Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Integra Corporation, had a dispute with the Florida Department of Revenue with respect to sales or use tax allegedly due in the amount of $605,305.70 on lease payments made on its rental of hotels from their owners. An assessment for taxes due was processed in the normal manner by the Department of Revenue. Integra Corporation filed a Protest of the assessment, and after the Department's Notice of Decision denied the Protest, Integra filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration. Ultimately the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration which rejected the arguments of Integra Corporation. Integra Corporation agrees that the Notice of Reconsideration was transmitted on April 24, 1990, for it alleges that fact in paragraph 3 of its Petition. The Department's final rejection of the arguments made by Integra Corporation against the assessment of sales and use tax made in the Notice of Reconsideration dated April 24, 1990, prompted Integra Corporation to mail by certified mail, return receipt #P796 304 819, to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 21, 1990, an original Petition challenging the Department's tax assessment. That petition was captioned Integra Corporation, Petitioner v. Department of Revenue, Respondent, and was filed by the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 25, 1990. No copy of the original Petition was served on the Department of Revenue, or its counsel. The opening paragraph states that Integra Corporation "hereby petitions the Department of Revenue for administrative proceedings. . ." The Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings realized that the Petition should not have been addressed to or filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings, and on that same day forwarded the Petition to the appropriate agency, the Department of Revenue, which received the Petition on June 27, 1990.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the petition filed by Integra Corporation be dismissed as untimely. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1990.
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 In 1972 Petitioner received $743,982 of income from state and municipal bonds. On its federal income tax return the Petitioner allocated $471,229 of this amount to the policyholders' share as required by law and $272,753 to the company's share (Phase I). The Phase II figures were $359,669 and $384,313 respectively. Respondent has added back the entire $743,982 for purposes of computing Petitioner's Florida taxable income. Petitioner added back the $272,753 (Phase I) and $384,313 (Phase II). For 1972 Petitioner accrued $350,000 of Florida taxes on its federal income tax return. In computing its deductions on its federal income tax return 36.6612 percent of this amount was deducted in the Phase I computation and 51.6564 percent in the Phase II computation. Respondent has added back all of the Florida tax accrued in computing the Florida income tax owed by Petitioner. Petitioner's position is that only the company's percentages were deductible and only these amounts should be added back. The amount of additional Florida income tax assessment proposed for 1972 by the Respondent over that paid by Petitioner is $21,234. In 1973 Petitioner received $552,408 of income from state and municipal bonds. On its federal income tax return Petitioner allocated $335,662 of this amount to policyholders' share as required by law and $216,786 to the company's share (Phase I). The Phase II figures were $248,789 and $303,619 respectively. Respondent has added back the entire $552,408 for purposes of computing Petitioner's taxable income. Petitioner added back the $216,786 (Phase I) and $303,619 (Phase II). For 1973 Petitioner accrued $475,000 of Florida taxes on its federal income tax return. In computing its deductions on its federal income tax return 39.2438 percent of this amount was deductible in Phase I and 54.9628 percent in Phase II. Respondent has added back all of the Florida tax accrued. Petitioner's position is that only the company's percentages were deductible and only these amounts should be added back. The amount of additional Florida income tax assessment proposed for 1973 by Respondent was $20,184. It was further stipulated that the sole issues here involved are: The computation of the amount of tax exempt interest which is excludable from taxable income under section 103(a) Internal Revenue Code for purposes of the Florida corporate income tax; and The computation of the amount of Florida income tax accrued which is deductible for purposes of federal income tax and added back for purposes of computing the Florida income tax.
