate future if this has not previously been accomplished." As of the date of hearing, which was more than three years after the last alleged overpayment of taxes was made, no DR-26 had been filed. Therefore, the request for refund is deemed to be untimely.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent enter a final order granting the petition of Gator Coin Machine Company, Inc. and rescinding (withdrawing) the assessment set forth in the notice of reconsideration dated June 12, 1992, but denying petitioner's request for a refund of $11,015 for sales taxes allegedly overpaid during the audit period. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 19th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4806 Petitioner: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 8-9. Rejected as being unnecessary. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 12-14. Rejected to the extent they are inconsistent with findings of fact 17 and 18. 15-17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 18-20. Rejected as being irrelevant. 21-22. Rejected as being unnecessary. 23-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 25. Rejected as being unnecessary. 26. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13 and 14. 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 28-29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 30-33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 34-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 37. Rejected as being unnecessary. 38-39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 40-41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 42. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 15. 43-45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 46-49. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 50-51. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 52. Rejected as being unnecessary. 53-54. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 55-56. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 61-63. Rejected to the extent they are inconsistent with findings of fact 17 and 18. 64-65. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 66-68. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 69. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 70-75. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Rejected to the extent it is inconsistent with findings of fact 17 and 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 79-81. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 82. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13 and 14. 83-84. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Rejected to the extent it is inconsistent with findings of fact 17 and 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 87-88. Rejected to the extent they are inconsistent with findings of fact 17 and 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Rejected as being irrelevant since the collection of taxes from Jax Liquors occurred after the audit period. 93-95. Rejected as being unnecessary. Respondent: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3-4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 6-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 10. Rejected as being unnecessary. 11a. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 11b. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10, 13 and 15. 11c. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 11d. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 12-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, subordinate, irrelevant, not supported by the more credible and persuasive evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Lettera, Esquire General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Mr. Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 William A. Friedlander, Esquire Marie A. Mattox, Esquire 3045 Tower Court Tallahassee, FL 32303 Eric J. Taylor, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol-Tax Section Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner performed nontaxable services as a decorating contractor, as he maintains, or, rather, whether he leased tangible personal property and thereby incurred sales tax liability, as Respondent alleges.
Findings Of Fact The Parties At all relevant times, Petitioner Philip E. Hancock ("Hancock") was a sole proprietor doing business in and around Fort Lauderdale, Florida, under the names "Action Plant Rental" and "Action Plants." Respondent Department of Revenue ("Department"), an agency of the State of Florida, is authorized to administer the state's tax laws. An Overview of Hancock's Businesses In 1980, Hancock and his then-wife purchased a nursery and, as proprietors, started a business called "Landscape Concepts." Initially, the couple's business activities involved landscaping and (b) sales of plants and nursery stock at wholesale (mostly) and retail. Sometime in 1983, Landscape Concepts began "renting" plants and trees for special events, such as weddings, banquets, and charity fundraisers.2 In time, this plant rental business eclipsed the original landscaping and sales operations, and by the late 1980's the ascendant enterprise was dubbed "Action Plant Rental."3 In 1990, having established Action Plant Rental, the Hancocks sold their nursery, whereupon Landscape Concepts stopped selling plants on a regular basis. The landscaping business, in contrast, tapered off gradually, continuing for several more years until being discontinued completely at the end of 1993. As of January 1994, plant rental was Petitioner's sole vocation. A Closer Look At the Plant Rental Business The evidence concerning the details of how Hancock's plant rental business operated during