The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a certified public accountant in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0018740. Eileen and Robert Organ engaged Respondent's services to prepare income tax returns for Ma's Kitchen, Inc., and Respondent prepared several years of returns for them. In a letter dated March 19, 1999, the Organs advised Respondent that his services were no longer required. Thereafter, Respondent gave his file on Ma's Kitchen to his attorney to collect Respondent's outstanding bill for services rendered to the Organs in the amount of $6,000. On July 6, 1999, the Organs sent Respondent a letter stating that their new accountant needed the ledger books and files of Ma's Kitchen, that the Organs would pick up those records from Respondent, that Respondent's attorney had sent them letters, and that they would file a complaint against Respondent if they did not hear from Respondent. Respondent thereafter made unsuccessful attempts to contact the Organs. The Organs did not contact Respondent after their July 6 letter to make arrangements to pick up their file. Further, the Organs' new accountant did not contact Respondent to obtain copies of Respondent's records although he contacted someone in Respondent's attorney's office who told him he could come there to look at the file. The new accountant never went to Respondent's attorney's office to look at the records for Ma's Kitchen, Inc. Respondent had told his attorney to give the Organs any documents they asked for if they contacted him as long as they paid any copying charges. Respondent's attorney and the Organs' attorney wrote letters to each other, containing their interpretations of their clients' positions. Respondent's attorney took the position that all records provided by the Organs had been returned and that Respondent's work product was not needed by the Organ's new accountant but would be released when Respondent's bill was paid. The Organs' attorney demanded that Respondent return all records in his possession and suggested that Respondent owed money to his clients. The Organs had provided to Respondent check stubs, bank statements, payroll tax returns, and other financial information to be used to prepare tax returns for them. Using those documents, Respondent had entered the data in his computer and had created a computer-generated general ledger. He had returned to the Organs all records they gave him long before they terminated his services, and their attorney's demand that he return records already returned was non-productive. The demand of the Organs' attorney that Respondent return all corporate books and records was also non-productive. Respondent had never possessed Ma's Kitchens' articles of incorporation, corporate seal, by-laws, or minutes of meetings, those items commonly referred to as corporate books and records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 1st day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Samuel Francis May, Jr. 20283 State Road 7, Suite 300 Boca Raton, Florida 33498 Martha Willis, Division Director Division of Public Accounting Department of Business and Professional Regulation 240 Northwest 76 Drive, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1-5, below. Zurich is an insurer domiciled in the State of New York. Zurich is authorized to do insurance business in the State of Florida. Zurich pays insurance premium taxes to the State of Florida. As a foreign insurer doing business in Florida, Zurich is subject to the provisions of Florida's retaliatory tax, Section 624.5091, Florida Statutes. Respondent Department of Revenue (Revenue) is the state agency charged with the duty to implement and enforce Section 624.5091, Florida Statutes. Zurich's interests are substantially affected by Revenue's Rule 12B- 8.016(3)(a)(4), Florida Administrative Code, by virtue of the tax assessment made against Zurich pursuant to the rule. OTHER FACTS Prior to 1989, the Department of Insurance administered insurance taxation. Now, Revenue has that responsibility. Section 213.05, Florida Statutes, directs Revenue to administer provisions of Sections 624.509 through 624.514, Florida Statutes. Section 213.06(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes Revenue to promulgate rules to implement those responsibilities. Rule 12B-8.016 was first promulgated by Revenue in December of 1989 to implement statutory authority of Section 624.429 (currently renumbered as 624.5091). This statute authorized retaliatory taxation against non-domiciled insurers in the amount by which their state of domicile would tax Florida insurers in excess of Florida's comparable tax. The statute provides in pertinent part: When by or pursuant to the laws of any other state or foreign country any taxes, licenses, and other fees, in the aggregate, and any fines, penalties, deposit requirements, or other material obligations, prohibitions, or restrictions are or would be imposed upon Florida insurers or upon the agents or representatives of such insurers, which are in excess of such taxes, licenses, and other fees, in the aggregate, or other obligations, prohibitions, or restrictions directly imposed upon similar insurers, or upon the agents or representatives of such insurers, of such other state or country under the statutes of this state, so long as such laws of such other state or country continue in force or are so applied, the same taxes, licenses, and other fees, in the aggregate, or fines, penalties, deposit requirements, or other material obligations, prohibitions, or restrictions of whatever kind shall be imposed by the department upon the insurers, or upon the agents or representatives of such insurers, of such other state or country doing business or seeking to do business in this state. As it existed in 1989 and currently, the statute contains an exclusionary provision expressly excluding from the retaliatory tax any special purpose assessments in connection with insurance other than property insurance. This exclusionary provision is part of Subsection 3 of the current statute, 624.5091, and reads as follows: (3)This section does not apply as to personal income taxes, nor as to sales or use taxes, nor as to ad valorem taxes on real or personal property, nor as to reimbursement premiums paid to the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, nor as to emergency assessments paid to the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, nor as to special purpose obligations or assessments imposed in connection with particular kinds of insurance other than property insurance, except that deductions, from premium taxes or other taxes otherwise payable, allowed on account of real estate or personal property taxes paid shall be taken into consideration by the department in determining the propriety and extent of retaliatory action under this section. The parties concede that Revenue's Rule 12B-8.016 accurately tracts the first part of the retaliatory taxation statute. But a subpart of the Rule, 12B- 8.016(3)(a)(4), is challenged by Zurich in this proceeding because that subpart provides for inclusion of the assessment for administration of workers compensation in Florida and comparable assessments in other states. The rule subpart states: (3)(a) Other items which shall be included in the retaliatory calculations are: * * * 4. The workers compensation administrative assessment imposed by s. 440.51, F.S., as well as comparable assessments in other states. The State of Florida imposes assessment on workers compensation carriers such as Zurich in accordance with authority contained in Section 440.51, Florida Statutes, which is entitled "Expenses of Administration." Section 440.51 provides for the pro-rata assessment of all insurers and self- insurers of workers compensation to cover expenses of administering the workers compensation program. The assessment is a "special fund" that does not involve appropriated funds or general state revenues. Zurich's home state of New York imposes a comparable assessment. In accordance with Rule 12B-8.016(3)(a)(4), Florida Administrative Code, Revenue includes calculations for the Worker's Compensation Board Administrative Fund in the state of New York in Zurich's retaliatory tax calculation. In drafting the rule in 1989, Revenue relied upon Attorney General Opinion 057-173, which advised that Florida's Worker's Compensation Administrative Assessment should be considered a "tax" for purposes of retaliatory tax calculation. On this basis, Revenue's rule requires that such assessments be considered as "taxes" and included in the retaliatory tax calculation. However, following the issuance of Attorney General Opinion 057-173, the Florida legislature in 1959 enacted the present Subsection 624.5091(3), Florida Statutes, specifically excluding the consideration of "special purpose obligations or assessments imposed in connection with particular kinds of insurance other than property insurance" in retaliatory tax calculations. Following the 1959 enactment of the exclusionary language contained in Subsection 624.5091(3), Florida Statutes, the Department of Insurance did not include comparable worker compensation assessments of other states. The Department of Insurance administered insurance taxation until 1989. Department of Insurance forms introduced into evidence for 1986 showed that the Florida assessment, pursuant to Section 440.51 Florida Statutes, was treated as a deduction against Florida's premium tax and added back in on the Florida side of the retaliatory tax calculation. But the assessment was not included in a manner to inflate the calculation of the domiciliary state's comparative tax base. When Revenue assumed administration of insurance taxation in 1989, a proposed rule and an emergency rule were promulgated. Neither provided for inclusion of foreign states' special purpose administrative assessments in retaliatory tax calculation. In the course of the promulgation process, the determination to treat the worker compensation administrative assessment as a tax became a part of the rule. The purpose of Florida's retaliatory statute is to influence other states' legislative discretion to lower the tax burden on Florida insurers doing business in those other states. The items to be compared for retaliatory purposes are determined by the legislature and not by Revenue, Revenue auditors, or other states.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Certificate of Registration 39-8011930243-9 should be revoked for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint for Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Administrative Complaint) issued by the Department of Revenue (Department) on June 5, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the state revenue laws, including the laws related to the imposition and collection of sales and use taxes pursuant to chapter 212. Respondent is a Florida limited liability corporation doing business as The Hyde Park Cafe at 1806 West Platt Street, Tampa, Florida. For purposes of collecting and remitting sales and use taxes, it is a dealer as defined in section 212.06(2) and is required to comply with chapter 212. Respondent holds Certificate of Registration number 39- 8011930243-9, which became effective on July 27, 2000. A certificate of registration is required in order to do business in the state and requires its holder to collect and remit sales tax pursuant to chapter 212. See § 212.05(1), Fla. Stat. Respondent is also an employing unit as defined in section 443.036(20) and is subject to the unemployment compensation tax (UCT) provisions of chapter 443, as provided in section 443.1215. Through an interagency agreement with the Department of Economic Opportunity, the Department provides collection services for UCTs. See § 443.1316(1), Fla. Stat. In doing so, the Department is considered to be administering a revenue law of the state. See § 443.1316(2), Fla. Stat. A dealer must file with the Department sales tax returns and remit the tax collected on a monthly basis. See § 212.15(1), Fla. Stat. Also, an employment unit must remit payment to the Department for UCTs due and owing on a quarterly basis. The Department is authorized to revoke a dealer's certificate of registration for failure to comply with state tax laws. See § 212.18(3)(e), Fla. Stat. If the Department files a warrant, notice of lien, or judgment lien certificate against the property of a dealer, it may also revoke a certificate of registration. See § 213.692(1), Fla. Stat. Before revoking a