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 in this case is whether Petitioner is liable for corporate income and excise taxes that have been assessed by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a subsidiary of PBS Building Systems America, Inc. (PBS- A). PBS-A and Petitioner filed consolidated Florida income and excise tax returns during the time in question. During the years in question, PBS-A had no tax nexus with Florida, but incurred losses that were available to offset gross income. During the years in question, Petitioner had nexus with Florida and incurred taxable income. The filing of the consolidated return reduced the taxable income of Petitioner by the losses of PBS-A. On December 19, 1990, Respondent issued two notices of proposed assessment for years ending December 31, 1985, through March 31, 1989. One notice identifies $8273 of unpaid corporate excise tax, plus $2798 of interest through September 15, 1990. The notice states that interest would continue to accrue at the daily rate of $2.27. The second notice of proposed assessment identifies $55,480 of unpaid corporate income tax, plus $20,254 of interest through September 15, 1990. The notice states that interest continues to accrue at the daily rate of $15.20. Petitioner filed a notice of protest dated February 15, 1991. By notice of decision dated October 17, 1991, Respondent rejected the protest and sustained the proposed deficiencies. The claimed deficiency for unpaid corporate income tax, however, was revised to $75,039. A notice of reconsideration dated July 21, 1992, restates the conclusions of the notice of decision. By petition for formal hearing dated September 16, 1992, Petitioner requested a formal hearing concerning the tax liabilities in question and specifically the conclusion that PBS- A was ineligible to file a consolidated return in Florida due to the absence of tax nexus with Florida. The September 16 letter recites facts to establish tax nexus with Florida through the establishment of financing relationships. However, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of these factual assertions because they represent mere allegations. Petitioner failed to produce any evidence in the case and, when noticed for a corporate deposition, failed to appear. Additionally, Petitioner's failure to respond to requests for admission results in admissions that, during the relevant period, PBS-A was not a bank, brokerage house, or finance corporation and did not lend money to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining the above-described assessments against Petitioner. ENTERED on February 12, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Attorney Lisa Raleigh Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Kathryn M. Jaques Arthur Andersen & Co. Suite 1600 701 B Street San Diego, CA 92101-8195
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a policy of Respondent prohibiting Respondent’s employees from engaging in preparation of federal income tax returns for profit during off-hours constitutes a rule subject to promulgation requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are employees of the Department of Revenue (DOR) who wish to prepare federal income tax returns. They assert they wish to prepare the returns on a pro bono basis and for hire in their non-working time for persons who are not required to file any tax returns with the State of Florida, and who are not required to pay court-ordered payments of child support. Each of the Petitioners is employed with the Respondent as a Tax Auditor II, III, or IV, and each is a Career Service employee with permanent status. Petitioners’ primary work function for the Respondent entails auditing State tax returns filed with DOR by business entities. Victor Novoa holds a bachelors degree in finance, and has 20 years experience working in the accounting field, including nine years auditing experience with the Respondent. Ana Socarras has a bachelor’s degree in the accounting field, and has been employed with the Respondent as an auditor since 1994. She has 15 years experience working in the accounting field. Enrique Altuzarra is a licensed Certified Public Accountant. He has more than 25 years experience in the area of accounting and auditing. Lander Carn holds a master’s degree in taxation, is a licensed Certified Public Accountant, and has 15 years experience in the accounting and auditing fields. Petitioners became aware, following their employment by Respondent, of Respondent’s policy prohibiting its employees from preparation of federal income tax returns for compensation during their non-working time. Respondent’s policy has been consistently disseminated to employees through group meetings with employees and in memoranda circulated by management to employees. Pro bono preparation of federal tax returns is permitted in some situations. Respondent’s policy is expressed also in Respondent’s “Code of Conduct” which is published to all employees. The policy provides: (2) Outside Preparation of Tax Returns and Other Forms Preparation of tax returns and other forms required by the Department of Revenue or the Internal Revenue Service, whether compensated or uncompensated, for persons other than family members is not permitted. Respondent also states the policy in its auditor’s manual in the following language: The Department has a policy specifically prohibiting all employees from preparing any state or federal tax returns, reports, declarations or documents, or otherwise [sic]engage in accounting, use, analysis or preparation of any financial records for consideration, or [sic] sign such tax document for compensation, gift, or favor. Respondent’s policy has found expression in Respondent’s official writings, monthly newsletter to employees, and memoranda addressed to employees and management. Statements of the policy have been systematically communicated to agency personnel with the intent and effect of prohibiting employee preparation of federal tax returns for compensation in the course of secondary employment and implemented with the direct and consistent effect of law. Respondent’s Code of Conduct literally prohibits any exception to the policy prohibiting participation by an employee in preparation of federal tax returns for pay during off-duty hours for anyone other