Findings Of Fact Petitioner Auto/Truck Plaza Specialists, Inc., a Florida Corporation, (formerly GHM, Inc. of Baldwin) operates a "truck stop" in Baldwin, Florida, which sells special fuel and motor fuel under a dealer's license issued by the respondent. The firm leases the buildings under an agreement with the Union Oil Company of California. Part of the rental for the leased premises consists of one cent per gallon on sales of special fuels based on monthly reports that reflect fuel inventory at the beginning of the month, gallons acquired during the month, and the amount sold during the month based on manual measurement of the storage tanks. In like manner, the required state monthly tax return is based upon gallons to be accounted for" and consists of basically the same method as used in accounting to Union Oil Company. However, in preparing bimonthly excise tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service, it is unnecessary to show the number of gallons sold, but just the dollar amount of sales. Petitioner used pump meter readings to arrive at federal tax figures computed from daily reports of station personnel who read the pump meters at the beginning and end of each of three eight-hour shifts. The daily reports are recapitulated by petitioner's bookkeepers into monthly reports that take certain adjustments into account, such as fuel that is pumped by mistake into trucks and then replaced in the tanks. The daily reports are subject to mathematical mistakes by station attendants and the meters themselves periodically become defective, thus necessitating repair or replacement. This type of report is used by petitioner also as a comparison of months to see how the business is progressing and to attempt to detect theft by employees. (Testimony of Hires, Morris, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-5) Although petitioner normally purchases all of its special fuel from Union Oil Company, there was a period from June, 1973, through February, 1974, when, due to a shortage of fuel, purchases of some 500,000 gallons were made from five other distributors. Petitioner was under the impression that it paid tax on these purchases because none of the firms asked for its license number and the price charged for the fuel appeared to be an amount sufficient to include the state tax. No taxes were separately stated on the invoices from these firms, but petitioner's license number appeared on some of them. All such purchases were made by checks drawn on petitioner's bank account. The state tax due on later resales of this special fuel was not collected or paid to the state by petitioner. Nevertheless, it is found that petitioner's explanation that it was unaware that tax had not been previously paid to distributors is credible and that there was no intent to purposely evade payment of state taxes. (Testimony of Hires) In the summer of 1976, respondent's tax examiner Heyward R. Steinhauser, learned that sales of special fuels had been made to petitioner without the payment of tax and had not been reported to his agency. Petitioner explained the situation concerning outside purchases to Steinhauser, and the latter thereafter conducted an audit of the firm's books covering the period June, 1973, through June, 1976. He examined petitioner's check register to determine how much excise tax had been paid to the federal government and determined that this amount corresponded substantially with the number of gallons sold as reflected on the monthly meter reading reports. During this audit, Steinhauser found no evidence of outside purchases except that reflected by checks issued by petitioner to the five firms during the latter half of 1973 and 1974. However, Steinhauser made no effort to verify the totals set forth on the monthly meter reports as far as accuracy of computation. Petitioner made all of its records available for the audit and offered the daily reports to Steinhauser which he declined to use due to their bulk. (Testimony of Hires, Steinhauser). An informal meeting was held between petitioner and representatives of respondent on September 28, 1976, based on a proposed assessment resulting from the audit. At this meeting, certain credits were allowed to petitioner. The meeting was followed by a formal Notice of Proposed Assessment, dated November 22, 1976, wherein respondent claimed tax due in the amount of $48,016.22, interest in the amount of $15,248.30, and penalties of $6,196.76, for a total of $69,461.01. After deducting a $10,000 payment made by petitioner on September 28, 1976, the total amount due as stated in the assessment letter was $60,316.07. This was followed by a subsequent meeting on February 2, 1977, whereby petitioner sought further adjustment of the proposed assessment. A letter of February 15, 1977, from respondent's audit supervisor of the Motor Fuel Tax Bureau reasserted the original assessment, plus additional interest making the total allegedly due, as of February 10, 1977, $61,582.00. In that letter, petitioner was advised that since the daily pump readings or reports had not been made available to reconcile any discrepancies in the monthly reports, no adjustment could be made as to the proposed assessment. The reason for the unavailability of the daily records was that they had been inadvertently destroyed by an employee of the petitioner several months after the audit. Another meeting was held on March 29, 1977, which apparently was unsuccessful because a further letter of respondent, dated March 31, 1977, again asserted the previous amount of tax due, plus additional interest, making a total due of $62,198.07. Thereafter, on April 28, 1977, petitioner filed its petition for an administrative hearing. (Testimony of Steinhauser, Hires, Morris, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 9-10) At the hearing, petitioner submitted its own audit based on fuel purchases, its check register, and invoices from Union Oil Company and outside suppliers. After computing exempt purchases, collection fees, and taxes already paid to the state, petitioner admitted that taxes had been due in the total amount of $42,342, based on sales of 541,825 gallons of fuel. The state's figures had based tax due on 592,587 gallons sold. After deductions of the $10,000 payment made on September 28, 1976, and a further payment of $30,000 on August 11, 1977, plus penalties and interest, petitioner admits that a sum of $11,390 is still due and owing. A further audit presented by respondent at the hearing reflects a total due at the end of September, 1977, of $47,699.44. Petitioner pointed out at the hearing that various mistakes in addition had been made in the monthly meter reports utilized by respondent in arriving at its assessment. However, neither petitioner nor respondent had verified the accuracy of these figures. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer requested that this be accomplished subsequent to hearing and that a report be furnished as a late- filed exhibit. Petitioner submitted such a report on November 15, 1977, which shows that mathematical mistakes in the reports were made to the extent that they reflected 56,595.5 more gallons sold during the audit period than was actually the case. This figure corresponds favorably with petitioner's contention based on its audit that it had sold some 51,000 gallons less than that asserted by respondent. Respondent has not contested the late-filed exhibit of petitioner and it is found that the figures reflected therein are correct. (Testimony of Morris, Petitioner's Exhibits 6, 7, 11, Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2)
Recommendation That petitioner be held liable for special fuels tax, penalty and interest in the amount of $11,390. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Linder Smith, Jr. Esquire 1320 Atlantic Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capital Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent correctly assessed a fuel use tax or civil penalty against Petitioner for violations of Sections 207.004, and 316.545, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 320, Florida Statutes, for operating a commercial vehicle on a highway in the State of Florida without vehicle registration and fuel tax registration to operate in the state.