the audit period is relatively sparse, consisting of little, if anything, other than Hancock's testimony, which is generally credible as far as it goes, but not comprehensive. Hancock's clients, for the most part, were not the individuals who hosted or sponsored the events for which Action Plant Rental supplied "green décor" (to use Hancock's phrase), but rather were the event planners, designers, florists, and hotels (which frequently acted as planners in connection with events held on their premises) who had been hired by the hosts or sponsors to make their events happen. Thus, Hancock usually did not deal directly with, for example, the bride, but with the bride's wedding planner. In effect, he was a subcontractor. Hancock did not enter into written contracts with his clients. When a client retained Hancock, the client informed Hancock when and where the event would be held, and told Hancock (or asked him for an opinion about) which plants would be appropriate. The evidence is ambiguous as to the degree of Hancock's input and discretion in selecting the particular plants to bring to a given event. While the undersigned is persuaded that Hancock had some involvement in choosing the plants at least some of the time, it cannot be found that this service, to the extent provided, added substantial value to the transaction——or was one for which clients specifically and knowingly paid. When the time came for Hancock to perform the agreement, he delivered the plants and trees to the site and, at a time before the event was to begin, set them up in the hall or ballroom. Setting up the plants to create a pleasing and appropriate environment no doubt required decorating skill. It is undisputed, moreover, that Hancock commonly added decorating touches, such as lights and decorative containers, to his plants and trees, which made the display more attractive. What is less clear, however, is whether clients purchased Hancock's decorating expertise——or if, instead, Hancock executed the commands of someone else who decided how to arrange and present the plants. On this point, as others, it might have been helpful to hear from some clients. As it is, Hancock's own testimony is somewhat ambiguous. While the question is extremely close, the undersigned is persuaded, on the evidence presented, that Hancock usually operated under the direction of his client and had relatively little control over the design and arrangement of his plants and trees at the event site. Thus, the undersigned is unable to find that Hancock's decorating services provided the ultimate value to Hancock's clients. Once the plants were set in place and Hancock was assured that the arrangement satisfied his client, Hancock left the event site. (This meant, of course, that someone——the client, the host, or even a guest——could have moved the plants around.4 The Department contends that Hancock's absence from the premises demonstrates decisively that possession and control of the plants was surrendered to his client. The undersigned has given this fact some weight, but not a great deal. For one thing, there is no persuasive evidence that the client typically remained on-site with the plants. Further, since the plants were generally set up in a "public" place (as opposed to a personal space such as an office) over which neither the client, nor the host, nor the guests had exclusive control,5 the undersigned is not persuaded that the client or others attending the event had possession and control of the plants in any meaningful sense. Indeed, under the Department's theory, the plants apparently would have been in the constructive possession, at least, of everyone present at the party——a conclusion that runs counter to common sense and ordinary experience. The opportunity to move a plant is not, in the undersigned’s mind, equivalent to having a possessory right or power over the plant.) When the event was over, Hancock returned to the site to retrieve and remove his plants. Later, Hancock sent the client an invoice for his "services." As far as the evidence shows, Hancock did not bill his clients separately for delivery, set up, removal, or design, but rather he charged a lump sum for the plants, which price included these associated services as part of the total package. Petitioner's History As a Sales Tax-Paying Dealer From at least 1985, and continuing through the middle of 1994, Landscape Concepts, as a registered dealer having identification number 16-03-109301-76, collected and remitted sales taxes on the revenues generated through retail plant sales and plant rentals, filing monthly sales tax returns as legally required.6 If a client gave Petitioner a resale certificate, however, Petitioner did not collect sales tax from that client. Because most of Petitioner's plant rental customers were other businesses (e.g. event planners, florists, and hotels) that provided resale certificates to Petitioner, a relatively small percentage of these transactions were taxed. In mid-1994, while in one of the Department's regional offices attending to some since forgotten sales tax-related matter, Hancock was shown Rule 12A-1.071 of the Florida Administrative Code. This Rule then contained the following provision: (35)(a) A decorating contractor who uses materials and supplies such as bunting, streamers, colored paper, wreaths, pennants, lights, rope, etc., in fulfilling a contract which requires the furnishing of arrangements and decorations to, and their subsequent removal from, hotels, offices, public buildings, etc., is the consumer of such materials and supplies and shall pay tax on their acquisition. The contractor's charge under such contract is a service charge and is exempt. Fla. Admin. Code R. 12A-1.071(35)(a).7 Hancock