certificate of registration, the Department must convene an informal conference that the dealer is required to attend. See § 213.692(1)(a), Fla. Stat. At the conference, the dealer may either present evidence to refute the Department's allegations of noncompliance or enter into a compliance agreement with the Department to resolve the dealer's failure to comply with chapter 212. Id. After a compliance agreement is executed by the dealer, the Department may revoke the certificate of registration if the dealer fails to comply with its terms and conditions. See Pet'r Ex. 6, p. 2, ¶ E. If a breach occurs, the entire amount is due and payable immediately. Id. at ¶ G. An informal conference can be characterized as the Department's last administrative remedy to collect delinquent taxes before beginning revocation proceedings. A dealer can also enter into a diversion program with the State Attorney's Office to resolve liabilities, but the record shows that Respondent defaulted on that arrangement. According to the Department, collection problems with this dealer first began in 2003. Department records show that Respondent failed to remit required sales taxes for the months of January 2012, August through December 2012, January through December 2013, and January and February 2014. In addition, Respondent failed to remit UCTs for the calendar quarters ending September 2010, December 2010, March 2011, June 2011, September 2011, December 2011, March 2012, June 2012, September 2012, December 2012, and March 2013. Respondent does not dispute that it failed to timely remit and pay the foregoing taxes for the time periods listed above. For the purpose of collecting the delinquent taxes, the Department issued and filed against Respondent delinquent tax warrants, notices of lien, or judgment lien certificates in the Hillsborough County public records. See Pet'r Ex. 3. Before seeking revocation of Respondent's certificate of registration, on February 5, 2014, the Department's Tampa Service Center served on Respondent a Notice of Conference on Revocation of Certificate of Registration (Notice). See Pet'r Ex. 4. The Notice scheduled an informal conference on March 21, 2014. It listed 16 periods of sales and use tax noncompliance and 11 periods of re-employment tax noncompliance and provided the total tax liability as of that date. This number was necessarily fluid, as the taxes owed were accruing interest, penalties, and/or fees on a daily basis. The purpose of the informal conference was to give Respondent a final opportunity to make full payment of all delinquent taxes, or to demonstrate why the Department should not revoke its Certificate of Registration. As pointed out by the Department, an informal conference allows a dealer to bring up "any concerns" that it has regarding its obligations. Respondent's manager and registered agent, Christopher Scott, appeared at the conference on behalf of Respondent.1/ At the meeting, he acknowledged that the dealer had not timely paid the taxes listed in the Notice and that the money was used instead to keep the business afloat. However, Mr. Scott presented paperwork representing that sales and use tax returns and payments for the months of November 2013 through February 2014 had just been filed online, and checks in the amount of $8,101.41 and $9,493.99 were recently sent to Tallahassee. It takes 24 hours for online payments to show up in the system, and even more time for checks to be processed in Tallahassee. Accordingly, the Department agreed that Mr. Scott could have a few more days before signing a compliance agreement. This would allow the Department to verify that the payments were posted and recalculate the amount of taxes still owed. Also, before entering a compliance agreement, Respondent was required to make a down payment of around $20,000.00. Mr. Scott had insufficient cash, and a delay of a few days would hopefully allow him to secure the necessary money for a down payment. When none of the payments had posted by March 25, 2014, the Department calculated a total liability of $113,448.13, consisting of sales and use taxes and UCTs, penalties, interest, and fees. As of that date, none of the taxes listed in Finding of Fact 9 had been paid. On March 25, 2014, Respondent's controller, who did not attend the informal conference, sent an email to the Department requesting a breakdown on the new tax liability. In response to her request, the Department faxed a copy of the requested information. See Resp. Ex. 4. After getting this information, the controller continued to take the position that the Department's calculations overstate Respondent's tax liability. On March 31, 2014, Mr. Scott signed the compliance agreement. See Pet'r Ex. 6. Despite the controller testifying that she did not agree with the numbers, no question was raised by Mr. Scott when he signed the agreement. By then, the check in the amount of $8,101.41 had cleared and been credited to Respondent's account. Along with other funds, it was used towards the down payment of $20,000.00. The record does not show the status of the other payments that Mr. Scott claimed were mailed or filed online prior to the informal conference; however, on March 31, 2014, except for the one check, none had yet posted. The compliance agreement required scheduled payments for 12 months, with the final payment, a balloon payment in an undisclosed amount, being subject to renegotiation in the last month. Payments one and two were $1,500.00, while payments three through 11 were $2,900.00. The compliance agreement reflected a balance owed of $95,887.36, consisting of $60,504.34 in sales taxes and $35,347.02 in UCTs.2/ In return for the Department refraining from pursuing revocation proceedings, the compliance agreement required Respondent to "remit all past due amounts to the Department as stated in the attached payment agreement," "accurately complete and timely file all required tax returns and reports for the next 12 months," and "timely remit all taxes due for the next 12 months." Pet'r Ex. 1, p. 1. In other words, the compliance agreement addressed both delinquent taxes and current taxes that would be due during the following 12-month period, and it required that both categories of taxes be timely paid in the manner prescribed by the agreement. To summarize the salient points of the agreement, all taxes were to be timely paid; delinquent taxes were to be paid by certified check, money order, or cash and were to be mailed or hand delivered to the Tampa Service Center and not Tallahassee; and while not specifically addressed in the agreement, the dealer was instructed to pay all current obligations electronically, as required by law. Otherwise, Respondent was in violation of the compliance agreement. A Payment Agreement Schedule for past due taxes was incorporated into the compliance agreement and provided that the first payment was due April 30, 2014, payable to: Florida Department of Revenue, Tampa Service Center, 6302 East Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33619. Payments 2 through 12 were to be mailed or hand delivered to the same address. This meant, with no ambiguity, that money should not be sent to Tallahassee. There is no credible evidence that these instructions were misunderstood. Unless a waiver is granted, Respondent is required by statute and rule to electronically file sales and use tax returns and UCT reports. See § 213.755, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 12-24.009 (where a taxpayer has paid its taxes in the prior state fiscal year in an amount of $20,000.00 or more, subsequent payments shall be made electronically). No waivers have been approved. In 2003, the Department notified Respondent of these requirements and Respondent complied with this directive until 2009. For reasons not disclosed, in 2009 Respondent voluntarily quit filing electronically. The record is silent on why this was allowed.3/ In any event, at the informal conference, Mr. Scott was specifically told that all current returns, reports, and taxes must be filed electronically, and not by mail, and that no money should be sent to Tallahassee. There is no credible evidence that he misunderstood these instructions. In its PRO, Respondent correctly points out that the requirement to file current returns electronically was not specifically addressed in the compliance agreement. This is because the compliance agreement does not set forth every statutory and rule requirement that applies to a dealer. If this amount of detail were required, a dealer could ignore any otherwise applicable rule or statute not found in the compliance agreement. This contention has no merit. Respondent failed to electronically file the current sales and use tax return and payment for the month of March 2014, due no later than April 21, 2014. Instead, it sent a paper check, which was returned by the bank for insufficient funds. This constituted a breach of the compliance agreement. Despite repeated instructions on how and where to pay the delinquent taxes, payment 1, due on April 30, 2014, was paid by regular check and sent to Tallahassee, rather than the Tampa office. This contravened the compliance agreement. When payment was not timely received by the Tampa Service Center, Respondent was told that a check must be delivered to the Tampa office by May 9. Respondent hand delivered a second check, this one certified, to the Tampa Service Center on May 9, 2014, or after the April 30 due date. The second check was treated as payment 1. Respondent points out that on May 7 the Tampa Service Center granted its request for an extension of time until May 9 in which to deliver the certified check. While this is true, the extension was allowed in an effort to "work with" the Respondent on the condition that the account would be brought current by that date; otherwise, revocation proceedings would begin. Even if the extra ten days is construed as a grace period for payment 1, there were other violations of the compliance agreement set forth below. Payment 2 for delinquent taxes, due on May 30, 2014, was paid by regular check and sent by mail to Tallahassee rather than the Tampa Service Center.4/ This contravened the compliance agreement. After the May 30, 2014 payment, Respondent made no further payments pursuant to the Payment Agreement Schedule. This constituted a violation of the compliance agreement. Respondent did not remit payment with its current sales and use return for the month of August 2014. This contravened the compliance agreement. Respondent did not file any current sales and use tax returns or remit payment for the months of July 2014 or September through January 2015. This contravened the compliance agreement. Beginning in March 2014, Respondent filed current reemployment tax returns and payments using the incorrect tax rate on every return. This delayed their processing and resulted in penalties being imposed. In addition, even though Respondent was repeatedly told that such returns must be filed electronically, none were filed in that manner, as required by statute and rule. This contravened the compliance agreement. In its PRO, Respondent contends the compliance agreement cannot be enforced because there was no "meeting of the minds" by the parties on all essential terms of the agreement. Specifically, it argues that the total amount of taxes owed was still in dispute -- the dealer contended that it owed $23,000.00 less than was shown in the agreement; the Payment Schedule Agreement did not specify the amount of the final balloon payment; the compliance agreement failed to state when payments are due if the due date falls on a weekend or holiday; the compliance agreement did not specify how the dealer's payments would be allocated between UCTs and sales and use taxes; and the compliance agreement failed to address the issue of filing electronically. Although some of these issues were not raised in the parties' Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, or even addressed by testimony at hearing, they are all found to be without merit for the reasons expressed below. First, Mr. Scott did not dispute the amount of taxes owed when he signed the agreement, and he brought no evidence to the conference to support a different amount. Second, as explained to Mr. Scott at the informal conference, the precise amount of the balloon payment can only be established in the 12th month. This is because the exact amount depends on the dealer's compliance with the agreement over the preceding 11 months, and the amount of