than family members. Respondent’s Employee Handbook also makes it clear that any employee engaging in such conduct, absent specific approval, faces disciplinary action “up to and including dismissal.” As established by testimony of Glenn Bedonie, an employee of Respondent in various, highly responsible, management positions, and William P. Fritchman, a participant in development of the policy and Respondent’s former chief of personnel for 23 years, there has been no instance in which any employee has ever been permitted to prepare federal income tax returns “for hire” during off-duty time. As stipulated by the parties, Respondent has not adopted, in compliance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, the policy of refusing to allow employees to prepare federal tax returns for hire in secondary employment. Petitioners do not contemplate and do not desire to prepare federal tax returns in circumstances that would present a conflict of interest with their employment with Respondent. They do not seek to prepare tax returns for individuals who own a business, who are required to file state returns, and who are subject to audit by Respondent. Confidential tax information possessed by Respondent is not available to the Petitioners or other auditors within Respondent’s employment. Such information must be requested from a Computer Audit Analyst or a Senior Tax specialist on a specific taxpayer which the particular auditor has been assigned to audit. If deemed appropriate, the information may be made available to the auditor. Similarly, confidential tax information obtained by Respondent from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is adequately safeguarded from ready abuse by employees by requiring an auditor to justify the need for such information to a series of supervisory personnel. Respondent presented no creditable or persuasive evidence that it would be impractical or unfeasible to enact its present policy in compliance with requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Having listened to the testimony and considered the evidence presented in this cause, it is found as follows: Petitioner is a domestic corporation. Petitioner provided medicare services to patients in the 1969-70 fiscal year. An on-site audit by the medicare auditing team was concluded in December of 1971, and petitioner received $56,131.00 of medicare reimbursements in January of 1972, for the services provided in the 1969-70 fiscal year. The petitioner did not file an amended federal income tax return for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979. The adjusted federal income reported on petitioner's federal income tax return for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1972, included the $56,131.00 of medicare reimbursements received by petitioner in January of 1972. On petitioner's Florida income tax return for its fiscal year ending September 30, 1972, petitioner did not include the $56,131.00 figure in its adjusted federal income. On March 31, 1975, the respondent notified petitioner of a proposed deficiency in the amount of $2,100.99 arising from the petitioner's omission of the medicare reimbursements from its adjusted federal income as shown on its Florida corporate income tax return for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1972. Further correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the Corporate Income Tax Bureau of the respondent and the petitioner filed the present petition requesting a hearing on the issue. The respondent requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is my recommendation that there is no legal basis for affording the petitioner any relief from the proposed deficiency and that said deficiency in the amount of $2,100.00 be sustained. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of September, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: E. Wilson Crump, II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Division, Northwood Mall Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Homer E. Ward, N.H.A. Administrator/President University Park Convalescent Center 1818 E. Fletcher Avenue Tampa, Florida 33612
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is liable for the sales and use tax assessment issued by Respondent on February 21, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this proceeding, Respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), has issued a proposed sales and use tax assessment in the amount of $24,546.54, plus $6,640.12 in penalties, plus interest from the date of the assessment, against Petitioner, Florida Truck Dock Company (Petitioner or taxpayer). As of March 20, 1997, the assessment totaled $55,195.27, and it continues to increase by $8.07 each day. The assessment constitutes taxes, penalties, and interest allegedly due from Petitioner for various materials and supplies purchased by Petitioner for use in the performance of real property contracts for Petitioner's customers. In its response to the assessment, Petitioner denied that it owed the money. Petitioner's business activities consisted primarily of purchasing truck loading dock equipment from suppliers, principally Kelly Company, Inc. (Kelly), and then installing such equipment as an improvement to real estate. Its records indicate that purchased equipment was generally brought into Florida and installed in real property in the state under a contract whereby parts and labor were furnished for one lump sum contract price. The foregoing contracts were Class A or lump sum contracts within the meaning of Rule 12A-1.