Findings Of Fact On June 1, 1991, a commercial vehicle, operated by Unruh Fab, Inc., was stopped on I-10 in Escambia County, Florida at a Department of Transportation weight station. The weight station is the last exit in Florida for westbound vehicles and is the first exit in Florida for eastbound vehicles. The vehicle was not displaying a fuel use tax device, as required by Section 207.004, Florida Statutes, for its interstate operations and was not registered to operate in the State of Florida as required by Chapter 320, Florida Statutes. The driver did not present any fuel use tax registration documentation or International Registration Plan (IRP) registration as an interstate apportioned vehicle.1/ The Department of Transportation Inspector issued a temporary fuel use permit and an I.R.P. trip permit to Respondent to allow the vehicle to proceed on its way. The total cost of the temporary permits was $75.00. The owner of the vehicle was assessed a $50.00 civil penalty for violation of Chapter 207, Florida Statutes. See, Section 316.545(4), Florida Statutes. Additionally, while the truck was at the weight station, the Department of Transportation Inspector weighed the vehicle. The truck weighed 42,920 pounds. Under Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, Petitioner's vehicle's weight could not exceed 35,000 pounds. Petitioner's vehicle exceeded the 35,000 pound legal weight by 7,920 pounds. A penalty of 5 cents a pound was assessed for each pound over the legal weight resulting in a penalty of $396.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding that the fee and penalty totaling $521.00 was correctly assessed Unrah Fab, Inc., by the Department of Transportation, under provisions of Sections 207.004 and 316.545, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 320, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, 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 1st day of June, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On September 15, 1960, Earman Oil Company, Inc., was granted License Number 1748 (the "Special Fuels Dealer's License") authorizing it to operate as a User-Dealer of special fuels in the State of Florida. On the face of that License was the following notation: This license is NOT TRANSFERRABLE but will continue in full force and effect until cancelled or revoked as provided by law. The Special Fuels Dealer's License also contained a notation that provided as follows: This license must be returned to RAY F. GREEN, Comptroller, when a licensee terminates his operation as a User-Dealer. On April 1, 1967, Earman Oil Company, Inc., was issued State License Number 375 (the "Motor Fuels Distributor's License") by the Florida Revenue Commission, authorizing Earman to engage in the business of distributing motor fuels in the State of Florida. On the face of that License was the following notation: This license is not transferrable or assignable, and must be displayed conspicuously at all times at the Distributor's office or principle place of business. A Special Fuels Dealer's License and a Motor Fuels Distributor's License entitle a holder to purchase diesel fuel and gasoline for distribution without paying local option taxes pursuant to Chapter 336, Florida Statutes, motor fuel retail sales tax pursuant to Chapter 212, Part II, Florida Statutes and motor fuels tax pursuant to Chapter 206, Part I, Florida Statutes. A holder of such licenses is obligated to collect the taxes upon resale to customers and to remit those taxes to the state. If the resale is to another distributor who holds a valid license, the sale can be made tax free provided the seller follows the procedures set forth in the statutes and applicable DOR rules. In order to obtain either of the licenses during all times pertinent to this case, a company was required to have been in operation for at least one year and had to meet certain other requirements, including the posting of a bond. Sometime in 1983, Barkett, a licensed dealer of special and motor fuels in the state of Florida, purchased Florida Coast Oil Company, Inc. ("Florida Coast"), another licensed dealer of special and motor fuels in the State of Florida. The evidence did not establish the specific terms and details of that acquisition. The licenses held by Florida Coast which enabled it to purchase motor fuels on a tax exempt basis were not cancelled or revoked following Barkett's acquisition of the company. Barkett apparently acquired all of the stock of Florida Coast and Florida Coast continued in operation under that same name. Many, if not all, of the officers and directors of Barkett at this time also became officers and directors in Florida Coast. The evidence was conflicting and confusing as to the status of Earman Oil during 1980-1984. After review of all the evidence, it is concluded that Florida Coast acquired Earman Oil Company in 1980. The evidence did not establish the specific terms and details of that transaction. Apparently, this acquisition was also a stock purchase arrangement and Earman Oil Company initially remained in existence following its acquistion by Florida Coast. However, on August 31, 1981, Earman Oil Company was officially merged into Florida Coast. Harry Barkett, the president of Barkett and Florida Coast (after its acquisition by Barkett in 1983,) testified that the Department was advised of Florida Coast's acquisition of Earman Oil Company and Florida Coast was told by DOR that it could continue to use the licenses issued to Earman Oil Company in order to purchase motor fuels on a tax exempt basis. However, it does not appear that Mr. Barkett had any interest in Florida Coast at the time of the acquisition of Earman and no explanation was provided as to how he learned of DOR's alleged approval of the continued use of Earman's licenses. This contention is discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 24 below. On September 10, 1984, Florida Coast sold certain assets to Alfred Vittorino. Vittorino had previously worked as a manager for Barkett. The sales agreement provided that the assets being sold included ll rights to operate as Earman Oil Company including but not limited to all rights to the stock, licenses, permits or trademarks that are titled to Earman Oil Company that are required to operate the business. The parties have stipulated that on September 12, 1984, a Certificate of Incorporation for a new Earman Oil Company, Inc., was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State for Florida and that Alfred Vittorino was the president and sole stock holder for that company. The licenses issued to the original Earman Oil Company could not legally be transferred or assigned to the new company. Moreover, the new company could not qualify for new licenses on its own since it had not been in operation for at least one year. There is no dispute that at the time Vittorino acquired the assets from Florida Coast and began operating under the name Earman Oil Company, the Special Fuel Dealer's License and the Motor Fuel Distributor's License previously issued in the name of Earman Oil Company were delivered to Vittorino by Florida Coast. Harry Barkett, who was the president of both Barkett and Florida Coast at the time of the sale to Vittorino, testified that Vittorino told him that he would take whatever steps were necessary to get the licenses reissued and/or obtain new licenses so that Earman could continue to purchase fuel on a tax exempt basis. Earman Oil Company never applied for new licenses after its acquisition by Vittorino. Instead, the company merely obtained and used the old licenses. Since the Special Fuel Dealer's License and the Motor Fuel Distributor's Licenses issued to the original Earman Oil Company has never been cancelled, "Earman Oil Company" was still registered with DOR as a distributor of motor fuel and a dealer of special fuels and it remained registered during the entire period in question, September 1984 to April 1985. Although Harry Barkett testified that he believes DOR was notified of Florida Coast's sale of Earman's assets to Vittorino, DOR has no record of the sale and/or the transfer of the licenses of Earman Oil Company to Vittorino. No persuasive evidence was presented to establish that DOR was fully advised as to the terms of the sale and the status of the companies at the time of the sale. The contention that DOR approved the transfer of the licenses to the new company established by Vittorino is rejected. After Vittorino purchased the above described assets from Florida Coast, Earman Oil Company began engaging in the business of selling motor fuel and special fuels to its customers. During the period from September 1984 through April 1985, Earman Oil Company purchased gasoline and diesel fuel from Barkett and other companies and sold that fuel to, among others, Miami Petroleum Oil Company, Inc., an unlicensed distributor of gasoline and diesel fuel. During that period, the invoices for the sales by Barkett to Earman Oil Company indicated that the sales were tax exempt and there is no indication that taxes were being collected from Earman. Barkett did not obtain an affidavit or "resale" certificate from Earman Oil Co. prior to selling tax exempt. However, Barkett filed tax returns with DOR indicating that the sales were tax exempt. Barkett contends that its typical procedure for selling tax exempt to a customer is to obtain the customer's license number and verbally confirm the validity of that number with the Department. Petitioner contends that it followed this procedure prior to selling tax exempt to Earman Oil Company and that the Department confirmed that the license numbers provided by Earman Oil Company were valid. While Petitioner contends that it contacted the Respondent in order to verify that Earman Oil Company was in possession of a valid license, there is no written evidence of any such communication. The applicable statutes and regulations require a distributor to obtain an affidavit or a "resale certificate" in order to sell fuel tax exempt. There is no provision in the rules or the statutes for verbal confirmation of licensure status. From September 1984 through April 1985, Earman Oil collected motor fuel taxes under Chapters 206 and 212, Florida Statutes, from its customers, but never remitted those taxes to the state. There is no evidence that any of the taxes collected by Earman Oil were transferred to Barkett. Earman Oil Company filed tax returns with DOR indicating that it had not collected any taxes. Criminal charges were subsequently brought against Vittorino for failure to remit collected motor fuel taxes for the period September 1984 through April 1985. Vittorino was found guilty by a jury of failure to remit collected motor fuel taxes and was initially sentenced to nine years in prison, which was subsequently reduced to six years on appeal. As of the date of the hearing in this administrative proceeding, the state has not collected any of the outstanding taxes from Vittorino or Earman Oil. Petitioner contends that during the trial of Vittorino, the State of Florida maintained that Earman Oil Company held valid licenses as a distributor of motor fuel and as a dealer of special fuels during the period September 1984 through May 1985. The transcript of that criminal proceeding confirms that this was one theory advanced by the prosecution during that case. However, there was considerable confusion during that trial as to the licensure status of Earman. Ultimately, Vittorino was convicted of failure to remit collected motor fuel taxes. It was not an essential element of this offense for Earman to be a valid license holder. DOR conducted an audit of Barkett (Audit Number 86-17412886) for the period September 1984 through April 1985. The Department's audit indicated that Barkett sold 9,548,414 gallons of motor fuel on a tax free basis to Earman Oil Company during the period from September 1, 1984 through April 30, 1985. During the audit, the auditor requested Barkett to provide resale certificates or affidavits from Earman Oil Company to substantiate the basis for the tax exempt sales. Barkett was unable to produce any such resale certificates or affidavits. As a result, DOR concluded that Barkett was responsible for collecting and remitting to the state taxes on all the sales made during this period by Barkett to Earman. Barkett contested the results of the audit and the Department's Notice of Decision issued on August 4, 1988. Barkett timely petitioned for reconsideration of that decision on September 2, 1988. The Department issued its Notice of Reconsideration on January 19, 1989. In its Notice of Reconsideration, the Department determined that the balance due for the Local Option Tax pursuant to Chapter 336, Florida Statutes, was $540,173.68, which consisted of $381,936.56 tax, $95,484.14 penalty and $62,752.98 interest (with interest accruing at the rate of $125.50 per day from June 6, 1986, until date of payment.) The Department also determined that the balance due for motor fuel retail sales tax pursuant to Chapter 212, Part II, Florida Statutes, was $769,747.50, which consisted of $544,259.60 tax, $136,064.90 penalty and $89,423.00 interest (with interest accruing at the rate of $178.93 per day from June 6, 1988 until date of payment.) Finally, the Department determined that the balance due for motor fuels tax pursuant to Chapter 206, Part I, Florida Statutes, was $540,173.68, which consisted of $381,936.56 tax, $95,484.14 penalty, and $62,752.98 interest (with interest accruing at the rate of $125.57 per day from June 6, 1986 until date of payment.) 1/ As part of its reconsideration, the Department deleted the fraud penalties that had previously been assessed against Barkett. Barkett timely filed a challenge to the Department's conclusions in the Notice of Reconsideration. 2/ During the late 70's and early 1980's, Barkett Oil acquired a number of different oil companies (including Florida Coast, which had previously acquired Earman). Several of the companies that were acquired by Barkett held licenses from the Department that enabled them to purchase motor fuels on a tax exempt basis for resale. Barkett contends that it notified the Department of each of those acquisitions and was never instructed that it had to reapply for a license to purchase tax exempt. Barkett suggests that these prior experiences justified its conclusion that Earman Oil Company could continue to purchase tax exempt following the sale and transfer of licenses to Vittorino. However, the circumstances and terms of the prior acquisitions by Barkett were not established in this case. It is not clear whether those transactions were stock purchase agreements or simply the acquisition of assets. Furthermore, the evidence regarding the notification supposedly given to the Department was vague and unconvincing. Although Petitioner contends that it notified the Department that Earman Oil Company had been sold to Vittorino, there is no written evidence of any such communication. It is not clear who at the Department was notified of the sale nor is it clear what information was provided regarding the sale. In sum, Petitioner's contention that Respondent should be estopped from claiming that Earman Oil Company did not hold a valid Distributor's License and/or Special Fuel License is rejected. There was insufficient persuasive evidence to establish that an authorized representative of the Department who was provided with full disclosure of the facts surrounding the transfer to Vittorino advised Petitioner that it could sell tax exempt to Earman Oil Company.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered upholding the assessments set forth in the Notice of Reconsideration. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 10th day of February, 1992.