interest, penalties, and/or other fees that may have accrued during the preceding year. Third, there is no evidence that the dealer was confused when a due date for a payment fell on a weekend or holiday. Even if it was confused, reference to section 212.11(1)(e) and (f) would answer this question. Fourth, there is no statute or rule that requires the Department to specify how the delinquent payments are allocated. Moreover, neither Mr. Scott nor the controller requested that such an allocation be incorporated into the agreement before it was signed. Finally, the issue of filing electronically already has been addressed in Finding of Fact 22 and Endnote 3. At hearing, Respondent's controller testified that she was out of town when the conference was held, suggesting that Mr. Scott, who is not an accountant, was at a disadvantage when he attended the informal conference. However, Respondent had six weeks' notice before the conference, and there is no evidence that Respondent requested that the meeting be rescheduled to a more convenient day. Also, Respondent does not dispute that Mr. Scott was authorized to represent its interests at the conference, or that he could have been briefed by the controller before attending the informal conference or signing the compliance agreement. See also Endnote 1. Notably, at hearing, the controller testified that she "was involved in actually negotiating the agreement both before and after it was actually signed" even though she did not attend the conference. Tr. at 89. Respondent also contends that after the Department considered the compliance agreement to be breached, the dealer had no further obligation to make payments pursuant to the agreement or state law until the parties negotiated a new agreement. Aside from Respondent's failure to cite any authority to support this proposition, nothing in the compliance agreement comports with this assertion. To the contrary, the compliance agreement specifically provides that if a breach occurs, the entire tax liability becomes due immediately. See Pet'r Ex. 6, p. 2, ¶ G. Thus, Respondent is obligated to pay the entire tax liability, which now exceeds $200,000.00. All other arguments raised by Respondent have been carefully considered and are rejected as being without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order revoking Respondent's Certificate of Registration 39- 8011930243-9. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners owe the taxes, interest, and penalties assessed by the Department of Revenue based upon Petitioners’ alleged rental of their real property to a related corporation from June 2000 through August 2003.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: In July 1997, Petitioners acquired the real property located at 640 North Semoran Boulevard in Orlando, Florida (hereafter “the Property”). The Property was acquired in Petitioners’ individual capacities, and they financed the purchase of the Property through a loan secured by a mortgage on the Property. The documents relating to the 1997 loan and mortgage were not introduced at the hearing. At the time the Property was acquired, Petitioner Paul Solano was engaged in the practice of accounting through a sole proprietorship known as P. Solano and Associates. Mr. Solano has been practicing accounting in Florida since 1969 and he is familiar with Florida's sales tax laws. The Property was treated as an asset of Mr. Solano’s sole proprietorship even though he was not using it as his place of business at the time. For example, depreciation expense related to the Property was itemized on Petitioners’ tax returns as a business expense. The mortgage payments made by Petitioners were also treated as business expenses of the sole proprietorship. In October 1999, Mr. Solano incorporated his accounting practice into an entity known as Solano & Associates Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter “the Corporation”). The sole business of the Corporation is providing accounting services. At the time of its formation, the Corporation was owned in equal 20 percent shares by Mr. Solano, his wife (Petitioner Diane Solano), their two daughters, and their son-in-law. There has been no change in the ownership of the Corporation since its inception. Mr. Solano is the president of the Corporation. The other owners/family members are also officers in the Corporation. Once the Corporation was formed, the depreciation expense related to the Property was included on the Corporation's tax returns, not Petitioners' tax return. At the time the Property was purchased, it was zoned for residential use. Between 1997 and 1999, Petitioners took the necessary steps to get the Property rezoned for commercial use so that the Corporation could conduct its accounting practice from that location. In November 1999, after the property had been rezoned, the Corporation and its owners applied for a loan from First Union National Bank (First Union) to obtain the funds necessary to renovate the existing building on the Property. Although unclear from the documentation in the record, Petitioners both testified that the 1999 loan was effectively a refinancing of the 1997 loan. The Corporation was not able to obtain a loan in its own name because it had only been in existence for a short period of time. The owners of the Corporation were not able to obtain a loan at a favorable interest rate, primarily because of the lack of credit history of Petitioners’ daughters and son-in- law. As a result, the loan was obtained by Petitioners in their individual capacities. Petitioners gave a mortgage on the Property as collateral for the 1999 loan. The mortgage document, entitled “Mortgage and Absolute Assignment of Leases” (hereafter "the 1999 mortgage"), was signed by Petitioners in their individual capacities on November 18, 1999; the Corporation was not identified in the 1999 mortgage in any way. The 1999 mortgage includes boiler-plate language referring to Petitioners’ obligation to maintain and enforce any leases on the Property and requiring the assignment of rents from any such leases to First Union. That language cannot be construed to mean that a lease actually existed at the time; in fact, the Property was still undergoing renovations at the time. The Corporation began doing business from the Property in February 2000 after the renovation work was complete and a certificate of occupancy was issued. The 1999 loan was refinanced in May 2000 with First Union. The loan amount was increased from $145,000 to $200,000 and the term of the loan was extended through a document entitled “Mortgage and Loan Modification and Extension Agreement” (hereafter "the 2000 mortgage"). The 2000 mortgage refers to the Corporation as the borrower and refers to Petitioners as the guarantors. Petitioners signed the 2000 mortgage in their individual capacities (to bind themselves as guarantors) as well as their capacities as corporate officers (to bind the Corporation as borrower). The related promissory note, dated May 5, 2000, also refers to the Corporation as the borrower, and it is signed by Petitioners in their capacity as officers of the Corporation. As part of the documentation for the refinancing in 2000, Petitioners executed an “Affidavit of Business Use” in which they attested they were the owners of the Property and that the loan proceeds would be “utilized exclusively for business or commercial purposes and not for personal use.” Petitioners also executed a “Mortgagors" Affidavit” in which they attested that they were in sole possession of the Property and that no other persons have claims or rights to possession of the property “except Solano & Associates Enterprises by virtue of a written lease which does not have an option to purposes or right of first refusal.” The monthly mortgage payment for the refinanced loan was $2,044.91. That amount was due on the fifth day of each month beginning on June 5, 2000, and it was automatically deducted from the Corporation’s bank account with First Union. In addition to making the mortgage payment for the Property, the Corporation paid the ad valorem taxes, insurance, and related expenses. The amount of those payments is not quantified in the record. Petitioners formally deeded the Property to the Corporation in October 2003. Mrs. Solano testified that the failure to do so earlier was simply an “oversight.” When the Property was formally deeded to the Corporation, Petitioners did not report any income or loss on the transaction for tax purposes. Any equity that had accumulated in the Property was simply “given” to the Corporation. The First Union mortgages were satisfied in October 2003 as part of a refinancing done by the Corporation with SunTrust bank after it became the owner of the Property.1 At that point, the Corporation had been in existence long enough to establish a credit history and obtain financing in its own name. The record does not include any documentation related to the 2003 refinancing transaction. Despite the representation in the “Mortgagors’ Affidavit” quoted above, there has never been any written or oral lease between Petitioners and the Corporation with respect to the use of the Property. Petitioners have always considered the Property to be a business asset, initially an asset of Mr. Solano’s sole proprietorship and then an asset of the Corporation. Petitioners never collected any sales tax from the Corporation on the mortgage payments made by the Corporation. Petitioners did not consider those payments to be rental payments. In late-June or early-July 2003, the Department sent a letter to Petitioners stating that the Property “appears to be subject to sales tax pursuant to Chapter 212.031, Florida Statutes.” The letter was sent as part of the Department’s “Corporation Rent Project” through which the Department compares records in various databases to identify commercial properties whose owner of record is different from the business operating at that location. Included with the letter was a questionnaire soliciting information from Petitioners regarding the Property and its use. The questionnaire was completed by Mr. Solano and returned to the Department in a timely manner. Mr. Solano marked a box on the questionnaire indicating that the Property is “[o]ccupied by a corporation in which a corporate officer is the property owner,” and he identified the Corporation as the entity occupying the Property. In response to the question as to “which of the following considerations are received by you,” Mr. Solano marked the following boxes: “The corporation remits payment for the mortgage loan”; “I do not receive rental income, but the related entity pays the mortgage payments”; and “No consideration is received from this related entity.” In response to the questions regarding the “monthly gross rental income of the property” and the “amount of real estate taxes . . . paid on the property by the lessee” for 2000 through 2003, Mr. Solano answered $0 for all periods. Terry Milligan, a tax specialist with the Department, determined based upon Mr. Solano’s responses on the questionnaire that the Corporation’s use of the Property was subject to the sales tax on rentals. Mr. Milligan advised Petitioners of that determination by letter dated July 29, 2003. The letter requested that Petitioners provide “a detailed month by month breakdown of rent (or mortgage payment) amounts, any other consideration, and property taxes that you received from the tenant (or tenant paid on your behalf) for the last thirty-six (36) months).” (Emphasis in original). Petitioners responded to Mr. Milligan’s request through a letter dated August 11, 2003. The letter explained that the reason that the title to the Property appeared under Petitioners’ name rather than the Corporation's name is “due to credit history.” More specifically, the letter stated that “[i]t was decided by the Board members, my wife and our [] children, to put it under our name since we have a long history of good credit.” Included with the letter was a bank statement showing the monthly mortgage payment of $2,044.91 and a notice of the proposed property tax assessment from Orange County for the Property, which was addressed to the Corporation. In addition to providing the requested documentation to Mr. Milligan, one of Petitioners’ daughters, Joylynn Aviles, spoke with Mr. Milligan to explain the circumstances relating to the financing and use of the Property. Ms. Aviles is the Secretary of the Corporation. Ms. Aviles also spoke with Mr. Milligan’s supervisor and an individual in