concluded that he was entitled to the benefit of the foregoing "decorator's exemption." Hancock asked a local employee of the Department whether he could claim the exemption, and she advised him to write a letter to the Department's main office in Tallahassee. Hancock sent the Department a letter announcing his intent to stop filing monthly sales tax returns. Enclosed with this letter was Hancock's sales tax certificate, which Hancock purported to "relinquish." The Department did not respond to Hancock's letter. Hancock did not file another sales tax return.8 The Audit and Protest In January 2001, the Department commenced a sales and use tax audit of Hancock's plant rental business, initially concentrating on the five-year period from December 1, 1995 through November 30, 2000. The Department later enlarged the audit period to span 16 years, reaching all the way back to June 1, 1985, and continuing through June 30, 2001. This expansion was based on the Department's belief that Hancock had never filed any sales tax returns respecting his business——a belief that, as found above, would prove to be incorrect. After concluding that Hancock's tax records were "adequate but voluminous," the Department used a sampling method to calculate the amount of tax allegedly owed.9 To determine the total amount of revenue subject to sales tax, the Department used as a starting point the gross receipts figures as reported on Hancock's federal income tax returns for the years 1995 through 2000, inclusive.10 From these figures, the Department calculated the average monthly receipts for each of the six years in question (by dividing 12 into each respective year's gross sales revenue). It also computed an average annual gross sales figure (by dividing 6 into the sum of the known annual gross receipts), along with an average average-monthly sales amount (by dividing 6 into the sum of the average monthly receipts). Year Here are the relevant Gross Sales numbers: Avg. Monthly Sales 1995 $ 99,045 $ 8,253.75 1996 $113,973 $ 9,497.75 1997 $171,721 $14,310.08 1998 $169,961 $14,163.42 1999 $126,306 $10,525.50 2000 $154,253 $12,854.42 Average Annual Gross Sales: $139,210.00 Average Average-Monthly Sales: $ 11,600.82 The Department apparently acquired more specific information regarding monthly receipts for the 11-month period from January through November 2000. During this period, Hancock's gross receipts totaled $113,661.00.11 The Department determined, based on these figures, that the total tax due for this particular period was $6,861.41. Dividing 113,661 into 6,861.41, the Department derived a "percentage of error" of .060367. This "percentage of error" was effectively the tax rate because, as we have seen, the Department believed that Hancock had paid no taxes whatsoever. The "percentage of error" slightly exceeded 6 percent (the present state sales tax rate) due to the inclusion of some county taxes.12 The Department computed the total sales tax allegedly due and owing as follows. To determine the tax due per month for the 121 months comprising the periods from (a) June 1985 through December 1994 and (b) January through June 2001, for which there were no "known-sales" numbers, the Department applied the "percentage of error" (=tax rate) against the average average-monthly sales figure of $11,600.82. To determine the tax due per month for the years 1995 through 2000, the Department applied the "percentage of error" against each respective year's average monthly sales figure. The sum of these monthly figures equaled the total alleged tax liability. Here are the numbers: Period Average Monthly Sales Tax Rate Tax Due Per Month Tax Due For Period Jun 1985 — Dec 1994 (115 months) 11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 80,535.65 Jan (12 — Dec 1995 months) 8,253.75 0.060367 498.25 5,979.00 Jan (12 — Dec 1996 months) 9,497.7613 0.060367 573.35 6,880.20 Jan (12 — Dec 1997 months) 14,310.08 0.060367 863.86 10,366.32 Jan (12 — Dec 1998 months) 14,163.42 0.060367 855.00 10,260.00 Jan (12 — Dec 1999 months) 10,525.50 0.060367 635.39 7,624.68 Jan (12 — Dec 2000 months) 12,854.4314 0.060367 775.98 9,311.76 Jan — Jun 2001 (6 months) $11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 4,201.86 135,159.47 In sum, the Department found that Hancock was liable for $134,337.17 in state sales taxes and $822.30 in County Taxes, see endnote 12, which amounts, when added together, equaled $135,159.47. Additionally, the Department found that Hancock owed small amounts of state use taxes in connection with several fixed assets. This aspect of the case received little attention, if any, at final hearing and accordingly will not be examined in great detail here. The following table summarizes the amounts that the Department claims are due and owing: Asset Transaction Date Tax Due Computer September 1995 229.12 Office refrigerator April 1997 24.00 Computer October 1998 72.00 Office Furniture December 1998 21.62 Printer May 1999 24.66 371.40 In January 2002, the Department notified Hancock that it intended to collect the alleged tax deficiencies just described, in the total principal amount of $135,530.87. In addition, the Department claimed $135,666.86 in interest through January 2, 2002, together with a total of $52,359.05 in penalties, making a grand total of $323,556.78. Hancock disputed the assessments and timely requested a formal administrative hearing. Ultimate Factual Determinations The factual question whether Hancock performed nontaxable services as a decorating contractor, as he maintains, or leased tangible personal property and thereby incurred sales tax liability, as the Department contends, is very close, at least based on the evidence presented. On a better record it might have been