Findings Of Fact On July 14, 1982, Jimmy Haywood Nixon, an employee of petitioner, took samples of gasoline offered for sale at respondent's Beacon Store No. 7 in Milton, Florida, including a sample of regular gasoline mixed with alcohol, known as "regularhol." Pat Flanagan, a chemist employed by petitioner, performed various tests on the sample of regularhol, including ASTM method 86, and determined that the 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the mix as a whole was 150 F. His testimony to this effect was uncontroverted. When he learned the test results, Mr. Nixon locked the regularhol pump at respondent's store in Milton, only unlocking the pump to release the mixture when a thousand dollar bond was posted on July 16, 1982. Respondent began mixing regular gasoline with ethanol and selling it as regularhol in 1978 at the same price as regular gasoline. Until recently, Mocar made less on regularhol sales than on sales of regular gasoline. It originally offered regularhol as its way of helping to reduce the national consumption of petroleum. The Phillips' terminal in Pensacola was respondent's source of the regular gasoline it mixed to make regularhol. This gasoline reached Pensacola by barge, and petitioner's employees sampled and tested each barge's cargo. The 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the regular gas Mocar bought from Phillips varied over a range of more than 30 degrees Fahrenheit upwards from 180 F. Mixing ethanol with the gasoline lowered its distillation temperature, but until the batch sampled on July 14, 1982, Mocar's regularhol had passed the testing petitioner has regularly conducted.
Recommendation Respondent has not been shown to be more blameworthy than any of the fuel owners involved in the cases cited above, each of whom regained part of the bond that had been posted. It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner retain four hundred dollars ($400.00) and return six hundred dollars ($600.00) to the respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Milton Wilson, Esquire 201 East Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32598 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Petitioner's liability for proposed assessment of fuel tax and penalty pursuant to Chapter 206, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Barkett Oil Company, Miami, Florida, is a distributor of motor fuel and a dealer in special fuel licensed by Respondent. During the period 1971 through 1974, it held three licenses for motor fuel and three for special fuel. It owned over 100 fuel service stations during that period. At the time petitioner obtained its licenses, it provided Respondent with a list of its stations' fuel storage tank capacities. However, over the years and prior to 1971, the fuel capacity of 12 stations was increased by the addition of tanks in the total amount of some 57,000 gallons, but Petitioner did not advise Respondent of such changed capacity. (Testimony of Barkett, Respondent's Exhibit 3). In May 1974, D. L. Hunt, Respondent's auditor, conducted an audit of Petitioner's business for the period April 1971 through March 1974. Petitioner made most of its existing records available to the auditor, including purchase and sale invoices, and monthly tax reports which had been timely filed with Respondent during the audit period. Petitioner used Respondent's standard forms for the monthly tax returns which reflected an inventory of fuel at the beginning of the month plus gallons acquired during the month, less nontaxable sales. These computations resulted in net gallonage subject to fuel tax on which the tax was remitted, less a collection fee. Petitioner's standard business practice had been to conduct its monthly inventory in the morning of the last day of the monthly period. However, by this method, sales and deliveries which were made during the remaining portion of the day, and fuel contained in its trucks were reflected in the next month's report. Once the inventory was made, Petitioner recorded the "stick" measurements of fuel on hand at the various stations in its computer and discarded the individual station inventory records. State tax returns were then prepared using the figures derived from the computer "print-out." (Testimony of Hunt, Barkett, Petitioner's Exhibit 1,3). During the course of his audit, Mr. Hunt ascertained that the recorded purchases and sales as reflected on the monthly tax returns were correct. However, he noted that fuel on hand at the end of each month apparently exceeded Petitioner's storage capacity. He therefore asked for inventory records in the form of tank readings, but was informed that they had been destroyed and he was not informed that the readings from the "stick" measurements had been processed by computer and that this stored information was available. Hunt therefore made audit findings that the amount of gallonage on hand at the end of each month over and above Petitioner's storage capacity was taxable, even though there was no showing that the fuel had actually been sold. He also predicated penalties against Petitioner for late payment of tax because sales made during the latter half of the last day of the reporting month were carried over to next month's report. Additionally, he found that certain untaxed sales should have been taxed. In February 1975, a proposed assessment of tax and penalties was issued in the total amount of $375,543.27. A number of informal conferences were held by the parties which resulted in certain adjustments to the proposed assessment, primarily consisting of tax exempt sales. As a result of these conferences, the asserted tax was reduced to $245,652.96, with penalties of $39,405.04, for a total amount of $285,058.00. Thereafter, further reductions were made in the assessment, as reflected in a letter from Respondent's counsel to Petitioner's counsel, dated July 22, 1977. This letter stated that the remaining assessment consisted of tax due in the amount of $27,216.05, with penalties of $63,269.22, for total amount due of $90,485.27. The letter explained that the differences in the penalties consisted of instances where the tax had not been timely paid on fuel which had been sold. For instance, as to license No. 391, the letter showed that although only $2,378.46 in additional tax was due, penalties over the audit period amount to $38,769.19. (Testimony of Hunt, Barkett, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibits 1-2, 5, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). During the course of informal negotiations, Petitioner's counsel, by letter of April 17, 1978, to Respondent's counsel, provided a corrected list of the capacity of twelve of its stations. Respondent's auditor Hunt had checked four of these stations, but was unable to determine the existence of additional tanks at those locations. He also declined to accept the computer printout sheets as a basis for determining inventory because the actual tank reading reports were not available. At the hearing, Petitioner's president, Harry Barkett, established that additional tanks had existed at the four locations during the audit period. (Testimony of Hunt, Barkett, Petitioner's Exhibit 4-8, Respondent's Exhibit 3, 4). A certified public accountant retained by Petitioner testified that he had audited Petitioner's books and had personally reconciled inventory amounts for the fiscal year 1972-73. He further testified that Petitioner's accounting procedures were proper and that even if inventory had been overstated, it had no effect on sales, and that any unreported sales during one monthly period would be overstated in the following month, which would balance out any prior underpayments. He had never found any discrepancy in Petitioner's fuel reports and found no accounting reason for retaining "stick" readings after the information had been placed in the computer. (Testimony of Pfeiffer).