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Class A contracts are considered contracts for the improvement of real estate, not contracts for the resale of tangible personal property. In addition, when the equipment was purchased, Petitioner had not issued resale certificates to its vendors. Under these circumstances, Petitioner was properly treated as an end-user of the equipment in question and owed use taxes on all such purchases of tangible personal property. This controversy began on March 30, 1992, when DOR issued a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records of the taxpayer in conjunction with a routine audit. The notice requested that Petitioner make available various corporate records pertaining to its sales and use tax and intangible tax liability. However, only the sales and use tax is in issue here. DOR later advised the taxpayer that the audit period would run from March 1, 1987, through February 29, 1992, and that instead of a detailed audit, only a three-month sampling of the full audit period would be necessary. An initial audit revealed that Petitioner was entitled to a refund. None was given, however, because of information supplied by an employee of the taxpayer regarding the possible destruction and alteration of certain records by the taxpayer, and the auditor's conclusion that a three-month sampling of the records was not representative for the full five-year audit period. In addition, the auditor concluded that the results of the sample period were not reasonable. For these reasons, the scope of the audit was expanded. The auditor then requested, among other things, that copies of all sales (summary) journals for the entire five-year period be produced. Although Petitioner has always contended that these journals were merely "commission" journals for transactions between its vendors and customers, the auditor's finding that they are records of cash transactions is consistent with the language on the face of the journals, referring to "deposits" and "total deposits." Further, a comparison of the journals with Petitioner's own bank statements confirms this finding. At least twelve months of the records were missing, and the taxpayer agreed to recreate the missing records. Once a copy of all journals (both original and recreated) was produced, the auditor tested their validity and then made various audit adjustments, which are reflected on Schedule A-2 of Exhibit 5. In those instances where inadequate cost price information concerning equipment purchases was provided by the taxpayer, the auditor properly used estimates in making his adjustments. The tax liability for each taxable transaction was recorded by the taxpayer under Account 367 on the sales journals. The auditor then examined the source documents (original invoices) to verify the accuracy of the recorded amounts. These numbers were then compared with the taxes paid by the taxpayer on its monthly tax returns filed with DOR. This comparison produced a deficiency which represents approximately 75 percent of the total assessment. However, in those instances where Petitioner collected sales tax from its customers, and remitted the same to DOR, Petitioner was not assessed with a tax for those same items. A sampling of the audit period established that Petitioner also had a number of lump-sum contracts with various governmental customers on which it neither paid taxes to the vendor when the equipment was purchased, nor did it collect taxes from the end-user when the equipment was resold. Thus, it was responsible for the use taxes on these transactions. The deficiency is detailed on Schedule B-3 of the final audit report (Exhibit 6), and it accounts for approximately 14 percent of the total assessment. The remaining part of the assessment is related to four miscellaneous transactions which are unrelated to the sales journals. Two of the transactions occurred during the short period of time when the service tax was in effect in 1987, while the remaining two relate to small purchases of equipment and supplies by the taxpayer for its own consumption. There was no evidence that the taxpayer paid the taxes due on these transactions. DOR met with the taxpayer, its accountant, and its original counsel on various occasions in an effort to obtain more documentation favorable to the taxpayer's position. In most cases, the taxpayer refused to provide more records. At one meeting, however, the taxpayer produced additional source documents (invoices) that appeared to be altered from the original invoices previously given to the auditor. These are shown in Exhibit 7 received in evidence. When asked by the auditor for copies of the same invoices sent to customers so that the discrepancy could be resolved, the taxpayer refused to comply with this request. During the audit process, the taxpayer contended that its primary supplier, Kelly, had already paid taxes on a number of the transactions. No documentation was produced, however, to support this contention. It also complained that there was bias on the part of DOR's auditor. As to this contention, the record shows that the auditor had no relationship with the taxpayer prior to this audit, and for the intangible personal property tax, the auditor's field work actually resulted in a refund for Petitioner. Finally, the taxpayer contended that rather than using the originally supplied records, the auditor should have used Petitioner's recreated or altered records in making the audit adjustments. This latter contention has been rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order sustaining its original assessment against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Jeffrey M. Dikman, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Benjamin K. Phipps, Esquire Post Office Box 1351 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 L. H. Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact In the original corporate income tax report submitted by Florida Power Corporation for the 1973 tax year the tax was computed using the federal income tax base. This included various depreciation methods and schedules in which accelerated depreciation had been claimed for federal tax purposes by Petitioner in years prior to 1972 and the initiation of the Florida Corporate Income Tax Law. By using accelerated depreciation schedules authorized by the federal tax laws, higher depreciation is allowed in the early years of an asset's useful life, leaving a lesser amount of depreciation to be charged off for tax purposes in the latter years of an asset's life. Essentially, Petitioner here contends that depreciable assets acquired prior to the effective date of the Florida Corporate Income Tax law were depreciated on accelerated schedules for federal tax purposes, but upon the effective date of the Florida Corporate Income Tax Law had value in excess of that shown on the federal tax schedule. By requiring taxpayers to use the same depreciation schedules for Florida taxes that are required for federal taxes Petitioner contends it is being penalized for the accelerated depreciation taken before the Florida income tax became constitutional. As an example of Petitioner's position it may be assumed that a depreciable asset was acquired for $100,000 with a useful life of 10 years, three years before the Florida Income Tax Law was passed. Also assume that during this three-year period from acquisition a double declining balance depreciation was taken for computing federal income taxes. Depreciation taken for the first year would be $20,000, for the second year $16,000 and for the third year $12,800, leaving a basis for further depreciation of $41,200 for this asset with seven years useful life remaining. For federal tax purposes Petitioner takes depreciation each year based upon initial cost less accumulated depreciation. Because this value decreased rapidly for the first three years in the assumed example and the excess depreciation thereby generated was not usable in reducing Florida taxes, Petitioner contends it is discriminated against in being required to, in effect, use the book value for federal tax purposes in computing its Florida income tax. Petitioner presented additional examples of reported income for federal income tax purposes which it claims should be exempt from Florida Income Tax. The specific deductions from which the $619,697 refund was computed were not broken down to show how much resulted from the accelerated depreciation schedules which commences prior to January 1, 1972, and how much was derived from these additional examples, some of which were given simply as an example of deferring income for tax purposes. Prior to January 1, 1972, Petitioner purchased some of its bonds prior to maturity and at a discount. As an example if Petitioner purchases $1,000,000 face value of these bonds for $800,000, it has realized a $200,000 gain which it must report as income for federal income tax purposes. These same federal tax rules allow Petitioner to elect to pay the income tax in the year received or spread it equally over the succeeding ten year period. Petitioner elected to spread the income over the succeeding ten year period and each year add $20,000 to its reported income for federal income tax purposes. Since the income was realized before January 1, 1972, Petitioner contends this is not subject to federal tax purposes. With respect to overhead during construction of depreciable assets the taxpayer is allowed to charge these costs off as an expense in the year incurred or capitalize these expenses. If the taxpayer elects to capitalize these expenses they are added to the cost of the constructed asset and recovered as depreciation as the asset is used. Petitioner elected to charge these expenses in the year incurred rather than capitalize them. Had they been capitalized originally, Petitioner would, in 1973, have been entitled to recover these costs in its depreciation of the asset. In its amended return it seeks to treat these costs as if they had been capitalized rather than expenses prior to January 1, 1972. Although apparently not involved in the amended return, Petitioner also presented an example where changes in accounting procedures can result in a gain to the taxpayer which is treated as income to the taxpayer, which he may elect to spread over future years in equal increments until the total gain has been reported.