possible to answer this question with greater confidence——and, indeed, to obtain a different result. On this relatively limited record, however, the undersigned finds that the weight of the evidence tips ever so slightly in the Department's favor, primarily because it appears more likely than not that Hancock's clients were given a meaningful right to direct the use of the material personal property involved, namely the live plants and trees. Thus, while reasonable minds could differ, the undersigned finds that Hancock was engaging in the taxable business activity of leasing personal property. The evidence does not establish, however, and hence the undersigned does not find, that Hancock filed a grossly false or substantially incorrect return or made a substantial underpayment of tax. Likewise, Hancock did not file any fraudulent returns. Rather, Hancock properly filed returns through mid-1994, paying all of the sales and use taxes then due and owing. What Hancock failed to do was make all required tax payments after May 1994——a significant default, to be sure, but one that leaves him less liable, in fact, for back-taxes than the Department has contended. Hancock's decision to stop collecting and remitting sales taxes, moreover, was based not upon an intent to defraud but upon an honest, if mistaken, belief that the business of Action Plant Rental fell within the "decorator's exemption."15 Apart from any question of liability, the Department's assessment of the amount of state sales taxes and County Taxes allegedly due and owing for the period from June 1985 through December 1993 is clearly erroneous, for at least three reasons. First, the state sales tax was not six percent during that entire period, yet the Department has computed Hancock's alleged tax liability as if it were.16 Second, the Department did not make any adjustments to account for the time-value of money when it projected sales figures from 1995-2000 back as many as 15 years. It is commonly known, however, that dollars earned in the year 2000, for example, had less purchasing power than, say, 1985 dollars; thus, sales figures from 2000 must be discounted if a fair and reasonable comparison to 1985 is to be made. The Department's failure to reduce recent earnings to the then- present value of income derived from plant rentals in the earlier years of the audit period is tantamount to charging interest——which, of course, the Department has also assessed, separately. Finally, the Department's calculation assumed, incorrectly, that (a) Hancock's business had not changed during the entire 16-year audit period and (b) Hancock had never paid any sales taxes. In fact, until the end of 1993, Hancock derived income not only from his plant rental business but also from landscaping and plant sales; not only that, he paid sales taxes on the receipts from these activities, through May 1994. In sum, then, even if Hancock were liable for the taxes that allegedly accrued before 1994, the Department's figures for that period of the audit are simply too unreliable to be credited. Period Average Monthly Sales Tax Rate Tax Due Per Month Tax Due For Period Jun 1994 — Dec 1994 (7 months) 11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 4,902.17 Jan — Dec 1995 (12 months) 8,253.75 0.060367 498.25 5,979.00 Jan — Dec 1996 (12 months) 9,497.7617 0.060367 573.35 6,880.20 Jan — Dec 1997 (12 months) 14,310.08 0.060367 863.86 10,366.32 Jan — Dec 1998 (12 months) 14,163.42 0.060367 855.00 10,260.00 Jan — Dec 1999 (12 months) 10,525.50 0.060367 635.39 7,624.68 Jan — Dec 2000 (12 months) 12,854.4318 0.060367 775.98 9,311.76 Jan — Jun 2001 (6 months) $11,600.82 0.060367 700.31 4,201.86 59,525.99 It is found, therefore, that Hancock owes state sales taxes and County Taxes in the following sums: Additionally Hancock must pay use taxes amounting to $371.40, bringing to $59,897.39 the total principal amount of taxes proved to be due.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order directing Hancock to pay state sales taxes and County Taxes in the total amount of $59,525.99, plus state use taxes in the amount of $371.40, bringing to $59,897.39 the principal sum of back-taxes due and owing. In addition, Hancock should be ordered to pay interest and penalties on the unpaid taxes, in amounts to be determined by the Department in accordance with the methodologies reflected in the audit work papers that are included in the evidentiary record of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 2004.
The Issue Whether the contested and unpaid portions of the tax, penalty and interest assessment issued against Petitioners as a result of Audit No. 9317210175 should be withdrawn as Petitioners have requested?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Shuckers is an oceanfront restaurant and lounge located at 9800 South Ocean Drive in Jensen Beach, Florida. In November of 1992, Petitioner Mesa's brother, Robert Woods, Jr., telephoned Mesa and asked her if she wanted a job as Shuckers' bookkeeper. Woods had been the owner of Shuckers since 1986 through his ownership and control of the corporate entities (initially Shuckers Oyster Bar Too of Jensen Beach, Florida, Inc., and then NAT, Inc.) that owned the business. Mesa needed a job. She therefore accepted her brother's offer of employment, notwithstanding that she had no previous experience or training as a bookkeeper. When Mesa reported for her first day of work on November 19, 1992, she learned that Woods expected her to be not only the bookkeeper, but the general manager of the business as well. Mesa agreed to perform these additional responsibilities. She managed the day-to-day activities of the business under the general direction and supervision of Woods. After a