the Department’s legal division. When it became apparent that the matter could not be resolved informally, Ms. Aviles requested that Mr. Milligan issue a final assessment so that Petitioners could bring a formal protest. In response, the Department issued the NOFA on September 11, 2003. The NOFA was preceded by a spreadsheet dated September 3, 2003, which showed how Mr. Milligan calculated the tax, penalties, and interest amounts set forth in the NOFA. As described in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet and his testimony at the hearing, the tax was computed based upon the monthly mortgage payments of $2044.91 made by the Corporation from June 2000 to August 2003. The June 2000 start-date for the assessment corresponds to the 36-month period referred to in Mr. Milligan’s July 29, 2003, letter; it also happens to correspond to the date that Corporation began making the mortgage payments. The August 2003 end-date for the assessment was used because it was the month preceding the date of the NOFA. The Department has not sought to expand the assessment to include the period between August 2003 and October 2003 when the Property was formally deeded to the Corporation. The NOFA does not include any assessment for the property taxes, insurance or other expenses paid by the Corporation on the Property. The Department has not sought to expand the assessment to include those amounts. The sales tax rate in effect in Orange County during the assessment period was six percent from June 2000 through December 2002, and it was 6.5 percent from January 2003 through August 2003. The 0.5 percent increase resulted from the imposition of a county surtax of some kind. The NOFA calculated a total tax due of $4,784.91. As shown in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet, that amount was calculated by multiplying the monthly mortgage payment by the tax rate in effect at the time of the payment and then totaling those monthly amounts. The NOFA calculated $465.79 in interest due on the unpaid tax through September 13, 2003. As shown in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet, that amount was calculated at the applicable statutory rates. Interest continues to accrue at 53 cents per day. The NOFA calculated a penalty due of $2,233.97. That amount was calculated based upon the applicable statutory rate as shown in Mr. Milligan’s spreadsheet and explained in the NOFA. In total, the NOFA imposed an assessment of $7,566.43. That amount includes the taxes, interest, and penalties described above. The NOFA informed Petitioners of the procedure by which they could protest the Department's assessment. On November 10, 2003, the Department received Petitioners' timely protest of the assessment. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order rescinding the Notice of Final Assessment issued to Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2004, 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 17th day of March 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is employed as a Tax Auditor IV in Respondent's Property Tax Administration Program. He is assigned to work in Respondent's Regional Office in Jacksonville, Florida. The counties within the Jacksonville Region for Property Tax Administration are: Duval, Clay, Nassau, Putnam, St. John and Flagler. In January of 1996, Petitioner wrote to John Everton, Director of Respondent's Property Tax Administration Program requesting permission to run for Tax Collector of Clay County. In February of 1996, Petitioner talked to Mr. Everton's secretary. After making this call, Petitioner understood that Respondent's attorneys had his application to run for elective office and that he would soon receive an answer. Petitioner sent Mr. Everton an E Mail message on or about March 6, 1996. In this message, Petitioner asked Mr. Everton to check on his request to run for office and to expedite it immediately because time was of the essence. That same day, Mr. Everton responded to Petitioner's request with an E mail message. Expressing his apologies, Mr. Everton advised Petitioner that Respondent's attorneys had Petitioner's initial request. Mr. Everton stated that he would request that the attorneys respond immediately to Petitioner's inquiry. On or about March 13, 1996 Mr. Everton advised Petitioner that he would have to send his request for approval to run for local office directly to the agency head pursuant to the directive contained in Rule 60K-13.0031(1), Florida Administrative Code. By letter dated March 18, 1996 Petitioner requested that Larry Fuchs, Respondent's Executive Director, grant him permission to run for Tax Collector of Clay County. Mr. Fuchs received this letter on March 29, 1996. Mr. Fuchs responded to Petitioner's request by letter dated April 5, 1996. He reminded Petitioner that Rule 60K-13.0031(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires employees to apply directly to the agency head when requesting approval to become a candidate for local office. Mr. Fuchs then gave several reasons why he could not certify to the Department of Management Services that Petitioner's candidacy would involve no interest which conflicts or activity which interferes with his state employment. More specifically, Mr. Fuchs' April 5, 1996 letter stated in relevant part that: Under section 195.002, Florida Statutes, the Department of Revenue has supervision of the tax collection and all other aspects of the administration of such taxes. Your position with the Department may require you to review or audit the activities of the office you propose to seek. Also some of your duties in supervising other officials in the administration of property taxes may be affected by your proposed candidacy. Your job requires you to review appropriate tax returns, and other records to resolve complex issues related to taxing statutes administered by the Department of Revenue. It also requires you to identify and scrutinize transactions to ascertain whether taxpayers have escaped paying property taxes. In addition, it also requires you to review and audit procedures used by counties to identify and value tangible personal property and accomplish statutory compliance, to investigate taxpayer complaints, to conduct field review with county staff as appropriate, and to provide education an assistance to county taxing officials. Because of the Department's statutory super- vision of the office of tax collector, there cannot be a certification that your candidacy would involve "no interest which conflicts or activity which interferes " with your state employment within the definitions of section 110.233(4), Florida Statutes. The letter went on to say that: This letter is a specific instruction to you that you should not qualify or become a candidate for office while employed in your current position. If you wish to commence your campaign by performing the pre-filing requirements, the law requires that you first resign from the Department. Failure to do so shall result in disciplinary action to dismiss you from your position in accordance with the Department's disciplinary standards and procedures, and Rule 60K-4.010, F.A.C., the Department's Code of Conduct, Section 110.233, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60K-13.002(3), F.A.C. After receiving the above decision, Petitioner requested a formal hearing to challenge the denial of his request to run for Tax Collector of Clay County by letter dated April 10, 1996. Respondent received this letter on April 16, 1996. Respondent referred Petitioner's request for a formal hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 26, 1996. Petitioner responded to the Division of Administrative Hearings' Initial Order on May 7, 1996 advising the undersigned that he was unavailable for hearing May 28, 1996 through June 10, 1996 and July 5, 1996. He also included an initial pleading requesting, among other things, that Respondent immediately allow him to run for office and pay his filing fee because, in his opinion, it was too late for him to qualify using the alternative method of submitting petitions. On May 21, 1996 this matter was scheduled for hearing on July 9, 1996. Respondent filed a Unilateral Response to the Initial Order and a Prehearing Statement on May 30, 1996. On June 14, 1996 Petitioner filed a letter stating that it was impossible for him to be prepared for the hearing scheduled for July 9, 1996 for two reasons: (a) he had just returned to work after two weeks of vacation; and (b) he was overwhelmed by discovery associated with his upcoming hearing. Petitioner requested that this matter be continued until sometime after August 15, 1996. He represented that Respondent had no objection to his request. An order dated June 20, 1996 rescheduled the case for hearing on August 19, 1996. On July 18, 1996, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter granting him permission to qualify and file the necessary paperwork to become a candidate for Clay County Tax Collector. The letter also advised Petitioner of the conditions under which he could begin campaign activities while on Respondent's payroll. Respondent's change in position was due in part to the pending Final Order in Hendrick v. Department of Revenue, DOAH Case No. 96-2054. Respondent faxed its July 18, 1996 letter to Petitioner's office at 2:38 p.m. Petitioner's immediate supervisor contacted Petitioner at his home later that day at approximately 3:45 p.m. Petitioner did not request annual leave for the following day so that he could take whatever steps were necessary in order to qualify as a candidate for the office of Tax Collector. Instead, he opted to follow through with his previously arranged appointments for July 19, 1996. On July 22, 1996 Petitioner faxed a letter to Respondent indicating that Respondent had not given him sufficient time in which to meet all requirements to qualify as a candidate for elective office by noon on July 19, 1996. In order to qualify as a candidate for elective office in Clay County, Petitioner had to declare a bank depository for campaign purposes and designate a campaign treasurer. If Petitioner intended to use the alternative method of qualifying by filing petitions, he had to file an alternative affidavit and obtain petition forms from the Clay County Supervisor of Elections between January 3, 1996 and June 21, 1996. He had to submit the signed petitions (Democrats-688; Republicans-990, Independent-1,873) to the Supervisor of Elections on or before June 24, 1996. Regardless of whether Petitioner intended to qualify by paying a fee (Major Party-$5,876.40; Independent-$4,309.36) or by using the alternative petition method, he had to complete all paperwork on or before noon of July 19, 1996. Petitioner did not qualify by either method.