Recommendation That Respondent proceed to collect the amount of $5,707.50 from Petitioner for unpaid fuel tax under Chapter 206, Florida Statutes, but that the remainder of the proposed assessment be withdrawn. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxie Broome, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Milton J. Wallace, Esquire 2138 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue's denial of Petitioner's application for a Florida fuel license should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On or about July 22, 2002, Armando B. Yzaguirre submitted to the Department a completed Florida Fuel Tax Application, Form DR-156, seeking licensure as a private carrier and wholesaler on behalf of My Oil (the "2002 Application"). The application listed Maria Yzaguirre as the president and chairman of the board of My Oil, and listed Armando B. Yzaguirre as the vice-president and chief executive officer of My Oil. This was the second Florida Fuel Tax Application filed by My Oil. On or about June 22, 2001, Maria Yzaguirre submitted to the Department a completed Florida Fuel Tax Application, Form DR-156, seeking licensure as a private carrier and wholesaler on behalf of My Oil (the "2001 Application"). The application listed Mrs. Yzaguirre as the president and sole stockholder of My Oil. The Department's rejection of the 2001 Application was at issue in DOAH Case No. 02-0469. The rejection was based on the fact that Armando Yzaguirre, a convicted felon whose civil rights had not been restored and who was the father of Armando B. Yzaguirre and the husband of Maria Yzaguirre, appeared to be in a position to exert control over the business of My Oil. Shortly before the 2001 Application was filed, Armando Yzaguirre had filed a Florida Fuel Tax Application for Yzaguirre Oil Company Inc. ("Yzaguirre Oil"). The application listed Armando Yzaguirre as the president and sole stockholder of Yzaguirre Oil. The coincidence of the applications, and the fact that they listed many of the same assets, led the Department to suspect that My Oil would operate as a "front" for Yzaguirre Oil, which was presumptively ineligible for licensure because it was owned and operated by a convicted felon. The relevant facts found in the Recommended Order for DOAH Case No. 02-0469 are as follows: In his review of the Yzaguirre Oil and My Oil applications, [Aaron Hood, the Department's revenue specialist] discovered that the companies claimed many of the same assets. Each company listed the same two tanker trucks to be used in transporting fuel. Each company listed 211 New Market Road, East, in Immolakee as its principal business address. Each company claimed exactly $1 million in accounts receivable. The timing of the filings and the common assets led Mr. Hood to suspect that the later My Oil application was submitted under Maria Yzaguirre's name to evade the possible disqualification of the Yzaguirre Oil application because of Mr. Yzaguirre's felony convictions. In short, Mr. Hood suspected that My Oil was a "front" corporation over which Mr. Yzaguirre would exercise control. The common assets also led Mr. Hood to suspect the truthfulness and accuracy of the financial affidavits filed by Maria Yzaguirre on behalf of My Oil. While it investigated the criminal history of Mr. Yzaguirre, the Department also investigated the extent of Mr. Yzaguirre's possible control over My Oil's business activities. Armando B. Yzaguirre is the 25-year- old son of Armando Yzaguirre and the stepson of Maria Yzaguirre. Testimony at the hearing established that Armando B. Yzaguirre completed both license applications and was the driving force behind the creation of both Yzaguirre Oil and My Oil. The elder Armando Yzaguirre's chief business is farming. His tomato and melon operation earns over $1 million per year. To save money on transporting the large amounts of fuel needed for his farming operations, Mr. Yzaguirre purchased two sizable tanker trucks in 2001, a new Peterbilt with a capacity of 9,200 gallons, and a 1998 Ford with a 2,500 gallon capacity. If these trucks were used only for Mr. Yzaguirre's farm, they would sit idle much of the time. This idle capacity gave Armando B. Yzaguirre the idea of going into the fuel transport business, using his father's tankers to deliver fuel to other farms and businesses in the area. Yzaguirre Oil was incorporated to operate as a fuel transport business. The business would be operated entirely by Armando B. Yzaguirre, who was the only member of the family licensed to drive the large tanker truck. The trucks were owned by and licensed to Yzaguirre Oil. Armando B. Yzaguirre was going through a divorce at the time Yzaguirre Oil was established. He was concerned that his wife would have a claim to half of any business he owned, and wished to ensure that ownership of Yzaguirre Oil would remain in his family. Thus, Armando B. Yzaguirre placed all ownership of Yzaguirre Oil in the name of his father, though his father would have no connection with the operation of the company's business. Subsequent to incorporating Yzaguirre Oil, Armando B. Yzaguirre discussed his prospective business with his stepmother, Maria Yzaguirre. Mrs. Yzaguirre was pleased that young Armando was establishing a business for himself. They discussed the future of the six younger Yzaguirre children and ideas for businesses that could be established to eventually be taken over by the children. Ultimately, the younger Armando and Maria Yzaguirre settled on the idea of a convenience store and filling station that could be established on part of a city block in Immolakee that the senior Mr. Yzaguirre already owned. This would be the type of business that the children could learn and work at while they were still in school, then take over after their graduation. This was the genesis of My Oil. Mrs. Yzaguirre contacted a lawyer to draft articles of incorporation and later transferred $100,000 from her personal money market account into a My Oil bank account to provide start-up money. The younger Armando Yzaguirre filled out the fuel license application, using his earlier application for Yzaguirre Oil as a model. As with the earlier application, the younger Armando Yzaguirre kept his name off the corporate documents and the fuel license application to avoid any claim by his soon- to-be ex-wife to the company's assets. He anticipated that My Oil would lease the two tanker trucks from Yzaguirre Oil, and thus listed them on the application as assets of My Oil. At the hearing, Mr. Yzaguirre conceded that he made mistakes on both applications. As noted above, he listed $1 million in accounts receivable for each of the companies. These were actually accounts receivable for his father’s farming operation, and should not have been included as assets for either Yzaguirre Oil or My Oil. * * * The Department pointed to several alleged discrepancies in the My Oil application as grounds for its suspicion that the company was a "front" for Yzaguirre Oil. First, the My Oil application, filed June 20, 2001, lists a corporate asset of $100,000 in cash on deposit at an unnamed bank, when in fact the cash was not deposited in a My Oil account at Florida Community Bank until September 10, 2001. Second, the My Oil application lists the two tanker trucks as corporate assets as of the date of application, when in fact the trucks were titled in the name of Yzaguirre Oil and the anticipated lease arrangement had yet to be consummated. Third, the My Oil application claimed the property at 211 New Market Road, East, as a corporate asset as of the date of application, when in fact the property was titled in the name of the elder Mr. Yzaguirre. Fourth, the My Oil application listed $1 million in accounts receivable as a corporate asset. As noted above, Armando B. Yzaguirre admitted at the hearing that these receivables were from his father's farming operation and should not have been listed on the application as assets of My Oil. Armando B. Yzaguirre plausibly explained that My Oil anticipated leasing the trucks, but that there was no reason to spend the money to finalize that arrangement until the fuel license was obtained and My Oil could actually commence operations. Similarly, Mrs. Yzaguirre clearly had on hand the $100,000 in cash claimed as a My Oil asset, and the timing of her actual transfer of that money into a My Oil account would not alone constitute cause for suspicion, given that My Oil had yet to commence operations when the application was filed. Armando B. Yzaguirre also convincingly explained that leasing the tanker trucks from his father's company would not give Yzaguirre Oil effective control over My Oil's business. The younger Mr. Yzaguirre contemplated that the lease agreement would be an arms-length arrangement between the two companies. If the companies could not arrive at a mutually satisfactory lease agreement, or if the lease agreement should later fall through, My Oil could lease trucks from another company and continue doing business. However, no witness for My Oil offered a satisfactory explanation as to how the elder Mr. Yzaguirre's ownership of the real property would not give him some degree of control over My Oil's business. At the time of the hearing, title to the property at 211 New Market Road, East, was in the name of Armando Yzaguirre. A warranty deed for at least a portion of the property, executed by the prior owners on July 16, 1998, was in the name of Armando Yzaguirre. The Yzaguirres did not explain whether My Oil would purchase or lease the property from the elder Mr. Yzaguirre. The structure of the arrangement is critical to the issue of the elder Mr. Yzaguirre's control over My Oil. Substitutes for the tanker trucks could be obtained in short order with little or no disruption of My Oil's business. However, the physical location of the convenience store and filling station could not be changed so readily, and the elder Mr. Yzaguirre's position as owner of that property could give him great leverage over the operation of the business. The Department also raised the issue of the undisclosed participation of Armando B. Yzaguirre in the business affairs of My Oil. The testimony of Maria Yzaguirre and of her stepson strongly indicated that the younger Mr. Yzaguirre would have substantial control over the business activities of My Oil. However, because Armando B. Yzaguirre's identity was not disclosed on My Oil's application, the Department had no opportunity to conduct a review of his background and character to determine whether he met the standard set by Section 206.026, Florida Statutes. In summary, there was no direct evidence that the Yzaguirres deliberately attempted to deceive the Department or that My Oil was established as a front to obtain licensure for the presumptively ineligible Yzaguirre Oil. The evidence did establish that Armando Yzaguirre has been convicted of at least one felony, and that his ownership of the real property on which My Oil would conduct business could provide him with control of My Oil's business activities. The evidence further established that Armando B. Yzaguirre will have control over My Oil's business, and that the Department should have had the opportunity to conduct a background review to determine his fitness under Section 206.026, Florida Statutes. The relevant conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order for DOAH Case No. 02-0469 are as follows: Section 206.026, Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part: (1) No corporation . . . shall hold a terminal supplier, importer, exporter, blender, carrier, terminal operator, or wholesaler license in this state if any one of the persons or entities specified in paragraph (a) has been determined by the department not to be of good moral character or has been convicted of any offense specified in paragraph (b): 1. The licenseholder. The sole proprietor of the licenseholder. A corporate officer or director of the licenseholder. A general or limited partner of the licenseholder. A trustee of the licenseholder. A member of an unincorporated association licenseholder. A joint venturer of the licenseholder. The owner of any equity interest in the licenseholder, whether as a common shareholder, general or limited partner, voting trustee, or trust beneficiary. An owner of any interest in the license or licenseholder, including any immediate family member of the owner, or holder of any debt, mortgage, contract, or concession from the licenseholder, who by virtue thereof is able to control the business of the licenseholder. 