couple of weeks, Woods told Mesa that it would be best if she discharged her managerial responsibilities through an incorporated management company. Woods had his accountant draft the documents necessary to form such a corporation. Among these documents were the corporation's Articles of Incorporation. Mesa executed the Articles of Incorporation and, on December 3, 1992, filed them with the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, thereby creating Petitioner TAN, Inc. TAN, Inc.'s Articles of Incorporation provided as follows: The undersigned subscribers to these Articles of Incorporation, natural persons competent to contract, hereby form a corporation under the laws of the State of Florida. ARTICLE I- CORPORATE NAME The name of the corporation is: TAN, INC. ARTICLE II- DURATION This corporation shall exist perpetually unless dissolved according to Florida law. ARTICLE III- PURPOSE The corporation is organized for the purpose of engaging in any activities or business permitted under the laws of the United States and the State of Florida. ARTICLE IV- CAPITAL STOCK The corporation is authorized to issue One Thousand (1000) shares of One Dollar ($1.00) par value Common Stock, which shall be designated "Common Shares." Article V- INITIAL REGISTERED OFFICE AND AGENT The principal office, if known, or the mailing address of this corporation is: TAN, INC. 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 The name and address of the Initial Registered Agent of the Corporation is: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 ARTICLE VI- INITIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS This corporation shall have one (1) director initially. The number of directors may be either increased or diminished from time to time by the By-laws, but shall never be less than one (1). The names and addresses of the initial directors of the corporation are as follows: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 ARTICLE VII- INCORPORATORS The names and addresses of the incorporators signing these Articles of Incorporation are as follows: Linda A. W. Mesa 9800 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 On the same day it was incorporated, December 3, 1992, TAN, Inc., entered into the following lease agreement with the trust (of which Woods was the sole beneficiary) that owned the premises where Shuckers was located: I, Michael Blake, Trustee, hereby lease to Tan, Inc. the premises known as C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, 9800 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, Florida for the sum of $3,000.00 per month. This is a month to month lease with Illinois Land Trust and Michael Blake, Trustee. Mesa signed the agreement in her capacity as TAN, Inc.'s President. She did so at Woods' direction and on his behalf. No lease payments were ever made under the agreement. 3/ The execution of the lease agreement had no impact upon Shuckers. Woods remained its owner and the person who maintained ultimate control over its operations. At no time did he relinquish any part of his ownership interest in the business to either Mesa or her management company, TAN, Inc. Mesa worked approximately 70 to 80 hours a week for her brother at Shuckers doing what he told her to do, in return for which she received a modest paycheck. Woods frequently subjected his sister to verbal abuse, but Mesa nonetheless continued working for him and following his directions because she needed the income the job provided. As part of her duties, Mesa maintained the business' financial records and paid its bills. She was also required to fill out, sign and submit to Respondent the business' monthly sales and use tax returns (hereinafter referred to as "DR- 15s"). She performed this task to the best of her ability without any intention to defraud or deceive Respondent regarding the business' tax liability. The DR-15s she prepared during the audit period bore NAT, Inc.'s Florida sales and use tax registration number. On the DR-15 for the month of December, 1992, Mesa signed her name on both the "dealer" and "preparer" signature lines. Other DR-15s were co-signed by Mesa and Woods. In April of 1993, Woods told Mesa that she needed to obtain a Florida sales and use tax registration number for TAN, Inc., to use instead of NAT, Inc.'s registration number on Shuckers' DR-15s. In accordance with her brother's desires, Mesa, on or about May 14, 1993, filed an application for a Florida sales and use tax registration number for TAN, Inc., which was subsequently granted. On the application form, Mesa indicated that TAN, Inc. was the "owner" of Shuckers and that the application was being filed because of a "change of ownership" of the business. In fact, TAN, Inc. was not the "owner" of the business and there had been no such "change of ownership." By letter dated June 22, 1993, addressed to "TAN INC d/b/a Shuckers," Respondent gave notice of its intention to audit the "books and records" of the business to determine if there had been any underpayment of sales and use taxes during the five year period commencing June 1, 1988, and ending May 31, 1993. The audit period was subsequently extended to cover the six year period from June 1, 1987 to May 31, 1993. Relying in part on estimates because of the business' inadequate records, auditors discovered that there had been a substantial underpayment of sales and use taxes during the audit period. The auditors were provided with complete cash register tapes for only the following months of the audit period: June, July, August and December of 1992, and January, February, March, April and May of 1993. A comparison of these tapes with the DR-15s submitted for June, July, August and December of 1992, and January, February, March, April