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's request for certification to the Department of Management Services that his candidacy for the office of Clay County Tax Collector would involve no interest which conflicts, or activity which interferes, with his state employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick A. Loebig, Esquire Peter S. Fleitman, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Floyd L. Hylton 103 Century 21 Drive, Suite 213 Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is subject to tax based on a lease or license to use real property pursuant to Sections 212.031, 212.054, and 212.55, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Jack and Joan Peoples bought and began operating a bait and tackle shop/fish camp in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, in approximately 1971. The name of the business was Clark's Fish Camp and Seafood. As the business grew, Mr. and Mrs. Peoples began operating a restaurant in the shop. Initially, they lived on the business premises in an apartment adjoining the shop. When the restaurant became more successful, the restaurant was enlarged to include the apartment area and the family bought a home at another location. In January 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Peoples incorporated their business as a Florida Subchapter S Corporation. Pursuant to the organizational minutes, Mr. Peoples was elected president and Mrs. Peoples was elected vice-president and secretary. Petitioner issued common stock to Mr. and Mrs. Peoples as the sole shareholders, each owning a 50 percent interest, in exchange for the good will and name of Clark's Fish Camp and Seafood. Mr. and Mrs. Peoples did not transfer any real property, fixtures, or equipment to Petitioner. At all times material to this case, Mr. and Mrs. Peoples or Mrs. Peoples, in her sole capacity, owned the real property and fixtures utilized by Petitioner in the operation of the restaurant business. At all times relevant here, Mrs. Peoples acted as hostess, cook, and/or manager for the business. She controlled Petitioner's checkbook along with her kitchen manager, Florence Hatfield, and general manager, Steve Morris. During the audit at issue here, Russ Deeter, an accountant, and his associate/former employee, Maxine Downs were responsible for performing all of Petitioner's formal bookkeeping. Mr. Deeter had served as Petitioner's bookkeeper since the early 1970s. He sold his accounting business to Ms. Downs in 1981, but he continued to assist her with the routine bookkeeping for certain clients including Petitioner. Pursuant to the arrangement between Mr. Deeter and Ms. Downs, she created a general ledger in a computer using Petitioner's checkbook, sales receipts, invoices, etc., as source documents. The source documents were then returned to Petitioner. Additionally, Mr. Deeter prepared state and federal tax returns for Petitioner and Mr. and Mrs. Peoples. Mrs. Peoples maintained all of the source documents for Petitioner's business records in a construction trailer/office located behind the restaurant on the property's highest ground. Because the property was prone to flooding, Petitioner placed the source documents and other business records on shelves in the trailer/office. The only file cabinets in the office were used to store restaurant supplies. On or about October 28, 1998, Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Audit Books and Records for sales and use taxes for the period October 1, 1993, to September 30, 1998. The notice also advised Petitioner that Respondent intended to conduct an audit of Petitioner's corporate intangible taxes for the period January 1, 1994, to January 1, 1998. The audit was scheduled to commence some time after December 28, 1998. In the meantime, Mr. Peoples became so ill that Mrs. Peoples closed their home and moved into a mobile home located on the business property. This move allowed Mrs. Peoples to oversee the restaurant business while she nursed her husband. Mr. Peoples died in March 1999. Thereafter, Mrs. Peoples became Petitioner's sole owner. Mrs. Peoples receives a bi-weekly salary from Petitioner in the amount of $3,000. She also makes draws from its bank account to pay business and personal expenses on an as-needed basis. Mrs. Peoples has an eighth grade education. However, she is, in large part, responsible for the success of Petitioner, which during the audit period grossed between $2,500,000 and $3,000,000 a year. Mrs. Peoples asserts that she does not remember signing any tax returns but admits that she signs documents without examining them when requested to do so by Mr. Deeter. By letter dated March 24, 1999, Respondent advised Petitioner that it was rescinding the October 28, 1998, Notice of Intent to Audit Books and Records and replacing it with a new notice. The new Notice of Intent to Audit Books and Records dated March 24, 1999, included an examination of Petitioner's charter city systems surtax for the period March 1, 1994, through February 28, 1999; Petitioner's sales and use tax from March 1, 1994, through February 28, 1999; and Petitioner's intangible personal property tax from January 1, 1995, through January 1, 1999. The new notice stated that the audit would begin on or before May 24, 1999. On May 23, 1999, Petitioner requested a postponement of the audit due to the death of Mr. Peoples. As a result of this request, Respondent postponed the audit until January 10, 2000. On May 25, 1999, Mrs. Peoples signed a Power of Attorney for Mr. Deeter to represent the business during the audit. In anticipation of the audit, Mrs. Peoples and her staff began going through the source documents stored in the trailer/office. Mr. Deeter also gathered pertinent records and computer printouts. All documents required for the audit were placed in boxes or sacks on the floor of the trailer/office. In September of 1999, Petitioner's property flooded due to a hurricane. The water rose above the elevated entrance to the trailer/office. Mrs. Peoples and Petitioner's employees made no effort to protect the documents on the floor of the trailer/office from the floodwaters. Petitioner's September 1999 insurance claims due to flood loss do not contain a claim for loss of documentation. The 1999 flood loss claims were small in comparison to the flood loss claims for 2001 even though the 1999 floodwaters rose high enough to destroy the records. Record evidence indicates that the trailer/office has flooded on more than one occasion. In September 1999, all of the documents on the floor of the office were destroyed. Subsequently, Mrs. Peoples and Ms. Hatfield disposed of the documents, including but not limited to, the printouts of the general ledger, bank statements, and cancelled checks. On January 7, 2000, Petitioner requested another postponement of the audit until July 1, 2000. Petitioner made the request due to the death of Ms. Downs in December 1999. After her death, Mr. Deeter discovered that Ms. Downs' computer and all backup tapes located in her home office were either stolen or otherwise unaccounted for. The missing computer records included Petitioner's bookkeeping records for the audit period at issue here. On January 15, 2000, Petitioner agreed to extend the time for Respondent to perform the audit. The agreement stated that Respondent could issue an assessment at any time before October 28, 2001. On July 6, 2000, Respondent issued a formal demand for Petitioner to produce certain records. The only records available were Mr. Deeter's own work papers, post-September 1999 materials that had not been placed in the trailer/office prior to the flood, or records prepared after the flood and death of Ms. Downs. On July 17, 2000, the parties signed an Audit Agreement. The agreement states that the audit of sales of tangible personal property would be controlled by the sampling method. On July 17, 2000, Mr. Deeter informed Respondent that Petitioner's records covering the period from 1993 through the middle of 1999 were not available because a flood had damaged them in September 1999. However, using his work papers, Mr. Deeter was able to provide Respondent with copies of some of the original federal tax returns that he had prepared for Petitioner and Mr. and Mrs. Peoples. During the hearing, Mr. Deeter asserted that he had delivered the original tax returns to Mr. and Mrs. Peoples who had the responsibility to sign, date, and file them with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) at the appropriate times. Mrs. Peoples testified that she could not remember signing any returns. She believed that Mr. Deeter had assumed responsibility for filing the returns. The unsigned and undated copies of the returns that Mr. Deeter provided Respondent on July 17, 2000, included Petitioner's U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation (Form 1120S) for 1996, 1997, and 1998. These returns showed that Petitioner took the following deductions from income for a lease expense: (a) 1996--$225,546; (b) 1997--$332,791; and 1998--$290,493. These are the amounts that Respondent seeks to tax as rent. Mr. Deeter also provided Respondent with an unsigned and undated copy of Mr. and Mrs. Peoples' 1998 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040). The return included both pages of Schedule E showing rents received from Petitioner. On July 28, 2000, Mr. Deeter provided Respondent with revised copies of Petitioner's 1120S forms and revised copies of Mr. and Mrs. Peoples' 1040 forms. The auditor's file does not contain copies of the revised returns because the auditor did not accept them. The record also indicates that Mr. Deeter did not want to leave the revised returns with Respondent because they were not copies of the original returns. During the hearing, Mr. Deeter testified that he furnished Respondent with revised returns to show that there was no difference in the amount of federal income tax due and payable by Mr. and Mrs. Peoples regardless of whether Petitioner reported a lease expense or a distribution of profit on its 1120S forms and regardless of whether Mr. and Mrs. Peoples reported Petitioner's income as rent received or a profit distribution on their 1040 forms. According to Mr. Deeter, he prepared the revised 1120S returns using his pencil copies of the original handwritten returns because he had never used a computer software program to prepare 1120S forms. Mr. Deeter had a computer software program to prepare 1040 forms, so he used that program to generate the revised 1040 returns. However, Mr. Deeter's testimony that the revised returns were drafts showing Petitioner's deduction of a lease expense and Mr. and Mrs. Peoples' receipt of rent is not persuasive. In November 2000, Respondent obtained copies of Petitioner's 1120S forms and Mr. and Mrs. Peoples' 1040 forms for 1994 and 1995 from the IRS. The IRS did not have copies of these returns for the years 1996 through 1999. However, there is record evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Peoples paid some income taxes for all years in question. The record does not contain copies of the 1994 and 1995 returns. Competent evidence indicates that, consistent with Respondent's routine practice, the auditor reviewed the 1040 and 1120S forms and returned them to the IRS without making copies for Respondent's file. Based on the auditor's review of Petitioner's 1120S returns, Respondent seeks to tax Petitioner for lease expense in the amounts of $152,782.24 in 1994 and $220,355.85 in 1995. During the hearing, Mr. Deeter conceded that he prepared Petitioner's 1120S forms for 1994 and 1995 showing deductions for a lease expense and Mr. and Mrs. Peoples' 1040 forms showing rent received from Petitioner. His testimony that he prepared all returns in subsequent years showing no lease expense for Petitioner and profit distributions instead of rent received for Mr. and Mrs. Peoples is not persuasive. In November 2000, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes. The notice made no adjustment with respect to Petitioner's reported taxable sales. The only adjustment was based on lease payments from Petitioner to Mr. and Mrs. Peoples as consideration for the rent of the building and fixtures utilized by Petitioner in the conduct of its business. On January 26, 2001, Mr. Deeter had an audit conference with Respondent's staff. During the conference, Mr. Deeter requested that Respondent review Petitioner's amended 1120S forms for the years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. The amended 1120S returns did not include deductions for a lease expense. Respondent would not accept the amended returns, but informed Mr. Deeter that it would review the amended returns if he could document that they had been filed with the IRS. On March 7, 2001, the IRS stamped the amended 1120S forms for 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 as having been received. Mrs. Peoples had signed the returns as Petitioner's president but she did not date her signatures. Mr. Deeter testified that his wife, Roberta Lawson, signed the amended 1120S returns as the tax preparer. Mrs. Lawson's purported signatures on the forms were dated appropriately for each tax year. However, Mrs. Lawson did not testify at the hearing. Mr. Deeter's testimony that the returns filed with the IRS on March 7, 2001, after the audit was completed were, in fact, exact copies of the returns that he and his wife prepared for Petitioner each year and provided to Respondent on July 17, 2000, is not persuasive. After receiving the amended 1120S returns, Respondent decided not to consider them in the audit because they were self-serving. On August 6, 2001, Respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment of sales and use tax and charter transit system surtax. By letter dated October 2, 2001, Petitioner filed a timely informal protest of the proposed assessment. Petitioner asserted that it had never paid any rent to Mr. and Mrs. Peoples. On January 29, 2002, Respondent issued a Notice of Decision upholding the proposed assessments. However, Petitioner never received this notice. Therefore, Respondent reissued the Notice of Decision without any additional changes on August 14, 2002. During discovery, Petitioner provided Respondent with unsigned and undated