1. A felony in this state. Any felony in any other state which would be a felony if committed in this state under the laws of Florida. Any felony under the laws of the United States. (2)(a) If the applicant for a license as specified under subsection (1) or a licenseholder as specified in paragraph (1)(a) has received a full pardon or a restoration of civil rights with respect to the conviction specified in paragraph (1)(b), then the conviction shall not constitute an absolute bar to the issuance or renewal of a license or ground for the revocation or suspension of a license. . . . In December 1990, Armando Yzaguirre entered a no contest plea to a second-degree felony charge of possession of more than five but not more than 50 pounds of marijuana in a Texas court. At the time of Mr. Yzaguirre's Texas conviction, Florida law listed cannabis as a Schedule I substance. Section 893.03(1)(c)4, Florida Statutes (1990). Absent licensure or other authorization, bringing cannabis into the state was a third-degree felony in 1990. Section 893.13(1)(d)2, Florida Statutes (1990). Possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis was a third-degree felony in 1990. Section 893.13(1)(f) and (g), Florida Statutes (1990). There can be little question that Mr. Yzaguirre's felony in Texas would have constituted at least one felony under Florida law, and thus that Mr. Yzaguirre has been convicted of an offense specified in Section 206.026(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Mr. Yzaguirre has not received a full pardon or restoration of civil rights, thus mooting any potential application of Section 206.026(2)(a), Florida Statutes, to this case. Mr. Yzaguirre's ownership of the real property that would hold My Oil's principal place of business would give him the ability to control the business of the licenseholder. This conclusion might have been different had My Oil presented evidence of the business relationship under which it would operate the facility on Mr. Yzaguirre's property. The extent of Armando B. Yzaguirre's involvement in My Oil was not disclosed to the Department. Testimony at the hearing established that the younger Mr. Yzaguirre would be the principal operator of My Oil for the foreseeable future. Due diligence under Section 206.026, Florida Statutes, requires the Department to conduct a background investigation of Armando B. Yzaguirre prior to the issuance of a fuel license to My Oil. In conclusion, My Oil has failed to demonstrate its entitlement to a Florida fuel license on the merits of the application it filed on June 20, 2001. The Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 02-0469 recommended that My Oil's 2001 Application be denied, but without prejudice to My Oil's ability to file a subsequent application curing the defects of its 2001 Application. In the 2002 Application, My Oil sought to cure those defects. First, the 2002 Application listed Armando B. Yzaguirre as a principal of My Oil, providing the Department an opportunity to conduct an investigation of his background and character. The Department's background check revealed no criminal convictions or other disqualifying factors related to Armando B. Yzaguirre. The Department's background check also revealed no criminal convictions or other disqualifying factors related to Maria Yzaguirre. The 2002 Application included an executed lease agreement, dated July 19, 2002, by which Armando Yzaguirre granted to My Oil a five-year lease on the premises at 211 New Market Road, East, in Immokalee. The lease specifies that My Oil will pay rent of $1,000 per month, and that the premises are to be used for the purpose of "a convenience store and retail gasoline sales to the general public, storage, and uses related to such use . . . and for no other purpose or purposes." The lease expressly states: "Landlord shall have no control over the use of the premises by the Tenant during the period of the lease." The 2002 Application continued to list the two tanker trucks as assets of My Oil, though they remain titled to Yzaguirre Oil. Armando B. Yzaguirre testified that My Oil does have a written lease with Yzaguirre Oil for the use of the tanker trucks. Armando Yzaguirre confirmed the existence of a lease on the trucks. However, the lease was not included in the 2002 Application and was not produced at the hearing. After receiving the 2002 Application, the Department contacted Armando B. Yzaguirre to request a current balance sheet for My Oil. The balance sheet submitted by Mr. Yzaguirre purported to show the assets and liabilities of My Oil as of July 22, 2002. The balance sheet indicated a negative total equity of $5,904.43. It indicated a "credit card" debt of $101,000 to Yzaguirre Farms, and other accounts payable of $36,852.79 to Yzaguirre Farms. At the hearing, the Department produced a canceled check from Armando Yzaguirre to My Oil in the amount of $101,000, with the notation, "My Oil Operating & Payroll." Armando Yzaguirre testified at the hearing that he has taken steps to have his civil rights restored, but that the process is not yet complete and his rights have not been restored. On August 22, 2002, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to Deny the 2002 Application, which stated, in relevant part: Your organization does not qualify for this license as there is a felony conviction of an owner of interest in the license and/or an immediate family member of the owner, as outlined in Chapter 206.026(1)(a)(9)&(b), Florida Statutes. The Department based its denial on several factors. First, the family relationship between My Oil's principals and Armando Yzaguirre itself raised the potential for Armando Yzaguirre to control My Oil. In particular, the Department noted the fact that Armando B. Yzaguirre resides in a mobile home owned by his father, and located a few hundred feet away from Armando Yzaguirre's main residence on the family property. Second, the balance sheet submitted by My Oil indicated a negative equity with large debts owed to Yzaguirre Farms, controlled by Armando Yzaguirre. Third, the Department concluded that the lease on the premises at 211 New Market Road, East, would not prevent Armando Yzaguirre from exerting control over My Oil, by breaking the lease, raising the rent, selling the property, or ejecting My Oil from the premises. Fourth, no proof was offered that My Oil had leased or purchased the tanker trucks from Yzaguirre Oil, meaning that My Oil's means of transporting fuel would be directly controlled by Armando Yzaguirre. Fifth, the $101,000 constituting the startup money for My Oil appears to have come directly from the bank account of Armando Yzaguirre. Sixth, My Oil was administratively dissolved by the Department of State on October 4, 2002, for failure to file an annual report. Finally, the Department stated that, regardless of the arms-length nature of any business dealings between My Oil and Armando Yzaguirre, My Oil would not be granted a license until Armando Yzaguirre's civil rights have been restored. The close family relationship coupled with the fact that Armando Yzaguirre is the source of My Oil's startup funds, its tanker trucks, and its business location, militate against granting My Oil a license so long as Armando Yzaguirre's civil rights have not been restored. In response, My Oil insisted that its 2002 Application cured every specific deficiency noted in the 2001 Application. First, it listed Armando B. Yzaguirre as a principal so that his background and criminal history could be investigated, and the Department's investigation revealed no disqualifying offenses. Armando B. Yzaguirre testified that the July 22, 2002, balance sheet submitted at the Department's request was not an accurate My Oil balance sheet. He stated that in setting up the computer program for My Oil's accounting, he attempted to shortcut the software's lengthy setup process for new businesses by simply copying an existing Yzaguirre Farms spreadsheet, then substituting the name "My Oil" for "Yzaguirre Farms." However, he quickly discovered that his "shortcut" would require him to delete manually every balance sheet entry for Yzaguirre Farms and re-enter the correct entries for My Oil. He abandoned this effort and began a My Oil spreadsheet from scratch, but he never deleted the partially converted Yzaguirre Farms spreadsheet from his computer. Mr. Yzaguirre testified the Department's phone call to request a current balance sheet came to him on his cellular phone while he was working on his father's farm. He relayed the message to his secretary, who printed a My Oil balance sheet and faxed it to the Department. Mr. Yzaguirre stated that, until the Department rejected the 2002 Application, he did not realize that his secretary had faxed a balance sheet generated by his aborted conversion of the Yzaguirre Farms spreadsheet, rather than the actual balance sheet for My Oil. A copy of what Armando B. Yzaguirre claimed was the actual My Oil balance sheet as of July 31, 2002, was introduced at the hearing. This balance sheet indicates an opening equity of $101,000, with $92,078.02 in retained earnings and operating and payroll accounts totaling $8,921.98. The July 31, 2002, balance sheet is accepted as the actual balance sheet for My Oil. While this balance sheet refutes the Department's conclusion that My Oil is starting business with a negative balance sheet indicating over $136,000 in debts to Yzaguirre Farms, it does not refute the evidence that the entire source of My Oil's cash accounts is $101,000, provided in the form of a check from an account in the name of Armando Yzaguirre. Armando B. Yzaguirre testified that the money came from a joint money market account in the name of Armando and Maria Yzaguirre, and that Maria was the source of the funds. This testimony is inconsistent with the fact that the check