and May of 1993 revealed that there had been an underreporting of sales for these months. Using the information that they had obtained regarding the three pre- December, 1992, months of the audit period for which they had complete cash register tapes (June, July and August of 1992), the auditors arrived at an estimate of the amount of sales that had been underreported for the pre- December, 1992, months of the audit period for which they did not have complete cash register tapes. The auditors also determined that Shuckers' tee-shirt and souvenir sales, 4/ Sunday brunch sales, cigarette vending sales, vending/amusement machine location rentals 5/ and tiki bar sales that should have been included in the sales reported on the DR-15s submitted during the audit period were not included in these figures nor were these sales reflected on the cash register tapes that were examined. According of the "Statement of Fact" prepared by the auditors, the amount of these unreported sales were determined as follows: TEE-SHIRT SALES: Sales were determined by estimate. This was determined to be $2,000/ month. No records were available and no tax remitted through May, 1993. SUNDAY BRUNCH SALES: Sales were determined by estimate. This was determined to be 100 customers per brunch per month (4.333 weeks). No audit trail to the sales journal was found and no records were available. CIGARETTE VENDING SALES: The estimate is based on a review of a sample of purchases for the 11 available weeks. The eleven weeks were averaged to determine monthly sales at $3/pack. VENDING MACHINE LOCATION RENTAL REVENUE: The revenue estimate is based on a review of a one month sample. TIKI BAR SALES: The sales estimate is based on a review of infrequent cash register tapes of February, 1993. The daily sales was determined by an average of the sample. The number of days of operation per month was determined by estimate. In addition, the auditors determined that TAN, Inc. had not paid any tax on the lease payments it was obligated to make under its lease agreement with Illinois Land Trust and Michael Blake, Trustee, nor had any tax been paid on any of the pre-December, 1992, lease payments that had been made in connection with the business during the audit period. According to the "Statement of Fact" prepared by the auditors, the amount of these lease payments were determined as follows: The estimate is based on 1990 1120 Corporate return deduction claimed. This return is on file in the Florida CIT computer database. The 1990 amount was extended through the 6/87 - 11/92 period. For the period 12/92 - 5/93 audit period, TAN's current lease agreement of $3,000/month was the basis. No documentation was produced during the audit supporting any the sales tax exemptions that the business had claimed during the audit period on its DR-15s. 6/ Accordingly, the auditors concluded that the sales reported as exempt on the business' DR-15s were in fact taxable. Using records of sales made on a date selected at random (February 1, 1993), the auditors calculated effective tax rates for the audit period. They then used these effective tax rates to determine the total amount of tax due. An initial determination was made that a total of $201,971.71 in taxes (not including penalties and interest) was due. The amount was subsequently lowered to $200,882.28. On or about December 22, 1993, TAN, Inc., entered into the following Termination of Lease Agreement with Ocean Enterprises, Inc.: TAN, Inc., a Florida corporation, hereby consents to termination of that certain lease of the premises known as C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 of ISLAND BEACH CLUB, located at 9800 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, Florida, dated December 3, 1992, acknowledges a landlord's lien on all assets for unpaid rent; and transfers and sets over and assigns possession of the aforesaid units and all of its right, title and interest in and to all inventory, equipment, stock and supplies located on said premises 7/ in full satisfaction of said unpaid rent; all of the foregoing effective as of this 22nd day of December, 1993. FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing termin- ation of lease, OCEAN ENTERPRISES, Inc., a Florida corporation, hereby agrees to pay Linda Mesa, each month all of the net revenues of the operation of the bar and restaurant located on said premises, up to the sum of $15,000.00, for sales tax liability asserted against TAN, Inc. or Linda A. W. Mesa based upon possession or ownership of said premises or any of the assets located thereon, plus attorney's fees incurred in connection with defending or negotiating settlement of any such liability. Net revenue shall mean gross revenue, less operating expenses, includ- ing, but not limited to, rent, up to the amount of $5,000.00 per month, costs of goods sold, utilities, payroll and payroll expense and insurance. OCEAN ENTERPRISES, Inc. represents that it has entered into a lease of said premises for a term of five years commencing on or about December 22, 1993, pursuant to the terms and conditions of which OCEANFRONT [sic] ENTERPRISES, Inc. was granted the right to operate a restaurant and bar business on said premises. Ocean Enterprises, Inc., leases the property from Island Beach Enterprises, which obtained the property through foreclosure. TAN, Inc., has been administratively dissolved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order withdrawing the contested and unpaid portions of the assessment issued as a result of Audit No. 9317210175, as it relates to TAN, Inc., and Linda A. W. Mesa. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of June, 1995. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1995.