copies of Mr. and Mrs. Peoples' 1040 forms for 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. These returns show taxable income derived from an S corporation on line 17, passive income and losses from Petitioner on page 2 of Schedule E, and depreciation on Form 4562. In other words, the returns reflect corporate distributions of profit from Petitioner and do not reference any income from rental real estate. Mr. Deeter's testimony during hearing that the 1040 returns provided to Respondent during discovery are exact copies of the original 1040 returns is not persuasive. As of December 12, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Peoples had not filed 1040 returns for the years 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, or 1996 with the IRS. The audit at issue here was based on the best information provided at the time of the audit. Respondent completed the audit on or about January 26, 2001. Petitioner does not assert that the calculation of the assessment was in error. Instead, Petitioner protests that any assessment is due. Petitioner could have requested its bank to provide it with copies of its statements and cancelled checks for the relevant period. Petitioner did not make such a request and Respondent was not under an obligation to do so. There is no evidence that a written lease for Petitioner to use Mr. and Mrs. People's property ever existed. However, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner leased the restaurant property from Mr. and Mrs. Peoples for all relevant years. Mr. Deeter is an experienced accountant with over 30 years of experience. Petitioner and Mr. and Mrs. Peoples relied upon Mr. Deeter's advice as to what, if any, taxes should be paid on the lease. Armed with all of the necessary information, Mr. Deeter gave Petitioner obviously erroneous advice concerning the tax consequences associated with Petitioner leasing the property and paying 100 percent of its profits as consideration for the lease. To compound the problem, Mrs. Peoples negligently failed to ensure that Petitioner's business records, gathered specifically in anticipation of Respondent's audit, were safely preserved from hurricane floodwaters. Petitioner has had no previous tax compliance difficulties. It has not been subject to prior audits or assessments. Even so, the facts of this case indicate that Petitioner and Mr. and Ms. Peoples did not exercise ordinary care and prudence in complying with the revenue laws of Florida. Mr. Deeter testified that the fair market value or reasonable consideration for the lease is an amount equivalent to Mr. and Mrs. Peoples' depreciation. According to the depreciation schedules, which accompanied the 1040 forms provided to Respondent during discovery, the annual cost for the use of the property and fixtures were as follows: (a) 1996--$98,296; (b) 1997--$104,840; and (c) 1998--$114,106 ($179,554 less a one time extraordinary loss of $65,448 due to flood damage). Mr. Deeter also testified that using the information on the 1040 forms for 1996, the depreciation expense for 1994 and 1995 can be computed as follows: (a) 1994--$63,000 to $67,000; and (b) 1995--$77,000 to $79,000. Mr. Deeter's testimony that the fair market value of the lease is equivalent to the depreciation set forth on 1040 returns never filed with the IRS is not persuasive. Mr. Deeter testified that an estimate of reasonable net profits for a corporation of similar size and make-up could be determined by reference to ratio profiles prepared by Robert Morris and Associates. Mr. Deeter's testimony regarding average profit distributions to shareholders of similarly situated corporations and reasonable profit distributions for Petitioner are speculative and not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order upholding the tax assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 4th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: David B. Ferebee, Esquire Post Office Box 1796 Jacksonville, Florida 32201-1796 J. Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 R. Lynn Lovejoy, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Alachua County Tax Collector, discriminated against Petitioner based upon her race, in violation of section , Florida Statutes,1 and/or whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for the exercise of protected rights under section 760.10.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Tax Collector is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Ms. Tyson is an African American female who worked for the Tax Collector from 1993 until her employment was terminated on June 22, 2017. John Power is the elected Alachua County Tax Collector. Below him in the chain of command is Jon Costabile, the Chief Deputy Tax Collector. Directly below Mr. Costabile is Executive Director Donna Johnson. The Tax Collector has four offices in Gainesville: Downtown, Southwest, Northwest, and a Communication and Processing Center (the “CPC”). Each of these offices is supervised by a branch Director who reports to Ms. Johnson. Two supervisors called Coordinators directly report to each Director. At the time of her dismissal, Ms. Tyson was a Coordinator at the Downtown office. The other Coordinator at the Downtown office was Veronica Taylor, also an African American female. Ms. Tyson’s employee evaluations over the years were generally positive as to her performance. However, she had a reputation, at least among her fellow supervisory employees, of being temperamental and difficult to work with. Her ultimate dismissal was based on her insubordinate conduct, not her job performance. The series of events leading to Ms. Tyson’s dismissal began in Spring 2017, when the decision was made to move Lori Carmichael, the Director of the Downtown office, to the CPC facility. This move created a vacancy in the Downtown office. For supervisory positions, the Tax Collector seeks to promote internally. Mr. Costabile testified that the pool for the vacant Director position comprised the current branch Coordinators, including Ms. Tyson. Mr. Costabile and Ms. Johnson consulted the Directors regarding their recommendations for the position. Mr. Costabile testified that Venus McCray, a Coordinator in the Southwest office, was the clear number one choice for the Downtown Director position. All of the Directors agreed on the choice of Ms. McCray, who is African American. Not only was Ms. McCray the unanimous choice of the other Directors, but she was senior to Ms. Tyson in the Tax Collector’s office. Mr. Costabile testified that the Directors are a close knit group that works closely together. Two of the Directors told him point-blank that they did not want to work with Ms. Tyson. There were no specific complaints about Ms. Tyson, just a general feeling that she was “standoffish” and people had to “walk on eggshells” around her. Ms. Tyson testified that Ms. Carmichael recommended her for the Downtown Director position. In her testimony, Ms. Carmichael was generally positive about Ms. Tyson but did not confirm that she recommended her as Director. Ms. Carmichael did confirm Ms. Tyson’s testimony that, upon learning of Ms. McCray’s promotion, Ms. Tyson asked Ms. Carmichael why she was passed over for promotion. Ms. Carmichael agreed to take up the issue with Ms. Johnson, who told her that Ms. Tyson had a propensity for ignoring the Directors and needed to make an effort to be more interactive and look people in the eye. Ms. Carmichael passed this information on to Ms. Tyson. Ms. Tyson testified that Ms. Johnson was referring to occasions when Directors from other offices would visit the Downtown office. She stated that these were four white women who would not acknowledge her when she spoke to them, or at best would “smirk” at her. Ms. Tyson felt insulted by their behavior. She told Ms. Carmichael that Ms. Johnson’s advice was demeaning, inhumane, and “slave-ish.” Ms. McCray testified that she had “bumped heads” with Ms. Tyson in the past and therefore had some reservations about accepting the Downtown position. Her misgivings appeared justified when she went to the office to shadow Ms. Carmichael before taking over her position. Ms. Carmichael was not there when Ms. McCray arrived, so she spoke to Ms. Tyson and Ms. Taylor, the two Coordinators in the Downtown office. Ms. Tyson asked Ms. McCray why she had not personally contacted her to tell her about her promotion. Ms. McCray responded that she had been told not to discuss the promotion before the official announcement. This answer did not satisfy Ms. Tyson. The conversation was uncomfortable enough that Ms. Taylor felt compelled to walk away and give privacy to the other two women. After taking over as Director, Ms. McCray would have regular meetings with her Coordinators. She testified that Ms. Taylor was positive and cooperative but Ms. Tyson was consistently disagreeable. Ms. McCray testified that she dreaded coming to work in the morning knowing she had to deal with Ms. Tyson. At a meeting on June 19, 2017, Ms. McCray was questioning her Coordinators about the duties of office personnel, trying to get a feel for the daily operation of the Downtown office. Ms. McCray testified that Ms. Tyson studiously avoided making any eye contact with her. Ms. Tyson sat with her head down. She doodled on a piece of paper while Ms. McCray spoke. Ms. McCray asked Ms. Tyson to please do her the courtesy of looking her in the eye. Ms. Tyson said, “I don’t have to,” and continued scribbling on the paper. Ms. Tyson testified that she was taking thorough notes during the meeting. She stated that she takes pain medications for carpal tunnel syndrome and wants to be sure she gets things right because she does not want her superiors blaming mistakes on her medications. Ms. Tyson testified that when Ms. McCray asked her to look her in the eye, she looked up and asked Ms. McCray why she needed to look her in the eye while taking notes. Ms. McCray’s version of the June 19, 2017, meeting is more believable. Ms. McCray is credited with knowing the difference between avid notetaking and idle scribbling. It is noted that even Ms. Tyson’s version of the meeting presents Ms. Tyson as defensive and somewhat truculent toward her superior. Mr. Costabile testified that after she had been at the Downtown office for a couple of weeks, Ms. McCray requested a meeting with Ms. Johnson and him to discuss her difficulties with Ms. Tyson. Ms. McCray stated that she might have to go back to being a Coordinator in a different office if the situation did not improve. Mr. Costabile recalled Ms. McCray stating that she did not want to be a Director if it was going to affect her health. Mr. Power testified that Ms. Johnson came to him with concerns about Ms. Tyson’s acceptance of Ms. McCray as her Director. Ms. Johnson reported that Ms. Tyson was being very disrespectful and difficult to work with. Mr. Power testified that he took this matter seriously because Ms. Johnson does not come to him with personnel matters unless they are important. Mr. Power testified that Ms. McCray herself spoke to him after a morning meeting at the Northwest office. She told him that things were not going well and he responded that he had heard about the problem. Ms. McCray told him that Ms. Tyson was being disrespectful, embarrassing, and disruptive. Mr. Power advised her to give the situation some time to sort itself out. The Downtown office opened to the public at 8:30 a.m. It was Ms. McCray’s practice to hold an all-employees meeting at 8:15 each morning. On the morning of June 22, 2017, Mr. Power, Mr. Costabile, and Ms. Johnson happened to be present at the meeting. Ms. McCray stood at the front of the group, flanked by her Coordinators, Ms. Tyson and Ms. Taylor. Ms. McCray convened the meeting and announced that she wanted the employees to set personal and professional goals for themselves. She distributed “goal sheets” for each employee to fill out. This exercise served the dual purpose of helping the employees establish priorities and helping Ms. McCray get to know them better. The general feeling in the room was enthusiastic support for Ms. McCray’s idea. The meeting lasted about 15 minutes. Everyone in the room was oriented toward, and listening to, Ms. McCray, except for Ms. Tyson. Ms. Tyson stood with her arms folded across her chest, ostentatiously turned away from Ms. McCray. She stared at the ceiling, apparently uninterested, while Ms. McCray spoke. At the conclusion of her presentation, Ms. McCray turned to her Coordinators to ask if they had anything