Findings Of Fact Winn-Dixie. Winn-Dixie is a Florida corporation with its principal offices at 5050 Edgewood Court, Post Office Box B, Jacksonville, Florida. [Stipulation of Facts]. Winn-Dixie's taxpayer identification number is 59-0514290. The Department's audit number is 88-04203785035. Winn-Dixie's fiscal year ends on the last Wednesday of June. Winn-Dixie's Intangible Tax Returns. Winn-Dixie has filed a Florida intangible tax return for every year beginning with the calendar year 1972. For calendar years 1972 through and including 1988, Winn-Dixie reported the value of its intangible personal property based upon the value of its intangible personal property at the end of its previous fiscal year, the last Wednesday of June. For example, in its 1972 intangible tax return Winn-Dixie reported the value of its intangible personal property as of June 26, 1971. The decision to use the value of its intangible personal property as of the end of its fiscal year for Florida intangible tax was made by Winn-Dixie without any direction from, or communication with, the Department. When Winn- Dixie began using its fiscal year end as the date to value its intangible personal property for Florida intangible tax purposes, no representation concerning the appropriateness of this method was made by the Department. Winn- Dixie made no effort to obtain approval of its method of valuation from the Department. Winn-Dixie indicated on each of its intangible tax returns for 1972 through 1988, that it had determined the value of its intangible personal property based upon its value as of the end of Winn-Dixie's fiscal year. Winn-Dixie used the fiscal year end value of its intangible personal property as the value of those assets for Florida intangible tax purposes for administrative convenience. It was easier to use such data than it would have been to redetermine the value of its intangible personal property at the end of each calendar year. When Harry Francis began working for Winn-Dixie in 1978, Mr. Francis was aware that Florida law required that intangible personal property be valued as of the first day of the calendar year. Mr. Francis, who served as director of taxes for Winn-Dixie until 1989, was also aware that Winn-Dixie was using the incorrect valuation date to value its intangible personal property for Florida intangible tax purposes. When Leon Calvert became the director of taxes for Winn-Dixie in 1989, Mr. Calvert was aware that Florida law required that intangible personal property be valued as of the first day of the calendar year. Mr. Calvert was also aware that Winn-Dixie was using the incorrect valuation date to value its intangible personal property for Florida intangible tax purposes. The explanations Mr. Francis and Mr. Calvert gave for not changing Winn-Dixie's method of valuing its intangible personal property for Florida intangible tax purposes were not credible. Both Mr. Francis or Mr. Calvert indicated that the valuation practice of Winn-Dixie was followed, in part, because of the need for consistency in the field of accounting. Neither Mr. Francis or Mr. Calvert, however, cited any generally accepted accounting principle to support the use of an incorrect method of valuing assets for tax purposes when that method is clearly contrary to law. Winn-Dixie does not collect intangible tax as an agent for the State of Florida by separately stating and passing along said tax to its customers. [Stipulation of Facts]. Therefore, Winn-Dixie has not lost any right to pass the asserted additional intangible tax liability along to others. Subsequent to the audit involved in this case Winn-Dixie prepared an analysis of the difference in the value of its intangible personal property for 1972 through 1984 and the value of its intangible personal property for 1972 through 1984 if it had valued its intangible personal property as of January first of each year. Based upon this analysis, Winn-Dixie over reported the value of its intangible personal property by $78,390,211.00 for the period from 1972 through 1984. [See Stipulation of Facts]. This amounted to an overpayment of taxes of approximately $81,485.00. Winn-Dixie has not filed any claim for refund of any amount of intangible taxes it may have overpaid as a result of using the value of its intangible personal property as of the end of its fiscal year. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the value of Winn- Dixie's intangible personal property as of the end of its fiscal year for any year for which it has filed an intangible tax return was approximately the same as the "just value" of those assets as January first. 1972 and 1973 Intangible Tax Returns. Winn-Dixie's intangible tax returns for calendar years 1972 and 1973 were examined by the Department. [Stipulation of Facts]. Winn-Dixie's 1972 and 1973 returns clearly indicated that the value of the assets included in the returns was the value as of the last Wednesday of June as of the previous year, Winn-Dixie's fiscal year end. No changes to Winn-Dixie's valuation method were recommended by the Department to Winn-Dixie's 1972 or 1973 intangible tax returns. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that any Department employee made any statements as a result of the Department's audit of the 1972 and 1973 returns to Winn-Dixie concerning Winn-Dixie's use of the value of its intangible personal property as of the end of its fiscal year to determine its intangible tax liability. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that any representation was made to Winn-Dixie by a Department employee that it was okay to use the June value of Winn-Dixie's intangible personal property even if that value was not the same as the January first value of Winn-Dixie's intangible personal property. Therefore, it is possible that the Department made no adjustments to Winn-Dixie's 1972 and 1973 returns because of a determination that the value of Winn-Dixie's intangible personal property in January was not materially different from the June value of its intangible personal property as reported by Winn-Dixie. Such a conclusion is consistent with Harry Francis' belief that there was not much difference in the value of Winn-Dixie's intangible assets at any time during the year. [See Transcript of Formal Hearing, page 90, lines 9- 12]. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that any representation was made to Winn-Dixie as a result of the audit of the 1972 and 1973 returns by a Department employee concerning the filing of future year intangible tax returns. 1979, 1980 and 1981 Intangible Tax Returns. Winn-Dixie's intangible tax returns for calendar years 1979, 1980 and 1981 were examined by the Department. [Stipulation of Facts]. The auditor that performed the examination is now deceased. [Stipulation of Facts]. The director of taxes for Winn-Dixie at the time of the audit of the 1979, 1980 and 1981 returns described a conversation he had with the Department's auditor as follows: The gist of the conversation was why did we use the June year end instead of January 1st. And the answer was as I said before, it was a long-standing practice, it was a consistency method, it was not a question of cherry picking for a good date and it seemed to do no harm. The recollection I have is that he was hesitant to make a determination on his own as to whether he required an adjustment or required a recomputation using a different date and that he was checking with some unknown superior in the Department of Revenue and later the no-change audit resulted. I don't recall if he ever called me about his conversation with the superiors, but I do recall no adjustments of any kind were made to any of those tax returns. And I would have recalled. I was nervous about those because I had prepared them. And they were the first ones that had been audited since I had been there. So I was relieved that no adjustments were made. And that was the gist of my relationship with the auditor. [Transcript of Formal Hearing, page 94, lines 17-25, and page 95, lines 1-12]. No changes were recommended by the Department to Winn-Dixie's 1979, 1980 or 1981 intangible tax returns. [Stipulation of Facts]. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove why the Department made no changes. Winn-Dixie did not change its method of reporting its intangible personal property as a result of any representations from a Department employee. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that any Department employee made any statements to Winn-Dixie as a result of the Department's audit of the 1979, 1980 and 1981 returns concerning Winn-Dixie's use of the value of its intangible personal property as of the end of its fiscal year to determine its intangible tax liability. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that any representation was made to Winn-Dixie by a Department employee that it was okay to use the June value of Winn-Dixie's intangible personal property even if that value was not the same as the January first value of Winn-Dixie's intangible personal property. Therefore, it is possible that the Department made no adjustments to Winn-Dixie's 1979, 1980 and 1981 returns because of a determination that the value of Winn-Dixie's intangible assets in January was not materially different from the June value of its intangible personal property as reported by Winn- Dixie. Such a conclusion is consistent with Harry Francis' belief that there was not much difference in the value of Winn-Dixie's intangible assets at any time during the year. [See Transcript of Formal Hearing, page 90, lines 9-12]. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that any representation was made to Winn-Dixie as a result of the audit of the 1979, 1980 and 1981 returns by a Department employee concerning the filing of future year intangible tax returns. 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 Intangible Tax Returns. The Department performed an audit of Winn-Dixie's intangible tax returns for 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. For these tax years Winn-Dixie valued its intangible personal property as of the end of the fiscal year preceding the taxable year, consistent with prior years. As a result of the Department's audit of the 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 returns, the Department determined that Winn-Dixie had underpaid Florida intangible tax in the following amounts and issued an assessment for same: 1985 $(16,244.00) 1986 21,471.00 1987 93,980.00 1988 86,974.00 Total $186,181.00 The Department's auditor who performed the audit of Winn-Dixie's 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 tax returns determined the value of Winn-Dixie's intangible personal property based on the value of those assets as reasonably close to January first as provided to Winn-Dixie. The information provided by Winn-Dixie was reasonably close to the value of Winn-Dixie's intangible personal property as of January first. Winn-Dixie filed a Petition for Reconsideration dated August 24, 1990. By letter dated October 17, 1990, the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration. [Stipulation of Facts]. Other Receivables. Winn-Dixie has taken the position that it overpaid intangible taxes for 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 because it incorrectly treated certain accounts as intangible personal property. The parties agreed that the amount of tax paid on these accounts for the years at issue was as follows: 1985 $ 8,614.00 1986 9,823.00 1987 11,120.00 1988 13,562.00 Total $43,119.00 The parties agreed that the amount of intangible tax paid on the accounts at issue should be refunded to Winn-Dixie if it