in question was signed by Armando Yzaguirre, and that his name alone appeared on the account name printed on the check. The elder Mr. Yzaguirre testified that he signed the check, but also testified that the account is in his name and that of his wife, and that they both consider the $101,000 to be her investment in My Oil. Neither of the Yzaguirres offered an explanation as to why Maria Yzaguirre's name did not appear on a check they claimed was drawn on a joint account. The Department's concerns about Armando Yzaguirre, a convicted felon, being the source of My Oil's startup funding were reasonable. My Oil failed to offer evidence sufficient to allay those concerns. Despite My Oil's claims to the contrary, the $101,000 check was plainly signed by Armando Yzaguirre and drawn from an account in his name. My Oil failed to explain the terms under which it accepted this startup funding from Armando Yzaguirre. The Department's explanation of its rejection of the lease submitted by My Oil for the premises at 211 New Market Road, East, was not reasonable. The lease document is a standard, arms-length agreement between My Oil and Armando Yzaguirre. The Department offered no evidence to support its assertions that Armando Yzaguirre would break the terms of the lease, that My Oil would not exercise its legal rights should Mr. Yzaguirre violate the lease's provisions, or that the lease should be considered invalid because a contract between relatives is inherently suspect. The other concerns raised by the Department-- that Mr. Yzaguirre might raise the rent, sell the property, or evict My Oil-- are answered by the terms of the lease itself and raise no issues beyond those that would arise in any lessor/lessee relationship. As to the lease on the tanker trucks, both Armando B. and Armando Yzaguirre testified that My Oil did have a lease on the trucks, to take effect if and when My Oil receives a fuel tax license from the Department. Their testimony is credited as to the existence of the lease, though they offered no testimony specifying the terms of the lease. The fact that My Oil was administratively dissolved for failure to file an annual report should have played no part in the Department's rejection of My Oil's application. Such dissolution is an administrative matter easily cured by the filing of the report. At most, the Department should have required My Oil to provide proof of reinstatement prior to issuance of any fuel tax license. In summary, several of the particular concerns on which the Department based its decision were overstated. However, the Department's overarching concern that Armando Yzaguirre was in a position to control the business of My Oil was reasonable. Armando Yzaguirre was clearly the source of the $101,000 in startup money for My Oil, and no evidence was offered to explain the terms under which this money was provided to My Oil. The lease arrangements for the premises and the tanker trucks may be unobjectionable in themselves, but when coupled with the fact that My Oil is heavily indebted to Armando Yzaguirre, they raise entirely reasonable suspicions regarding My Oil's independence from Mr. Yzaguirre's control. The Department's position that My Oil cannot be granted a license until Armando Yzaguirre's civil rights have been restored is supported by the evidence. Armando Yzaguirre is the source of My Oil's funds, its place of doing business, and its means of transporting fuel. My Oil failed to demonstrate that these facts do not give Armando Yzaguirre the ability to control its business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying the application of My Oil Company, Inc., for a Florida fuel license, without prejudice to the ability of My Oil Company, Inc., to file a new application upon the restoration of Armando Yzaguirre's civil rights. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 28th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Robert F. Langford, Jr., Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol-Tax Section Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 E. Raymond Shope, II, Esquire 1404 Goodlette Road, North Naples, Florida 34102 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
Findings Of Fact Silver Sand is in the aggregate business. A major portion of this business involves the trucking of sand, rock, and shell. Diesel fuel, a special fuel, is used in these trucking operations. Approximately fifteen percent of the trucking takes place off of highways and roads. Fuel utilized for off-road operations is not subject to the Florida excise tax on special fuel. To facilitate its trucking operations, Silver Sand purchases diesel fuel in bulk, and uses it in its own trucks and sells it to lease operators who are under contract to Silver Sand. Silver Sand holds a Florida Department of Revenue license which entitles it to purchase diesel fuel in bulk without paying the excise tax. The assessment period involved in this case is April, 1973 through December, 1973. During that period the United States was in the middle of a fuel crisis, and motor fuels, including diesel fuel, was difficult to obtain. During the relevant period Jeremiah J. Kelly, Jr., was Silver Sand's lease operations manager. He was responsible for obtaining diesel fuel. In April, 1973, a Mr. Carruthers, representing Handy Haul-It, approached Kelly and told him that Handy Haul-It could provide Silver Sand with diesel fuel. Kelly had the authority to negotiate diesel fuel purchases on behalf of Silver Sand. Kelly did not know where Carruthers or Handy Haul-It could get diesel fuel, and he assumed that Handy Haul-It was a fuel distributor. Carruthers told Kelly that he would need to have a "Purchaser's Blanket Resale and Exemption Certificate" issued by Silver Sand in order to obtain the fuel. Carruthers presented Kelly with such a certificate. The certificate was addressed to Radiant Oil. Kelly went to his superior, Kenneth Surbaugh, and asked whether he should issue the certificate. Surbaugh authorized Kelly to sign the certificate. Kelly signed the certificate that day, and left it on his desk. When he returned the following day the certificate was gone. Kelly did not write the name "Silver Sand Company" on the certificate, and did not date it. The name "Silver Sand Company" and the date were placed on the certificate after Kelly signed it. The certificate came into Carruthers' possession. The evidence did not reveal whether the certificate was delivered to Carruthers by anyone at Silver Sand, but Kelly did intend to deliver the certificate to Carruthers. A copy of the certificate was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. The name Silver Sand Company is inserted as the purchaser, and it is dated January 1, 1973. The document was predated. It was actually signed during April, 1973. NCJ is in the business of distributing motor fuels, including diesel fuel. Joseph Capitano is the President and Chief Executive Officer of NCJ. During April through December, 1973, NCJ had a relative abundance of diesel fuel. In April, 1973, Bill Simms, a friend of Capitano who is also in the fuel distribution business, told Capitano that he had a customer who desired to purchase substantial quantities of diesel fuel. This customer was Carruthers. Simms introduced Carruthers to Capitano. Capitano told Carruthers that he would need a Purchaser's Blanket Resale and Exemption Certificate in order to sell him diesel fuel. Capitano gave Carruthers a certificate to be executed which would fulfill this function. This is the certificate that was signed by Kelly, and received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. Carruthers ultimately returned the form to Capitano. The form is addressed to Radiant Oil, not to NCJ. NCJ and Radiant Oil are separate entities. NCJ and Radiant Oil are separately registered with the Department of Revenue as motor fuel dealers. The corporations are somewhat related. Joseph Capitano's father owns Radiant Oil. NCJ leases office space from Radiant Oil, and the two corporations share clerical help. The companies use common gas tanks. The companies also utilize many of the same business forms. NCJ had on occasion utilized Radiant Oil's "Purchaser's Blanket Resale and Exemption Certificate" form for its use. NCJ was a new company, and did not have its own forms. Respondent's Exhibit 3 is a compilation of such forms which were used by NCJ during the relevant period. Some of these were Radiant Oil's forms. In utilizing Radiant Oil's forms, the name Radiant Oil Company was marked off and NCJ Investment Company was inserted. That was not done on the form signed by Kelly on behalf of Silver Sand. After Carruthers delivered the exemption certificate to Capitano Handy Haul-It proceeded to purchase fuel from NCJ and resell it to Silver Sand. The fuel was generally picked up at NCJ's tanks by Handy Haul-It's truck. Occasionally Handy Haul-It hired trucks from another common carrier to pick up the fuel. Handy Haul-It paid for the fuel by check made out on the account of Handy Haul-It. NCJ invoices reflected, however, that the purchaser was Silver Sand. Copies of these invoices were not mailed to Silver Sand, and never came into the possession of Silver Sand. No one at Silver Sand was aware of the existence of NCJ. Handy Haul-It purchased 1,753,027 gallons of special fuel from NCJ in this manner. Handy Haul-It did not pay the special fuel tax on any of the purchases. While NCJ was selling tax free based upon the Purchaser's Blanket Resale Exemption Certificate (Respondent's Exhibit 1) it did not place Silver Sand's dealer or distributor license number on many of the invoices. NCJ never made any inquiry of anyone at Silver Sand as to Carruthers' or Handy Haul-It's authority to purchase fuel on Silver Sand's behalf. 