to add. She first asked Ms. Taylor, who responded that she thought the goal setting exercise was a good idea. Ms. McCray then asked Ms. Tyson if she had anything to add. Without looking away from the ceiling or turning toward Ms. McCray, she said, “Nope.” The testimony of Mr. Power, Mr. Costabile, Ms. McCray, and Ms. Taylor all agreed on the facts as set forth in the previous two paragraphs. Ms. Tyson stood in front of all the Downtown employees and all her superiors in the Tax Collector’s office in a manner clearly intended to convey contempt for Ms. McCray. Each of these witnesses heard Ms. Tyson answer “nope” to Ms. McCray’s question.2 Ms. Tyson testified that she was turned away from Ms. McCray because she was speaking to another employee. She stated that her arms are always crossed because of her severe pain. She testified that the state of her C5 and C7 vertebrae make it impossible for her to look at the ceiling for 15 minutes. She stated that it is “not my nature” to turn away from Ms. McCray and that “‘nope’ is not in my vocabulary.” Given the unanimity of the contrary testimony, Ms. Tyson’s version of the June 22, 2017, meeting cannot be credited. Mr. Power testified that Ms. Tyson’s behavior at the meeting left him aghast. Her body language indicated she was removing herself from the meeting, though as a supervisor she was expected to set an example for the front line employees. Mr. Power stated that he “about fell on the floor” when Ms. Tyson said “nope” in answer to Ms. McCray’s question. After the meeting, Mr. Power retired to his office to ponder his options as to Ms. Tyson. He had been hearing reports about Ms. Tyson’s behavior for the past month and now he had seen it with his own eyes. Ms. Tyson was a leader in the organization and had blatantly shown disrespect to a member of senior management in front of all the Downtown staff. She was advertising her opinion that no one should listen to Ms. McCray. Mr. Power decided that Ms. Tyson’s employment should be terminated. He directed Mr. Costabile to release Ms. Tyson from the Tax Collector’s office. Mr. Costabile prepared the paperwork and convened the termination meeting with Ms. Tyson. Also present at the meeting was Human Resources Administrator Linda Power, whose only function was to serve as a witness. 2 It is possible to answer “nope” in a way that conveys a positive attitude toward the questioner. However, each of these witnesses demonstrated the contemptuous manner in which Ms. Tyson spoke the word. The meeting was brief. Mr. Costabile told Ms. Tyson that her insubordination was a serious matter. He stated that every employee needs to accept change, but Ms. Tyson was apparently unable to accept Ms. McCray’s promotion. Ms. Tyson was a member of management and was expected to set an example for her subordinates. The Tax Collector’s policy is to offer an employment resignation agreement, waiver, and release when a long-term employee is terminated for cause, in lieu of termination. The agreement includes a severance package. Ms. Tyson declined to accept the offer to resign. Mr. Costabile terminated her employment effectively immediately. Ms. Tyson testified that Mr. Costabile told her that she was being fired for failing to look Donna Johnson in the eye at the morning meeting. Ms. Tyson responded that Donna Johnson wasn’t speaking at the meeting. “Why would I be looking her in the eye?” She testified that Mr. Costabile told her she was bringing down the morale of the office and that people were complaining. Mr. Costabile credibly denied telling Ms. Tyson she was being fired for not looking someone in the eye. Ms. Tyson’s position as Coordinator was ultimately filled by Christie Tyson, a white woman who is not related to Ms. Tyson. Ms. McCray testified that Ms. Johnson asked her whether she thought the job should go to Christie Tyson or to Regina Gainey, an African American woman. Ms. McCray testified that she recommended Christie Tyson, based on prior experience of working with her. Ms. Taylor, the other Coordinator in the Downtown office, also recommended Christie Tyson.3 3 Ms. Tyson made an issue of the fact that Christie Tyson and Donna Johnson share a grandson. However, given the unanimity of the recommendation, it is found that Ms. Johnson did not improperly favor Christie Tyson. Furthermore, whether Ms. Tyson’s replacement had a familial relationship with one of her former superiors has nothing to do with whether Ms. Tyson was terminated on the basis of her race. Ms. Tyson believed that her dismissal had been in the works since April, and that Christie Tyson had been “groomed” to take her place. She saw a nefarious connection between Ms. Johnson’s advice that she greet and look the Directors in the eye and Ms. McCray’s request that she look her in the eye at the June 19 meeting. She offered no supporting evidence for her intuitions. Ms. Tyson testified that because the Tax Collector’s office was planning to fire her, a black woman, they needed another black woman to take her place in order to fend off public complaint. She further testified, without support, that Ms. McCray was a useful pawn in that regard, willing to lie about her interactions with Ms. Tyson to advance her own career. Ms. Tyson testified that after being told multiple times to look people in the eye, she was sure that something was up. She stated that she went to Veronica Taylor’s office and told her she knew she would not be around much longer. Ms. Taylor did not confirm this incident in her testimony. Ms. Tyson testified that, a day or so after her conversation with Ms. Taylor, she accidentally bumped into Mr. Power in the office, and he said to her, “You look like the type that will fight.” Ms. Tyson stated that this scared her because she did not know why he would say that. She went to her office and scoured her notes looking for what she had done wrong. She tearfully phoned her mother and asked for her prayers because she was about to be fired. Mr. Power flatly and credibly denied telling Ms. Tyson that she looked like she would fight. Ms. Tyson presented the testimony of other Tax Collector employees who believed there was an element of racism in the running of the office. Isaiah Minter, an African American male, worked in the Tax Collector’s office in a non-supervisory capacity from 2013 to 2015. Ms. Tyson was his Coordinator. He testified that he came to the job with a bachelor’s degree from the University of Florida and experience as a driver’s license examiner. He expected to advance quickly. He was upset when Ms. Johnson told him that he would have to prove himself and that it might take five years for him to be promoted into a supervisory job. He was offended that Mr. Power told him he was needed at the front desk. Mr. Minter left the Tax Collector’s office in good standing to take a job at the Veterans Administration. Moranda Bethley, an African American female, worked in the Tax Collector’s office from December 2003 until March 2017. She worked with Ms. Tyson at the Northwest and Downtown offices. Ms. Bethley described Ms. Tyson as a “saint,” always friendly, personable, positive, and helpful. Ms. Bethley testified that there was no room for black people to advance in the Tax Collector’s office. The supervisors would tell the black employees they were doing a good job, keep up the good work, but would never offer a promotion. The white supervisors were less interested in helping than in pointing the finger at the employee seeking help. Ms. Bethley would seek out the assistance of Ms. Tyson rather than her own supervisor because of the latter’s negativity. Ms. Bethley resigned in lieu of termination as a result of her persistent practice of disruptive behavior in the workplace, culminating in a weeks-long conflict with a fellow employee that could not be resolved and that escalated to the point that management concluded that Ms. Bethley’s employment was no longer tenable. The weight given to Ms. Bethley’s testimony as to the atmosphere of the office is lessened by the evidence of her own unprofessional behavior. Toya Williams, an African American female, worked at the Tax Collector’s office from 2013 until May 11, 2017. Ms. Tyson supervised her for at least part of that time. She found it unsettling that in her two interviews for positions with the agency, she met with two white males and five white females. She asked questions about the racial mix of personnel and was assured that progress would come. Ms. Williams testified that in her four years, she never served under a Director of color. Ms. Williams initially worked at the Southwest office, where there was a lot of “cliquish foolery.” The Director was incompetent, unable to explain the work they were doing. Venus McCray was one of the Coordinators and was the only knowledgeable supervisor in the office. At one point, Ms. McCray asked the employees to stop coming to her for help so often, because the Director and the other Coordinator had noticed that no one ever sought their assistance. Ms. Williams immediately felt a difference when she moved to the Downtown office. There were frequent morning meetings and Ms. Tyson went out of her way to greet everyone in the morning. Ms. Tyson was good for morale. If an employee made a mistake, she used it as a teaching method rather than an opportunity to castigate the employee. Ms. Williams testified to being shocked when Mr. Power referred to the Downtown office as the “ghetto office” at a morning meeting. She wondered whether he gave it that name because it was in a decrepit old building, or because it was the only office with two black Coordinators and was located in a part of town where many black people lived. Ms. Williams resigned from the Tax Collector’s office as an employee in good standing to accept another job. Amber Allen, an African American female, worked as an intern at the Tax Collector’s office from 2013 through March 2016. Ms. Allen testified that she worked with Ms. Tyson at the Downtown office and that Ms. Tyson was the only reason she stayed as long as she did. Ms. Tyson encouraged her to focus on her work instead of office politics and the racism of the white supervisors. Ms. Allen testified that one day she changed into flat shoes before going out into the street for her lunch hour. Ms. Johnson told her that her overall demeanor, appearance, and hairstyle were too relaxed for the Tax Collector’s professional environment. Ms. Allen stated that on that day, she had pinned up her hair on one side. The other side was in an Afro style. Ms. Allen testified that she spent the rest of that lunch hour on the phone crying to her mother, asking why she was required to gauge how black she was allowed to look at work. She wanted to quit the job, but Ms. Tyson took her into her office and counseled her to advocate for herself in the office, but not in a disrespectful or demeaning way. Ms. Allen testified that Ms. Johnson never made any more comments about her relaxed appearance but that she did make comments about her hair. Ms. Allen found this especially galling because her white counterparts would arrive at work with hair so wet that it soaked the backs of their chairs and their shirts, but Ms. Johnson said nothing. Ms. Allen stated that Ms. Johnson’s comments made her feel small. Ms. Allen testified that she was also at the meeting at which Mr. Power referred to the Downtown office as the ghetto office. Mr. Power stated that the office dealt with many different types of people, many of them unsavory. He also mentioned that much of the Downtown client base came from the east side of Gainesville, known as a minority area. Ms. Allen was certain that Mr. Power was not referring to the physical condition of the building, but the people who were being served in the building. She testified that a number of black employees found the comments “disgusting.” Mr. Power testified that he indeed referred to the Downtown office as the ghetto office at a morning meeting. He stated that he used that term because the building was in a “deplorable condition,” like a building in a ghetto. It was embarrassing to the staff. One day, a rat fell through the ceiling in the middle of work. Mr. Power testified that his use of “ghetto” referred only to the building, not to any of the building’s customers. He stated that he would not use “east side” as a pejorative term, if for no other reason than because he lives on the east side. Copious evidence was presented attesting to Mr. Power’s personal and professional involvement in the African American community