is determined that Winn-Dixie improperly paid intangible tax on the accounts. The following are the accounts which Winn-Dixie has argued it should not have treated as intangible personal property: Account Number 123-2, perishable vendors- billed outside sales warehouse invoices. Account Number 123-3, vendors debit balances/billed advertising coupons, vendor freight claims, promotion allowances, billings, return merchandise, charges and other debit memo billings. Account Number 123-4, claims insurance and freight/insurance and freight claims against carriers. Account Numbers 123-2, 123-3 and 123-4 are listed as "receivables" on Winn-Dixie's federal income tax return balance sheet as of its fiscal year end, Winn-Dixie's accounts receivable trial balances and on Winn-Dixie's SEC public disclosure forms 10-K. Account Numbers 123-2 and 123-3 are essentially identical except for the type of vendor involved. Account Number 123-2 involves vendors of perishable products and Account Number 123-3 involves vendors of nonperishable products. Winn-Dixie strives to pay for merchandise it receives within seven to ten days from the date it receives an invoice for the merchandise in order to receive discounts and the best merchandise available. Winn-Dixie earns trade discounts, promotional allowances and volume discounts on some of the merchandise it handles. When Winn-Dixie pays an invoice on merchandise for which it may receive such reductions in costs, Winn- Dixie may not know the exact amount of the discount. Therefore, it pays the entire amount invoiced. As a result of the quick payment of invoices and the inability to calculate the exact amount of discounts or other reductions in the amount owed, Winn-Dixie pays more on some invoices than it ultimately may owe on the invoice. The amount of any estimated overpayments is reflected in Account Numbers 123-2 and 123-3. Winn-Dixie also receives coupons from customers on certain merchandise. The coupons received by Winn-Dixie entitle it to reimbursement on the product sold from the vendor. The amount which Winn-Dixie will ultimately receive for the coupons is also recorded in Account Numbers 123-2 and 123-3. The coupons are ultimately turned over to a coupon handling firm which pays Winn-Dixie for the coupons. Account Number 123-4 involves claims insurance and freight. It is similar to the other two accounts at issue except that it relates primarily to claims against railroads for misdelivery or damaged merchandise which Winn-Dixie is entitled to. As is true of other merchandise, Winn-Dixie strives to pay for merchandise shipped to it by rail within seven to ten days to be entitled to the discounts for quick payment. Therefore, Winn-Dixie is not always able to estimate the amount of damaged or missing merchandise it may be entitled to a reduction for. The amount of such reductions are reflected in Account Number 123-4. When the amounts owed to Winn-Dixie, which are reflected in Account Numbers 123-2, 123-3 and 123-4, are finally determined, Account Number 123-2, 123-3 or 123-4 is debited and the amount received is recorded in another account. The amounts recorded in Account Numbers 123-2, 123-3 and 123-4 are valued, recorded and returned for tax purposes as accounts receivable. Account Numbers 123-2, 123-3 and 123-4 are "accounts receivable" under generally accepted accounting principles. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that all of the amounts recorded in Account Numbers 123-2, 123-3 and 123-4 during the years in question were not due at the time they were entered in the accounts. Therefore, the weight of the evidence failed to prove what portion of Account Numbers 123-2, 123-3 or 123-4 are contingent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department issue a Final Order assessing $186,181.44 in additional intangible tax, plus interest, against Winn-Dixie for 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988, and dismissing Winn-Dixie's Petition for Administrative Proceedings. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 8th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-8021 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Winn-Dixie's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 2-4 and 6. 2 6. 3 15 and 17. 16. See 18-20 and 30. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 21 and 23. The last sentence is not relevant. See 22. The last sentence is not relevant. Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 9 12. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 12. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is not relevant. 14 32-33, 35 and 40. 15 34. Not relevant. See 36 and 41. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Winn- Dixie was "required to pay" its vendors within seven to ten days. 37-38. The weight of the evidence failed to prove the last sentence. 19 40-41. 20 42. 21 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 and 3. 2 and 4. 3 5. 4 7. 5 15 and 21. 6 28. 7 4. 8-9 29. 10-11 11. 12 22. 13 22 and 25-27. 14 24. 15 22. 16 18-20 and 25-27. 17 5. 18 21. 19 12. 20 13. 21 14. Not relevant. See 45. 24 35 and 40. 25 37-38 and 43. 26 39. 27 Not relevant. 28 32. 29 See 44. 30 34. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas K. Purcell, Esquire Suite 1235, One Enterprise Center 225 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Leonard F. Binder Kevin O'Donnell Assistant Attorneys General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Thomas Herndon, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