882,264 gallons of the special fuel purchased by Handy Haul-It from NCJ was delivered to Silver Sand. This fuel was delivered either in Handy Haul-It's own truck, or in a truck hired by Handy Haul-It. Silver Sand paid Handy Haul-It directly by check when it received each of the deliveries. Handy Haul-It delivered invoices to Silver Sand. The invoices do not reflect a separate itemization showing that motor fuel taxes were paid. The price paid for the fuel would indicate that the price included the tax. Carruthers represented to officials at Silver Sand that the price included the tax, and that he would pay the taxes. In its monthly reports to the Department of Revenue, Silver Sand did not report the purchases because it believed that it was not required to report purchases upon which taxes had been paid. The evidence at the hearing was insufficient to establish the ultimate destination of the fuel which Handy Haul- It purchased from NCJ but did not sell to Silver Sand. Handy Haul-It did make sales to several other trucking companies, including Keystone Trucking Company, Montgomery Trucking, Montgomery Hauling, Keys of the Coast, Florida Bulk Transport, Dirt Haulers, Inc., and Mid Florida Hauling. Handy Haul-It had purchased some fuel from sources other than NCJ, and it cannot be gleaned from the evidence whether the fuel purchased from NCJ was ultimately delivered to these other companies. It is clear from the evidence that the remaining fuel was not delivered to Silver Sand, and that Silver Sand was not aware that Handy Haul-It had purchased such additional quantities from NCJ in Silver Sand's name. Handy Haul-It was not licensed as a distributor or dealer of motor fuels by the Florida Department of Revenue. By agreeing to purchase diesel fuel from Handy Haul-It, Silver Sand authorized Handy Haul-It to obtain diesel fuel on behalf of Silver Sand. Handy Haul-It was therefore Silver Sand's agent for the purpose of obtaining fuel for Silver Sand. When Kelly signed the Purchaser's Blanket Resale and Exemption Certificate, he authorized Handy Haul-It to use Silver Sand's special fuel dealer's license to obtain diesel fuel tax free from Radiant Oil Company of Tampa, the addressee on the certificate. Silver Sand thus clothed Handy Haul-It and Carruthers with the apparent authority to purchase diesel fuel tax free utilizing Silver Sand's special fuel dealer license number from Radiant Oil Company of Tampa. NCJ knew, or should have known, that in making sales to Carruthers and Handy Haul-It, it was not dealing directly with Silver Sand. Although the exemption certificate had the name Silver Sand on it, and NCJ chose to address its invoices to Silver Sand, all of the purchases were made by Handy Haul-It and Carruthers. There was no evidence that Carruthers ever represented to NCJ that he had authority to speak for Silver Sand. NCJ took no action to inform itself as to Carruthers' authority to act on Silver Sand's behalf, other than to obtain the exemption certificate. The exemption certificate, however, was not made out to NCJ. The only authority of Handy Haul-It to act on Silver Sand's behalf that NCJ was entitled to rely upon was the authority to purchase fuel from Radiant Oil Company of Tampa. The authorization is very specific in this regard, and although it may be that Silver" Sand would gladly have executed an exemption certificate addressed to NCJ, it did not do that. The fact that the certificate was back-dated, and was issued to the wrong entity, should have caused NCJ to take action to contact Silver Sand. If NCJ had done that, Handy Haul-It would never have been in a position to purchase fuel from NCJ and to deliver it to someone other than Silver Sand. Indeed, it is possible that Handy Haul-It would never have been placed in the position of buying fuel under Silver Sand's license number at all. Knowing that it was dealing with an agent, NCJ should have sent copies of the invoices to the principal, Silver Sand. If NCJ had done that, Silver Sand would have been on notice that Handy Haul-It was purchasing considerable fuel in its name, and delivering it elsewhere. Silver Sand did not give Handy Haul-It the authority to obtain fuel for any purpose except delivery to Silver Sand. When Handy Haul-It utilized the exemption certificate to purchase fuel for purposes other than delivery to Silver Sand, it exceeded the scope of its authority. NCJ did not obtain special fuel taxes from Handy Haul-It on the sales which NCJ made to Handy Haul-It. NCJ did report the sales to the Department of Revenue. Silver Sand believed that it was paying special fuel taxes to Handy Haul-It. The fact that the price which Silver Sand paid to Handy Haul-It included the tax was not, however, placed on the invoices. Handy Haul-It did not pay any special fuel taxes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED: That the assessment for Special Fuel Tax in the amount of $154,644.50 imposed against Silver Sand Company of Leesburg, Inc., by the Department of Revenue be upheld. CERTIFICATION I certify that the foregoing is the Final Order of the Department of Revenue adopted by the Governor and Cabinet on the 19th day of April, 1977. Harry L. Coe, Jr., Executive Director State of Florida, Department of Revenue Room 102, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dated this 20th day of April, 1977.
The Issue Whether or not the agency may, pursuant to Section 525.06 F.S., assess $390.04 for sale of substandard product due to a violation of the petroleum inspection laws and also set off that amount against Petitioner's bond.
Findings Of Fact Coleman Oil Co., Inc. d/b/a Shell Oil Co. at I-75 and SR 26 Gainesville, Florida, is in the business of selling kerosene, among other petroleum products. On November 15, 1990, Randy Herring, an inspector employed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and who works under the direction of John Whitton, Chief of its Bureau of Petroleum, visited the seller to conduct an inspection of the petroleum products being offered for sale to the public. Mr. Herring drew a sample of "1-K" kerosene being offered for sale, sealed it, and forwarded it to the agency laboratory in Tallahassee where Nancy Fisher, an agency chemist, tested it to determine whether it met agency standards. The testing revealed that the sampled kerosene contained .22% by weight of sulfur. This is in excess of the percentage by weight permitted by Rule 5F- 2.001(2) F.A.C. for this product. A "Stop Sale Notice" was issued, and on the date of that notice (November 20, 1990) the inspector's comparison of the seller's delivery sheets and the kerosene physically remaining in his tanks resulted in the determination that 196 gallons of kerosene had been sold to the public. Based on a posted price of $1.99 per gallon, the retail value of the product sold was determined, and the agency accordingly assessed a $390.04 penalty. The agency also permitted the seller to post a bond for the $390.04 on November 21, 1990. The assessment is reasonable and conforms to the amount of assessments imposed in similar cases.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order approving the $390.04 assessment and offsetting the bond against it. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: CLINTON H. COULTER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 510 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800 MR. RANDAL W. COLEMAN COLEMAN OIL COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 248 GAINESVILLE, FL 32602 HONORABLE BOB CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE THE CAPITOL, PL-10 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0810 RICHARD TRITSCHLER, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 515 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800
The Issue Whether or not Sohio, a subsidiary of BP Oil Company, Inc., is liable for the payment of certain local option gas taxes to the Department of Revenue under the facts of this case.
Findings Of Fact This cause was initiated by the Petition for Formal Hearing filed with the Department of Revenue on or about February 2, 1989. This petition was in response to the Department's assessment of February 29, 1988. During the period from January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1987, Petitioner Sohio made sales of gasoline to various customers including 290,698 gallons of gasoline to Enos Ying (Ying), and 634,555 gallons of gasoline to Basil Roberts (Roberts). Petitioner's sales to Ying and to Roberts occurred at their respective places of business in Broward County, Florida, which imposed a six cent per gallon local option gas tax, pursuant to Chapter 336, F.S. during 1986 and 1987. At all times material, Petitioner was licensed in the State of Florida as a "refiner". Petitioner collected motor fuel tax under Chapter 206, F.S., but did not collect or remit local option gasoline tax under Chapter 336, F.S., with regard to its sale of gasoline to Ying and to Roberts. Petitioner did not obtain resale certificates or affidavits from Ying or Roberts covering its sales to them. On November 1, 1985, the Department of Revenue published an "Important Notice to all Retail Gasoline Dealers" which stated that: Effective January 1, 1986, Sections 336.021 and 336.025, Florida Statutes, requires (sic) the Retail Gasoline Dealer to collect and remit the local option gas tax and the voted gas tax on the sale of motor or special fuel at the retail level within a county which imposes one of the above taxes. On January 17, 1986, the Department of Revenue issued an "Important Notice to Motor Fuel Wholesalers, Importers or Distributors Concerning 1986 Licenses" and a list of retail service stations licensed for 1986 as of January 10, 1986, which notice stated: Those accounts that are unlicensed in 1986 will be receiving notification concerning their account and should secure their licenses immediately in order to prevent further complications, On the reverse side of the aforesaid notice, it was stated, Those accounts that are licensed in 1986 are responsible for remitting the local option gas taxes under Chapter 336, Florida Statutes. If you sell to an unlicensed retail dealer, the wholesaler, importer or refiner is responsible for collecting and remitting the local option taxes due under Chapter 336, Florida Statutes. Evidence should be obtained from the retail dealers as to his (sic) current status with the Department prior to selling to the account on a tax-free (Chapter 336, F.S.) basis. No rules or regulations of the Respondent Department under Chapter 336, F.S. or which make specific reference to Chapter 336, F.S. were promulgated by the Department during the period in question. On February 29, 1988, the Respondent issued a notice of delinquent local option gas tax, penalty and interest due and assessed against Petitioner in the amount of $1,302,545.13 (tax of $956,420.65, penalty of $229,806.11 and interest of $116,318.37) regarding sales made by the Petitioner to its customers including Ying and Roberts. A schedule describing the items forming the basis of the assessment was enclosed therewith, which schedule described the transaction subject to the assessment as being sales made to unlicensed retail dealers. The Respondent has never pursued collection of the tax, penalty and interest at issue from either Ying or Roberts. Petitioner did not know or have reason to know whether or not Ying or Roberts had paid the tax in question. On March 17, 1988, Petitioner filed a protest with the office of the General Counsel of the Florida Department of Revenue objecting to the entire assessment on the grounds Petitioner was not liable for the local option tax in regard to the subject transactions and in the alternative, that the retail dealers involved were either listed by the Department of Revenue as being licensed or had filed returns and previously paid their tax. By letter dated April 5, 1988, Petitioner was informed by Christine F. McCann, Special Programs Analyst, Bureau of Enforcement of the Florida Department Revenue, that the above referenced assessment had been revised downward to reflect the liability of $253,260.11 (tax of $182,813.42, penalty of $45,370.91, and interest of $25,075.78) on the grounds that the Petitioner had identified certain dealers as being licensed by the Department, who were part of a transaction for which the Respondent sought to tax Petitioner. As a result of an informal conference held on May 27, 1988, a Notice of Reconsideration was issued on December 7, 1988 which further reduced the assessment against Petitioner to a total of $80,463.39 (tax of $57,769.38, interest of $8,251.61 and penalty of $14,442.40) on the grounds that the Petitioner either identified additional dealers as being licensed by the Department or demonstrated that the retail dealers though not licensed by the Department, had paid the tax in question in regard to the subject transactions. The assessment as revised by the Department's Notice of Reconsideration continues to be in error in that it yet includes certain retail dealers although not licensed and other than Ying and Roberts, who have already paid the tax in question and therefore the assessment should be revised downward further. After the above-referenced adjustment, there remains and is now in controversy in this case the following amounts: SALES TO YING SALES TO ROBERTS Tax $17,436.48 Tax $38,073.30 Penalty 4,359.13 Penalty 9,518.37 Interest to Interest to 4/20/89 4,073.15 4/20/89 9,679.30 TOTAL $25,868.76 $57,270.97 GRAND TOTAL $83,139.73 as of 4/20/89. Should the Respondent prevail in this matter, interest will continue to accrue until the tax is paid. During the course of the informal protest procedures before the Department of Revenue, Petitioner established that all the sales which were the subject of the original notice, except those to Ying and to Roberts, were either to licensed gasoline retailers or to unlicensed gasoline retailers who had collected and remitted the local option tax due. Upon the testimony of Charles (Chuck) M. Reed Jr., Retail Marketer, who has been a dealer lease and supply agent for Ying and for Roberts from Gulf BP, parent corporation of Petitioner Sohio, it is found that Sohio's customary sales both to Ying and to Roberts were made exclusively by filling underground gasoline tanks at the respective establishments of Ying and of Roberts on delivery by the truckload of no less than 7,100 gallons and no more than 8,402 gallons at a time. Also upon the basis of his testimony and the photographs he took which were admitted in evidence, it is found that Ying and Roberts made retail sales to the general motoring public. More specifically, signs posting product affiliation and prices [see Section 206.01 (7) F.S.] which were observed by Mr. Reed identified each of these establishments as retail outlets. The sales agreements between Petitioner and Ying and between Petitioner and Roberts are also clearly in support of this finding. It is also proper to infer from Mr. Reed's testimony that he watched a majority of the gasoline gallons sold to Roberts and to Ying pumped into their respective underground tanks and then observed them pumping gasoline out of those tanks into motorists' cars via the traditional hose arrangements found in commercial gasoline stations, that it was the same Sohio gasoline which was pumped and sold by Ying and Roberts at retail. It was not necessary for Mr. Reed to physically observe the gasoline coursing through the hoses or account specifically day by day from delivery in bulk by Sohio to dispensation one car gasoline tank at a time by Ying and by Roberts in light of the exclusivity clauses of their contracts with Sohio. Therefore, Sohio established that the gasoline it sold to Ying and to Roberts was resold by Ying and by Roberts to the general motoring public. Ying and Roberts therefore fall in the category of being gasoline retailers unlicensed by the Department of Revenue, of whom it is undetermined whether they submitted their county local option gas tax due and from whom Petitioner Sohio, licensed as a refiner, did not obtain resale certificates or affidavits covering Sohio's sales to them. Petitioner did not establish that Ying and Roberts had collected and remitted the local option gasoline tax in controversy. There is no statute or rule which precludes Petitioner selling to an unlicensed dealer. Respondent Department of Revenue requested that Petitioner Sohio provide information which would indicate whether Ying and Roberts had collected and remitted the local option gasoline tax. Since all of the revisions and reductions of the original assessment against Petitioner as set out above were done by the Respondent based on information supplied by the Petitioner, the Respondent anticipated that Petitioner also would be able to provide information on Ying and Roberts. Respondent could have searched its records to find out if Ying and Roberts had paid their tax, and then gone directly to Ying and Roberts to find out why they did not pay the tax, if that were the case. However, due to the agency's search system which is geared to retailer license numbers, Department of Revenue employees asserted that such a search is probably impossible and certainly is impractical. All retail gasoline dealers are required to be licensed in order to sell gasoline. Accordingly, income tax forms are mailed by the agency only to those retail dealers who have obtained a license, despite the assertion in the agency's Notice described in Finding of Fact 8 that unlicensed retailers who had paid their tax without such a number/license were traceable. The problem appears to be that Petitioner sold to persons (unlicensed retailers Ying and Roberts) who had no vehicles (respective retail license numbers) by which to submit the local option gas tax. Instead of pursuing Ying and Roberts for payment of the county local option gas tax, the agency chose to come back against Petitioner for either the certificates or affidavits specifically required with regard to collection and remittance of the state motor fuel tax under Section 206.425 F.S., or for other proof of Roberts' and Ying's compliance concerning the county local option gas tax. According to Mr. Zych, Administrator of the Disposition Section of the Office of the General Counsel and superior to Ms. McCann, the agency would have accepted properly executed retail certificates if Petitioner had gotten them. Without such proof forthcoming from Petitioner, the agency held Petitioner liable for the local option gas tax imposed by the statute upon the retailer. So far as Ms. McCann, Respondent's Special Program Analyst, was concerned, this election to proceed against Sohio was completely in the discretion of her superior. There is no rule that requires Petitioner to get an exemption certificate or affidavit before they sell to a retail dealer.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order rescinding its Notice of Assessment against Petitioner with regard to its sales to Ying and Roberts and letting Petitioner go hence without ay. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0638 The following constitutes specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner' s PFOF: All of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted, but those not adopted have not been adopted because they are unnecessary, subordinate to the facts as found or mere legal argument. Respondent ` s PFOF: 1.-6. Accepted. 7. Accepted as modified to conform to the record and the natural inferences of the evidence of record. 8.-11. Accepted but not necessarily adopted as subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. 12. Accepted. 13.-15. Accepted but not necessarily adopted as subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the competent substantial evidence and the natural logical inferences there from. Accepted but not adopted because not dispositive of any material issue of fact in dispute in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Taylor, Esquire Excise Tax Analyst Ira L Smith, Esquire Director, Ad Volorem Tax Division BP America, Inc. 200 Public Square 38-3600-L Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2375 Lealand McCharen Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 William D. Townsend General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Katie D. Tucker Executive Director 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Petitioner deals in fuel oil. It buys fuel oil from several wholesalers and sells it at retail, mainly to people who use fuel oil for heating purposes. Petitioner operates a low pressure pump on its premises for pumping fuel oil from a ten thousand gallon tank into five gallon cans and similar containers brought to the pump by its customers. At peak demand, the ten thousand gallon tank supplying this pump had to be refilled twice a week. In general, however, during the cold season, the tank was refilled only every other week or less often still. No fuel oil was ever pumped from the low pressure pump into any motor vehicle. Petitioner also maintained two big dispersing pumps for filling its tank trucks with fuel oil and a gasoline pump for fueling the truck engines. The trucks were equipped with pumps for emptying their fuel oil tanks, which pumped at the rate of forty gallons per minute. Petitioner advertised home delivery of fuel oil in the newspaper, and dispatched its trucks in response to the resulting telephone calls. In addition to delivering fuel oil for home heating purposes, petitioner occasionally sold larger quantities to fellow fuel oil dealers and to other commercial concerns. In February, March and April of 1974, petitioner sold particularly large quantities of fuel oil to Tampa Electric Company. During the period covered by the audit, petitioner sold from 50,000 to 70,000 gallons to other fuel oil dealers. Petitioner did not get resale certificates from its commercial customers, but Mr. Hayes, until recently petitioner's proprietor, required dealers to show him their dealer's licenses and he copied the dealers' license numbers onto the invoices. In March of 1976, Mr. Donald E. Snyder, a tax examiner in respondent's employ, began auditing petitioner's books. At this time most of petitioner's records were in Orlando in the custody of the Federal Energy Administration. Subsequently, some, but not all, of these records were returned to petitioner. In an effort to reconstruct records which were unavailable, Mr. Snyder contacted petitioner's suppliers and examined their records of sales to petitioner. On January 2, 1977, Mr. Hayes and Mr. Snyder took an inventory of petitioner's fuel oil. Mr. Snyder used this information as well as what records petitioner was able to furnish him, and concluded that petitioner had sold, during the audit period, two thousand four hundred seventy-nine (2,479) gallons of fuel oil to persons or concerns who were users of fuel oil for non-exempt purposes. Written on the invoices evidencing these sales, however, was the phrase "non-road use" or words to that effect. The limited materials with which he worked gave Mr. Snyder no indication as to the disposition of an additional two hundred fifty- eight thousand three hundred forty (258,340) gallons of fuel oil. Although Mr. Snyder approximated petitioner's sales month by month, these figures were unreliable because of certain erroneous assumptions, notably the assumption that petitioner never used additional storage facilities.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent abandon its notice of proposed assessment, as revised. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James P. LaRussa, Esquire Flagship Bank Building, Suite 416 315 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Mr. Cecil L. Davis, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