of Alachua County. There is little question that Mr. Power does not harbor any animosity or personal discriminatory feelings toward African Americans. However, this finding is not inconsistent with Ms. Tyson’s allegation that there is an element of institutional racism at work in the Tax Collector’s office. The testimony of Petitioner’s supporting witnesses should not be minimized. It is clear that the Tax Collector has at least a perception problem. Rightly or wrongly, some African American employees believe that their working environment and path to advancement are tainted by racism. It might prove fruitful for Mr. Power to institute a program of institutional soul-searching on the question. That being said, the purpose of this proceeding is not to undertake a systemic analysis of racism in the Tax Collector’s office. This proceeding is limited to the question of whether the adverse employment action taken against Ms. Tyson was an act of racial discrimination. The overwhelming evidence is that it was not. Ms. Tyson presented no persuasive evidence that comparable employees outside of her protected group were treated differently. She alleged that a white supervisor named Valerie Jerkins had a practice of clocking in to the workplace then leaving without clocking out, thus stealing time from the Tax Collector, without being subject to any adverse employment action. Ms. Tyson had no firsthand knowledge of this alleged behavior. The only employee claiming direct knowledge of Ms. Jerkins’s behavior was Ms. Bethley, who claimed that she reported the matter to Ms. Johnson. None of the supervisory employees who testified, including Ms. Johnson, had any recollection of having received a report or complaint of Ms. Jerkins stealing time. Mr. Costabile testified as to a former employee named Tracy Jones, a Caucasian woman who held several positions in the Tax Collector’s office and was a Director at the time her employment was terminated in June 2018. Ms. Johnson had asked Ms. Jones to accept a reassignment. Ms. Jones proceeded to announce her displeasure to other employees and customers. Ms. Jones was dismissed for insubordination. In summary, it is found that the decision to terminate Ms. Tyson’s employment was based entirely on her own behavior. It is clear that Ms. Tyson’s bitterness at being passed over for the Director’s job poisoned her relationship with Ms. McCray and led her to behave in a manner so startlingly unprofessional that Mr. Power saw no option but to dismiss her.4 Ms. Tyson offered no evidence that, prior to her termination, she opposed any discriminatory practices at the Tax Collector’s office, or that she participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing challenging discriminatory practices at the Tax Collector’s office. Ms. Tyson offered no evidence to support her allegation that the Tax Collector retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity. Ms. Tyson offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non- discriminatory reason given by the Tax Collector for her termination. Ms. Tyson offered no credible evidence that the Tax Collector’s stated reason for her termination was a pretext for discrimination based on her race or color. Ms. Tyson offered no credible evidence that the Tax Collector discriminated against her because of her race or color in violation of section 760.10.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the Alachua County Tax Commissioner did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31at day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 31st day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) William H. Andrews, Esquire Gray Robinson Suite 1100 50 North Laura Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202-3611 (eServed) Salana Tyson 21812 Northwest 210th Avenue High Springs, Florida 32643 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner's business records for the period July 1, 1985, through June 30, 1990. Respondent determined a deficiency in sales tax of $174,823.96, including penalty and interest through August 22, 1990. Petitioner objected to the deficiency. Respondent reviewed the audit, and made audit changes that are the subject of this proceeding. The audit changes determined a deficiency in use tax of $76,035.60, including tax ($47,910.10), penalty ($11,977.68), and interest through March 12, 1991 ($16,147.60). Interest accrues daily in the amount of $15.75. A First Revised Notice Of Intent To Make Sales Tax Changes, for the reduced assessment of $76,035.60, was issued on March 21, 1991. A Notice Of Proposed Assessment was issued on July 2, 1991. The Notice Of Proposed Assessment became a Final Assessment on August 31, 1991. Respondent made a prima facie showing of the factual and legal basis for the use tax assessment. Section 120.575(2), Florida Statutes. 1/ The audit and assessment are procedurally correct. Tax, interest, and penalty are correctly computed. Formation Petitioner was incorporated in Florida, in January, 1983, by Mr. B. Theodore Troy, president and sole shareholder. Petitioner's principal place of business is 101 Wymore Road, Suite 224, Altamonte Springs, Florida. Petitioner conducted business as American Advertising Distributors of Central Florida. Mr. Troy and his wife operated the business until liquidating Petitioner's assets in 1992. Operation Petitioner sold direct mail advertising to Florida businesses. Petitioner operated pursuant to a franchise agreement with American Advertising Distributors, Inc., of Mesa, Arizona ("AAD"). AAD was Petitioner's franchisor until AAD filed for bankruptcy in 1990. Petitioner solicited orders from Florida businesses 2/ for advertising coupons designed and printed by AAD in Arizona. AAD mailed the advertising coupons to addressees in Florida who were potential customers for Florida businesses. Florida businesses placed orders with Petitioner on written contracts, or sales agreements, labeled "advertising orders." AAD was not a party to advertising orders. Advertising orders identified "AAD" as American Advertising Distributors of Central Florida, and were imprinted with the name and address of "AAD" in Central Florida. Advertising orders specified the total charges, color and stock of paper, number of addressees, and areas of distribution. Petitioner assisted businesses with rough layout for art work. The rough layout was forwarded to AAD. AAD prepared finished art work and sent copies back to Petitioner for approval by Florida businesses. AAD then printed, collated, and mailed advertising coupons to addressees in Florida, without charge to addressees. Florida businesses paid non-refundable deposits when placing advertising orders. The remaining balance was paid upon approval of final art work. AAD did not submit invoices to Florida businesses. AAD submitted invoices to Petitioner for the amount due from Petitioner. 3/ Petitioner paid AAD 10 days before advertising coupons were mailed. Some advertising coupons were produced by Laberge Printers, Inc., in Orlando, Florida ("Laberge"). Coupons from Laberge were designed, printed, and distributed in the same manner as coupons from AAD. Two types of advertising coupons were provided by AAD and Laberge. The majority of coupons were distributed in coop mailings, or "bonus express" envelopes, containing coupons for up to 20 businesses. Bonus express envelopes were mailed approximately eight times a year. Advertising coupons were also distributed in "solo" mailings. A solo mailing was an individualized, custom printed coupon, or flyer, mailed to individual addressees. The total charges stated in advertising orders included the cost of services provided by Petitioner, AAD, and Laberge. Services included typesetting, art work, printing, inserting envelopes, and mailing. Florida imposed a tax on services, from July 1, 1987, through December 31, 1987. Petitioner collected and remitted tax imposed on the cost of services included in the total charges stated on advertising orders. Except for the services tax, neither Petitioner, AAD, nor Laberge collected and remitted sales or use tax to Florida or to Arizona. Petitioner never utilized resale certificates for any tax other than the tax on services. Collectibility Petitioner was financially able to pay the use tax assessment during 1990 and 1991. No later than August 22, 1990, Mr. Troy knew of the sales tax deficiency of $174,823.96. By March 21, 1991, Mr. Troy knew of the reduced use tax assessment of $76,035.60. During 1990 and 1991, Petitioner made discretionary payments to Mr. Troy of $110,389. Petitioner reported federal taxable income of $58,279 in 1990 and 1991. 4/ In arriving at taxable income, Petitioner deducted payments to Mr. Troy of $59,430 for compensation to officers, management fees, and salary. 5/ From taxable income of $58,279, Petitioner paid approximately $50,959 to Mr. Troy in nondeductible shareholder loans. 6/ Discretionary payments of $110,389, 7/ made to Mr. Troy in 1990 and 1991, were more than adequate to pay the use tax assessment of $76,036.60. At the end of 1991, Petitioner reported fixed assets with a book value of $14,933, a customer list valued at $104,447.72, and retained earnings of $102,605. The book value of intangible assets was $82,943, comprised primarily of the franchise, valued at $35,000, and goodwill of $45,000. Termination Of Operations But Continued Existence AAD petitioned for bankruptcy in 1990. Petitioner subsequently determined that its franchise and goodwill were worthless. In 1992, Petitioner reported a loss of $99,726 for federal tax purposes. All of Petitioner's assets, including its customer lists, were sold or transferred for $1,330 to Florida Mail, Inc. ("Florida Mail"). Florida Mail is a Florida corporation wholly owned by Mr. Troy. Florida Mail sells direct mail advertising; and shares Petitioner's principal place of business. Since 1992, Petitioner has been a shell corporation with $579 in assets.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order upholding the assessment of tax and interest and waive all of the penalty included in the assessment. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of June, 1994. DANIEL MANRY 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 2nd day of June, 1994.
Findings Of Fact On September 30, 2010, Petitioner submitted an online application for a tax registration as a new business entity. Respondent began the process of creating an internal "account" for Petitioner on October 1, 2010. On October 2, 2010, Respondent's database system created a delinquency notice advising Petitioner that sales and use tax returns for calendar years 2007, 2008, and 2009 had not been received. On October 4, 2010, Respondent received an envelope from Petitioner containing sales and use tax returns for calendar years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, as well as Petitioner's signed Tax Amnesty Agreement. No remittance accompanied the tax returns (or the remittance check was misplaced), so the Department's system generated a billing notice to Petitioner dated December 10, 2010, and a Notice of Final Assessment dated January 25, 2011. Petitioner advised Respondent that a check had been sent along with the tax returns. Discussions between the parties ensued, and Petitioner was asked to provide a replacement check. On or about March 11, 2011, Respondent received a replacement payment from Petitioner. Petitioner, by way of his replacement check, paid the Department the sum of one thousand eighty-nine dollars and forty-three cents ($1,089.43) in full settlement of all amounts due and owing under Petitioner's sales and use tax returns for calendar years 2007, 2008, 2009, and, although not included in the initial petitions, 2010. Respondent accepted the payment made by Petitioner in full settlement of the sales and use taxes owed for the years in question. Petitioner is not liable for any further penalties, interest, or other payments on the aforementioned tax returns.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitions for administrative hearing in this case be dismissed, as there are no further disputed issues of material fact. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa Vickers, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Marshall Stranburg, General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Patrick John McGinley, Esquire Law Office of Patrick John McGinley, P.A. 2265 Lee Road, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 John Mika, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
